By George Wald 
CAMtimwe. Mam. 
NE of th* preva- 
lent myths of our 
time is that Govern- 
ment policy is based 
on the best obtain- 
able Information — 
that If the Govern- 
ment knows srhich 
policy will most 
promote the public 
welfare It will adopt that policy, It is 
this belief that fosters the constant 
call for more research. 
In fact, almost the opposite Is true. 
A policy having been decided on — 
usually for economic or political rea- 
lons — the Information Is sought that 
will support It That Is. Information 
follows policy, rather than the other 
way around. 
As for the Information Itself, 
one needs to distinguish advocacy 
from Judgment. Advocacy Is what a 
lasryer does for hia client In making 
a case. It la one-sided: presumably 
another, perhaps equally able advo- 
cate. prepares the other aide. But 
Judgment Is something else. It must 
weigh both sides, one hopes Impar- 
tially. There must at least be no 
overt bias. A Judgment mutt be dis- 
interested. 
These are Important considerations 
in the present public debate Involving 
nuclear power. A bewildered and un- 
easy public is faced erith highly tech- 
nical problems, far beyond Its capacity 
to evaluate Hence it is forced to rely 
upon the opinions of experts. But then 
It is crucial whether those experts 
are advocates or Judges. 
One of the mam factors tha^ under- 
mined public confidence In the United 
States Atomic Energy Commission was 
the realization that the main thrust 
of this public agency was to promote 
the nuclear-power Industry and that 
It was willing to compromise on 
standards of safety to achieve this 
end. 
It was largely the work of persona 
outside both Government and industry 
— Hisdeed. opposed alt the way by Cov- 
emroent and industry — that eventually 
fdrred tighter safety standards and 
controls. 
A bewildered piibilc seeking expert 
and unbiased npininn hopes to find 
that in the universities. And lightly 
so The entire insistence nn academic 
freedom rests on the assumption that 
the universities ere engaged in an ob- 
jective and impartial search for truth. 
One looks to them for both exper- 
tise end disinterestedness; but If one 
had to make a choict. disinterested- 
neas fs the more importanL For ex- 
perts are all about us; Industry and 
Government employ large numbers of 
them. Disinterestedness Is the rare and 
precious quantity. 
I make so much of this because af- 
present the pobllc, trying to reach a 
position on nuclear power, finds pro- 
fessors on both sides. Whom Is one 
to believe? 
It needs to be understood that, as 
In so many other Iniiancet, those pro- 
fessors do not face a symmetneal 
situation. They must find their way 
In a heavily biased context 
One outcome, favoring the rapid 
spread of nuclear power, the relaxa- 
tion of safety standards, the optimiza- 
tion of benefits and minimization of 
the risks involved — those views enlist 
large political and financial support 
and are greeted svith official approval, 
•ager acceptance and wide publioty. 
The other viewpoint Concerned as 
It is with troubling problems of power- 
plant safety, control of nuclear pollu- 
tion, plutonium 239 as a source both 
of high toxicity and fiuion bombe, 
and the still wholly unresolved burden 
of nuclear-waste disposal that prom- 
ises to remain a problem for hundreds 
of thousands of years — that opposi- 
tion vieerpoint offers no reward but 
its own conviction. It has no client 
unless society e' large becomes Its 
client 
Early In 1973 a group of 32 "nolabla 
iclentlsts.’* mainly physicists. Issued a 
“SctentlsU' Sutement on Eriergy Pol- 
icy” that urged the rapid expansion 
of nucletr power as the only realistic 
solution of our coming energy needs. 
Recognizing potential dangers. It con- 
cluded that there exisit no available 
altemauve and that srith proper care 
this expansion would Involve beneflu 
that far outweigh the risks. 
Was this sndely diasemliiated state- 
ment advocacy or Judgiftent? One 
hopes the latter, since these are very 
distinguished scientists, widely re- 
spected by their colleagues. Twenty- 
six of them. Including eleven Nobel 
Pnze laureates, were identified only 
■s professors In major unlversittes. 
