142 



conclude, I tnink, that social scientists by and large are only mildly aroused by 

 the Camelot affair and that they showed very little official concern with the im- 

 plications of the episode for the integrity of scientific study.^ 



There were also technical criticisms that acceptance of Project 

 Camelot had been "scientifically irresponsible," that its research de- 

 sign was weak, and overly ambitious. Robert Nisbet siigirested that the 

 attitude of responsible social scientists to Army recruiters for the 

 project should have been : "Your objective is your business and no 

 doubt admirable from the point of view of the Army ; as behavioral 

 scientists we desire to be of such help as we can but everything we 

 know * '^ * suggests the monumental, possibly catastrophic, unwisdom 

 of such a project." ^* Some social scientists charged that the "merging 

 of policy goals * * * and scientific questions * * * made objective 

 research unlikely." ^^ 



Eventually social scientists began to offer constructive criticism. 

 George Blanksten, a Latin American area specialist at Northwestern 

 University stated that in his estimation neither the DOD nor the State 

 Department was the appropriate sponsor of foreign area research. He 

 urged his colleagues to evaluate the creation of a new Federal agencv 

 to support such research.^*' Kalman Silvert, an esteemed Latin Ameri- 

 can area specialist, attributed the Army's need to do such research to 

 the fact that Latin American studies had not received the importance 

 they merit in American universities : 



There is no need to belabor this point with multiple examples. I suggest merely 

 that it is time for rigorous and realistic thinking about Latin American studies, 

 instead of the unprofessional surrender to stereotypes and status which has 

 helped to hinder the growth of research as well as the reading and evaluation 

 of what already exists." 



He illustrated this point with evidence that the top 10 prestige 

 schools in political science do not have one senior man who is a 

 Latin American specialist. Some of his colleagues echoed this sentiment 

 and said that "the professional societies are in the vast majority com- 

 posed of social scientists who do not themselves work in Latin America 

 and, therefore, may not feel any great sense of outrage or urgency 

 about the particular details of Camelot." ^^ Others stated that it should 

 be the responsibility of professional associations to develop their own 

 code of ethics for social science research. This topic came up at the 

 1965 meeting of the International Studies Association, which was de- 

 voted to the examination of the project and of State Department 

 activities. William Marvel, president of Education and World Affairs, 

 stated : 



We might actually decide that this is the time for a real mobilization of the 

 concerned community, that it is time for the scholars to put their own house 

 in order as a surer, more honest, and much more effective approach than to 

 rely on the hope of inculcating in Government agencies the sensitivity and 

 sophistication that we would like to see there. 



Maybe it is a code of ethics or a statement of best practices that would be 

 n first step. Maybe in the social sicences we need the functional equivalent of 

 the HyiK)cratic Oath. Whatever form it takes, the major requirement is the 

 elimination of deception, whether self-deception, or the deception of others * * * 



» Blumer, op. cit., pp. 153-154. 



B< Nisbet, op. clt., p. 52. 



^For instance, see: John Friedman, "Letter to tlie Editor." Science (Dec. 31, 1965), 



™ George I. Blanljsten, "Letter to the Editor," American Behavioral Scientist (October 

 1965). p. XS-12. 



^ Silvert, op. fit., p. 19. 



« Letter to the Editor. American Sociologist (August 1966), pp. 207-8. 



