Disciplining experts: Scientific authority and liberal democracy in the Oppenheimer case

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 525-562

  Thorpe, Charles ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Advisors; Authority; Liberal democracy; Oppenheimer; Science; Security

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038070160     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030631202128967253     Document Type: Review

References (323)

1. J. Edgar Hoover to Tolson, Ladd, and Nichols (2 December 1953), J. Robert Oppenheimer FBI Security File (Microfilm) (Wilmingtonj DE: Scholarly Resources, 1978), 100-17828, Sec. 15.
2. Philip M. Stern, The Oppenheimer Case: Security on Trial (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 220-21.
3. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
4. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
5. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
6. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
7. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
8. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
9. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
10. Oppenheimer's charismatic authority among the scientists at wartime Los Alamos is described and analyzed in Charles Thorpe and Steven Shapin, 'Who Was J. Robert Oppenheimer? Charisma and Complex Organization', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4 (August 2000), 545-90. See also Charles Thorpe, J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 2001), esp. Chapters 3 and 5. Biographical studies on Oppenheimer include Nuell Pharr Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1969); Peter Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1981); James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982); Peter Michelmore, The Swift Years: The Robert Oppenheimer Story (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1969); Abraham Pais, Isidor I. Rabi, Glenn T. Seaborg, Robert Serber and Victor F. Weisskopf, Oppenheimer (New York: Charles Scribner, 1969); Silvan S. Schweber, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
11. Quoted in James R. Shepley and Clay Blair, Jr, The Hydrogen Bomb: The Men, The Menace, The Mechanism (New York: David McKay Co., 1954), 111; Steven Leonard Newman, The Oppenheimer Case: A Reconsideration of the Role of the Defense Department and National Security (unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1977), 25.
12. Quoted in James R. Shepley and Clay Blair, Jr, The Hydrogen Bomb: The Men, The Menace, The Mechanism (New York: David McKay Co., 1954), 111; Steven Leonard Newman, The Oppenheimer Case: A Reconsideration of the Role of the Defense Department and National Security (unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1977), 25.
13. Quoted in Steven M. Neuse, David E. Lilienthal: The Journey of an American Liberal (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1996), 170.
14. Hoover noted, 'The Secretary [Charles Wilson] stated he wanted to make sure that he had cut Dr Oppenheimer off from any future relations as far as the Defense Department is concerned and he added he thought we had a bigger problem on how it is handled in toto as there would be a strong reaction to this policy, as the Doctor is very prominent in the scientific world': Hoover to Toison, Ladd & Nichols, op. cit. note 1.
15. Hoover to Toison, Ladd, and Nichols (3 December 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 15. Hoover warned Senator Joseph McCarthy that Oppenheimer had been a figure 'around whom the scientists of the country have usually rallied', and that an attack on Oppenheimer would have to be extremely well prepared, 'with a great deal of preliminary spade work': Hoover to Tolson, Ladd, Belmont, and Nichols (19 May 1953), in Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 14.
16. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
17. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
18. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
19. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
20. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
21. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
22. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
23. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
24. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
25. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
26. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
27. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
28. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
29. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
30. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
31. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
32. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case
33. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
34. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
35. United States Atomic Energy Commission, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board and Texts of Principal Documents and Letters (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1971) [hereafter cited as In the Matter]: 'Transcript of Hearing before the Personnel Security Board' [hereafter Transcript], in In the Matter, 1-992; 'Findings and Recommendations of the Personnel Security Board in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Findings'], in In the Matter, 999-1021; 'Recommendations of the General Manager of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Recommendations of General Manager], in In the Matter, 1041-46; 'Decision and Opinions of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer' [hereafter Decision & Opinions], in In the Matter, 1049-65. There is a large secondary literature on the case and its historical background: Stern, op. cit. note 2; Newman, op. cit. note 4; Joseph Alsop and Stewart Alsop, We Accuse! The Story of the Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954); Barton J. Bernstein, ' "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer" ', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 12 (1982), 195-252; Bernstein, 'The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered', Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42 (1990), 1383-484; Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1955); Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, 'In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 19 (1989), 267-347; Harold P. Green, 'The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 33 (1977), 12-16, 56-61; Rachael L. Holloway, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Politics, Rhetoric and Self-Defense (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993); Harry Kalven, Jr, "The Case of J. Robert Oppenheimer before the Atomic Energy Commission', in Morton Grodzins and Eugene Rabinowitch (eds), The Atomic Age: Scientists in National and World Affairs, Articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1945-1962 (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 442-65; Sanford A. Lakoff, 'The Trial of Dr Oppenheimer', in S.A. Lakoff (ed.), Knowledge and Power: Essays on Science and Government (New York: The Free Press, 1966), 65-86; John Major, The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York: Scarborough Books, 1971); Richard Polenberg (ed.), In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Security Clearance Hearing (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); and Herbert York, The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1976).
