During World War II, many of the leading scientists in the world, including Albert Einstein himself, pressed the U.S. government to begin work on the atomic bomb. At the beginning of this effort, most government officials were very skeptical and did not believe that such power as predicted by the new scientific theories could be released.

Scientists had to beg the government in order to get funds for the research. I am trying to imagine what thoughts they had about governments of the time (1940s) that they felt that politicians could be trusted with such phenomenal weaponry. These were men of science-men of vision and insight.

It is said that, when he heard that the first atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, Albert Einstein wept. I am not certain that this is true, because I do not even remember where I heard it. It is amazing to me that he was one of the signers of a letter to the President of the United States urging the decision to begin the Manhattan Project-the making of the first atom bomb.

The question in my mind is, "Why?" (I realize, of course, that Einstein and others were concerned that German scientists might be the first to develop an atom bomb.) Perhaps it was not enough to know that theory could be made into reality and that those men wanted to see it actually happen. No scientist involved with the project could have been thinking about the long term consequences of what he was doing without having serious doubts about it. I am inclined to believe, then, that scientists were more concerned about the science itself.

Most of these men were "experimentalists." Being a theorist, I may pacify any concerns I may have about my own work being put to destructive use. But there have been others, whose theoretical work was applied almost immediately (within twenty-thirty years) by other scientists to the military cause. While I can appreciate the purity of it, I cannot help but look around today, seeing so many scientists working on military projects and wonder-it appears to be "where the money is."

I cannot avoid being accused in turn of what I presently decry. I also have committed a large part of my working life to the military purpose. Admittedly, my desire was powered both by "social status" and my insatiable desire to solve "unsolvable" problems. And the military people obliged, flashing plenty of cash around to sweeten the deal. I seemed only vaguely aware that the machines I worked on and made were to be used for killing people; it was as though I wanted to ignore that particular fact.

My only consolation in this is knowing that part of my work has been applied to making life better for mankind.

For every scientist, there seem to be a hundred entrepreneurs ready to jump on any invention or idea that might pull in a buck or two. This particular aspect of society deeply disturbing. Out of it seems to come the notion that, if a scientist's work does not produce immediate profits, then his work is "unimportant."

Otherwise, pure science is not taken very seriously by the "general" public. Few individuals in the world even remotely comprehend the technology that virtually surrounds them in their daily lives. They will drive home from their doctor's office, having just been given a "miracle drug" that will either save their lives or prevent massive physical incapacities, in their air-conditioned cars with their "mega-blaster" CD-loaded stereo system at "full-blow," while making a call on their "cell" phone to "see" where their kids are.

When they get there, they remotely deactivate the home security alarm system and open the garage door while their car reminds them that they have left their keys in the ignition. Entering the house, they find they are too late to make dinner, so they "pop" some leftovers into the microwave oven, and sit down to a nice, comfortable evening in front of the TV or computer, protected from the "ravages of the wild" in their climate-controlled homes.

This must sound like a complaint. Some people might even suggest that we "rid ourselves" of this "unneeded" technology and protection and return to the wilderness. I have suggested in return, to those I have heard it from, that they "try it." I think that they have visions of young, healthy people singing, laughing and dancing in the forests, free of technological encumbrances (and clothing), free of worry and concern, of deadlines, of crime, of the world, etc.

They seem to have forgotten that nature is rough. Anyone who watches the "educational" channels on TV can attest to this. The young lion on his own must learn to kill, "on the job" before he starves to death. Families of monkeys living in forests get into fights and bitter battles, and are sometimes killed. Lameness is common among the animals-more so than among humans, but few of them last long in the wild. A blind animal will likely be killed by its mother-and then sometimes eaten by her. An animal with a broken bone will not stop hunting for food, or if it does or cannot, it dies.

Instead, they spend their time watching the "news," if we can really call it that, and then a "thriller-killer" movie where 200 (or more) people are killed prior to the first commercial break, and then blame science and technology for the woes of the world.

We must be careful to assign accountability for society's problems to society, not to scientists. Crime, war, disease, pestilence, weather storms, earthquakes and so on, have been around as long or longer than man has. And as long as men have been around, there have been scientists among them, bending their talents towards making life better for mankind.

If I am expressing any complaint, it is that scientists are unappreciated. In some places, their value to society is recognized, and they are given a place. Some corporations hire scientists, but those must be more "experimental" types, producing inventions and products that can be mass-produced and sold. Corporations have no place for "pure" theorists.

Various governments of the world "begrudgingly" appropriate (typically) meager funds to scientists for research at universities and research agencies, not realizing the monumental error they commit in failing to empower scientists with what they need in order to do real research.

Instead, most (working) scientists become "wards of the state," relying on public funds, not only for research, but for subsistence as well. Society's general view of scientists tends to force them into their little "holes in the walls," pursuing work unrelated to their desires and inspirations. In this way, most scientists are forced to experience the "publish or perish" syndrome.

The result of this is that very little true science is getting accomplished and the works of literally hundreds of thousands of scientists is regularly being published in a huge mass of relatively obscure documents. The only problem with this is that whenever really good science is written, it is lost amid the morass of other, "less endowed" works. In essence, one must pick through all the needles to find the haystack.

I find myself in a similar situation, in that I must publish in order to survive. But things are slightly different for me since I have pursued things on my own terms. I am not willing to accept the life of a corporate scientist or that of a college professor, spending long hours each day (sometimes in an obscure section of a library, sometimes late on Sunday nights), researching some obscure subject for some paper that had to be in before a deadline for publishing in next month's issue of Physical Review (the "biggie").

To me, this represents a life of misery and fatigue-an unrewarded life. I have seen it time and again. I look on my teachers in awe; here are men of brilliance, intelligence and creativity, easily (in my opinion) my superiors. But they have not reached for, what seems to me, the most obvious solutions to the simplest problems-and I wonder at this amazing conflict.

Very slow is society to heap gold upon a man of science for his discoveries and ideas, and very quick is it to forget about his contributions. The essence of the true scientific venture is one of beauty and delight. It is a thing that should be cherished and lived, not bought and sold.

Home Begin Preface Acknowledgements Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Appendix A Appendix B1 Appendix B2 Appendix C1 Appendix C2 Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G General References Future Books About the Front Cover About the Author Index