ENCE, R was with 
tome dismay that 
I read an tnalytia 
by a fellow aca- 
demic physicist that 
fhosi^ that M of 
the 26 academic 
aigners are mem- 
bers of the boards 
of directors of ma- 
jor United Siatrt corporations, in- 
cluding corporations directly and In- 
directly involved in energy production. 
I would not question the Integrity 
of any of these persons; yet it must 
be recognized that such an afTiliation 
in this connection does not auggest— 
It rifUntt conflict of IntaraeL 
The only reprehensible element I 
would plead In the rrlationahipa them- 
selves IS In the failure t0 disclose 
them. Imagine the difference In im- 
pact had these academic signers 
lifted themselves as directors of 
F.xxon, Nuclear Syilema, Iowa Electric 
Light and Power. Detroit Edison and 
the like! 
The business of the energy industry 
is not to mske energy but to make 
money. In pursuit of that lingla- 
mindH purpose It continuously lob- 
bies, Infiltrates Federal agencies, 
funds candidates in both major parties, 
devotes many milliona of dollars to 
”educatHmar propaganda, and does 
everything it can to avoid regulation. 
Wa acientiata are often asked 
whether It might he possible eventu- 
ally to produce nuclear-power safely. 
That Is a technical question, and the 
answer to it miy well be yes. But 
that Is the wrong way to ask the 
question. The real question we face 
is whether nuclear power can be pro- 
duced safely while maximizing profit 
The answer to that question is no. 
We htd a nice instance of the real 
situation at a news conference in 
Washington on Aug. 6, 1975, when the 
Union of Concerned Scientists pre- 
sented to the Administration and* 
Congress a petition signed by 2,300 
scientists and engineers asking re- 
straint on the further construction of 
nucletr-power plapts until problems 
involving their safety were under 
better control. 
a NE OF the speekera 
was Rear Adm. 
Ralph Waymouth, 
rectnily retired 
from the Navy. 
What had disturbed 
Admiral Weymouth 
was the grMt dia- 
peiity between tefe- 
ty precautions ob- 
served by the Navy in Its nuclear 
Inalailations and those taken by the 
nuclear Industry. The point is simple 
enough: The Ntvy operates with^t 
regard to profit, whereas the Industry 
bends all Its efforts to maximize profit, 
and regularly cuts comcn to achlava 
that end. 
Everyone it an Idealist, not Just you 
and your frienda but all those on the 
other side Just ask them, and they 
will tell you. 
Having to find my way through a 
maze of frequently conflicting Ideals, 
I finally adopted a rough rule of 
thumb: If the ideal cost! tomething— 
In money, privilege, sitius— (hot makes 
It a little more credible. If, on the 
contrary, it pays off In any or all of 
those ways, then I fall back on the 
principle of adentiric parsimony: If 
you have one explanation for a 
phenomenon there Is no need to seek 
e second eaplanation. 
Those of us who oppose nuclear 
power In its present forma have 
nothing to gain thereby but our share 
in the common good. Our opposition 
brings us into conflict with ell the 
centers of power. It costs us our own 
money. It threatens rtther tbkn raises 
our professional alatus. Lately, three 
General Electric engineers and a Fed- 
eral safety supervisor resigned their 
management Jobs In huclear-power 
installations. One gets no medals for 
such behavior, only opprobrium from 
Government and industry, only the 
lasting stigma of not being • team 
player. 
Whom Is one to believe? One can- 
not be sure. But It helps to know that 
those opposed to nuclear power have 
nothing to gain from their position but 
the public good, that they are indeed 
willing to pay for ths privilege of 
speaking out 
George Wald, professor df biology at 
Harvard . University, won the 1997- 
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. 
z 
(D (9 
O' € 
c «; 
01 o 
1 n 
*< X 
to 
VO g. 
n 
M to 
vD 
-0 
<J1 
[ 703 ] 
The Nuclear-Power-Truth Maze 