36. York, op. cit. note 8, 17. As well as the GAC, Oppenheimer served on, for example, the Joint Research and Development Board of the Department of Defense and the Scientific Advisory Committee to the White House Office of Defense Mobilization (ibid., 47).
37. The agent was referring in particular to Oppenheimer's influence over AEC chairman David E. Lilienthal and commissioner Robert F. Bacher. FBI report: 'Re: J. Robert Oppenheimer - Justification for Continuation of Technical or Microphone Surveillance' (5 November 1946), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828 Sec. 4. In 1947, chair of the Berkeley physics department Raymond T. Birge said that 'no one man in the United States had had more influence on the present United States policy on atomic control than Dr Oppenheimer has had': Raymond T. Birge, quoted in report by FBI agent David Edwin Todd, 'Julius Robert Oppenheimer' (5 April 1947), Oppenheimer FBI File, 116-2717, Vol. 1.
38. The agent was referring in particular to Oppenheimer's influence over AEC chairman David E. Lilienthal and commissioner Robert F. Bacher. FBI report: 'Re: J. Robert Oppenheimer - Justification for Continuation of Technical or Microphone Surveillance' (5 November 1946), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828 Sec. 4. In 1947, chair of the Berkeley physics department Raymond T. Birge said that 'no one man in the United States had had more influence on the present United States policy on atomic control than Dr Oppenheimer has had': Raymond T. Birge, quoted in report by FBI agent David Edwin Todd, 'Julius Robert Oppenheimer' (5 April 1947), Oppenheimer FBI File, 116-2717, Vol. 1.
39. Robert Coughlan, 'The Equivocal Man of Science: Robert Oppenheimer', Life Magazine (February 1967), 34-34A, on 34A.
40. 'The GAC Report of October 30, 1949', reprinted in York, op. cit. note 8, 150-59. See also Galison & Bernstein, op. cit. note 8, esp. 288-95.
41. 'The GAC Report of October 30, 1949', reprinted in York, op. cit. note 8, 150-59. See also Galison & Bernstein, op. cit. note 8, esp. 288-95.
42. 'GAC Report', op. cit. note 12, 157-59.
43. Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1406-08, esp. 1407; York, op. cit. note 8, 52-56, 103-04.
44. Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1406-08, esp. 1407; York, op. cit. note 8, 52-56, 103-04.
45. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
46. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
47. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
48. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
49. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
50. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
51. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 407; Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1995), 84-85. For an analysis of the practical political constraints on Truman, see York, op. cit. note 8, 104-06. On the history of arms control, see Joseph I. Lieberman, The Scorpion and the Tarantula: The Struggle to Control Atomic Weapons, 1945-1949 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1970); Jennifer E. Sims, Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945-1960 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990); Alice Kimball Smith, A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists' Movement in America, 1945-1947 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, [1965] 1970); John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of Disarmament: A Study in Soviet-American Gamesmanship (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962).
52. York, op. cit. note 8, 65-74; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 406-07.
53. York, op. cit. note 8, 65-74; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 406-07.
54. Newman, op. cit. note 4, 34-51.
55. W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (19 May 1952); SAC, Albuquerque to Director FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 May 1952); Branigan to Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (10 June 1952), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 13; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 202-04. For Teller's own exculpatory account of his rôle in the case, see Edward Teller with Judith Shoolery, Memoirs: A Twentieth-Century Journey in Science and Politics (Oxford: Perseus Press, 2002), 369-84, esp. 372.
56. W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (19 May 1952); SAC, Albuquerque to Director FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 May 1952); Branigan to Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (10 June 1952), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 13; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 202-04. For Teller's own exculpatory account of his rôle in the case, see Edward Teller with Judith Shoolery, Memoirs: A Twentieth-Century Journey in Science and Politics (Oxford: Perseus Press, 2002), 369-84, esp. 372.
57. W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (19 May 1952); SAC, Albuquerque to Director FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 May 1952); Branigan to Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (10 June 1952), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 13; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 202-04. For Teller's own exculpatory account of his rôle in the case, see Edward Teller with Judith Shoolery, Memoirs: A Twentieth-Century Journey in Science and Politics (Oxford: Perseus Press, 2002), 369-84, esp. 372.
58. W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (19 May 1952); SAC, Albuquerque to Director FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 May 1952); Branigan to Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (10 June 1952), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 13; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 202-04. For Teller's own exculpatory account of his rôle in the case, see Edward Teller with Judith Shoolery, Memoirs: A Twentieth-Century Journey in Science and Politics (Oxford: Perseus Press, 2002), 369-84, esp. 372.
59. W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (19 May 1952); SAC, Albuquerque to Director FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 May 1952); Branigan to Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (10 June 1952), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 13; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 202-04. For Teller's own exculpatory account of his rôle in the case, see Edward Teller with Judith Shoolery, Memoirs: A Twentieth-Century Journey in Science and Politics (Oxford: Perseus Press, 2002), 369-84, esp. 372.
60. 19. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 496-97. Admiral Sidney W. Souers, Special Consultant to President Eisenhower, told Hoover that 'they were making a clean sweep': Hoover to Tolson, Ladd, and Nichols (10 July 1952), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828 Sec. 13.
61. 20. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 530-31; York, op. cit. note 8, 139-40.
62. 20. Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 530-31; York, op. cit. note 8, 139-40.
63. A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd, 'Julius Robert Oppenheimer' (5 June 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828, Sec. 14. See also Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 309-10, 530; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 114, 128-30, 200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1405-06.
64. 21. A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd, 'Julius Robert Oppenheimer' (5 June 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828, Sec. 14. See also Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 309-10, 530; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 114, 128-30, 200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1405-06.
65. A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd, 'Julius Robert Oppenheimer' (5 June 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828, Sec. 14. See also Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 309-10, 530; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 114, 128-30, 200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1405-06.
66. A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd, 'Julius Robert Oppenheimer' (5 June 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828, Sec. 14. See also Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 309-10, 530; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 114, 128-30, 200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1405-06.
67. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
68. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
69. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
70. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
71. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
72. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
73. 22. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 206; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1435; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 205-08; FBI files provide evidence of Strauss's close involvement with the Bureau's investigation of the physicist: D.M. Ladd to the Director, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (25 May 1953); D.M. Ladd to A.H. Belmont (28 August 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (2 September 1953); A.H. Belmont to D.M. Ladd (10 September 1953), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 14.
74. Anon. [Charles J.V. Murphy], 'The Hidden Struggle for the H-Bomb', Fortune, Vol. 47 (May 1953), 109, 110, 230.
75. Hoover to Toison, Ladd, Belmont & Nichols (19 May 1953), op. cit. note 7. On McCarthy's rôle in the campaign against Oppenheimer, see Major, op. cit. note 8, 15-16, 231-32, 266-68; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 219-21.
76. Hoover to Toison, Ladd, Belmont & Nichols (19 May 1953), op. cit. note 7. On McCarthy's rôle in the campaign against Oppenheimer, see Major, op. cit. note 8, 15-16, 231-32, 266-68; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 219-21.
77. Hoover to Toison, Ladd, Belmont & Nichols (19 May 1953), op. cit. note 7. On McCarthy's rôle in the campaign against Oppenheimer, see Major, op. cit. note 8, 15-16, 231-32, 266-68; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 219-21.
78. Transcript, 1-7; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 534-35; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 197-200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1442-46; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 214-37, esp. 220, 229-31.
79. Transcript, 1-7; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 534-35; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 197-200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1442-46; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 214-37, esp. 220, 229-31.
80. Transcript, 1-7; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 534-35; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 197-200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1442-46; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 214-37, esp. 220, 229-31.
81. Transcript, 1-7; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 534-35; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 197-200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1442-46; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 214-37, esp. 220, 229-31.
82. Transcript, 1-7; Rhodes, op. cit. note 8, 534-35; Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 197-200; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1442-46; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 214-37, esp. 220, 229-31.
83. Oppenheimer refused to resign in response to Nichols' charges. He told Strauss that resigning 'would mean that I accept and concur in the view that I am not fit to serve this Government, that I have now served for some 12 years.... This I cannot do' (quoted in Newman, op. cit. note 4, 108).
84. Stern, op. cit. note 2, 239-40.
85. Findings, 999-1021; Decision & Opinions, 1049-65, esp. 1049.
86. Findings, 999-1021; Decision & Opinions, 1049-65, esp. 1049.
87. On this general democratic anxiety regarding experts, see Steven Shapin, 'Foreword to the 1999 Edition', in Daniel S. Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, rev. edn, 1999), xv-xxii, at xvii. See also the discussion of the political authority of experts in Stephen Turner, 'What is the Problem with Experts?', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 1 (February 2001), 123-49.
88. On this general democratic anxiety regarding experts, see Steven Shapin, 'Foreword to the 1999 Edition', in Daniel S. Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, rev. edn, 1999), xv-xxii, at xvii. See also the discussion of the political authority of experts in Stephen Turner, 'What is the Problem with Experts?', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 1 (February 2001), 123-49.
89. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
90. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
91. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
92. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
93. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
94. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
95. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
96. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
97. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
98. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
99. Badash, op. cit. note 15; John Cloud, 'Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 231-51; Michael Aaron Dennis, ' "Our First Line of Defense": Two University Laboratories in the Postwar American State", Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (September 1994), 427-55; Paul Forman, 'Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1987), 149-229; Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (eds), Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); Paul K. Hoch, 'The Crystallization of a Strategic Alliance: The American Physics Elite and the Military in the 1940s", in Everett Mendelsohn, Merritt Roe Smith and Peter Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 87-116; Daniel Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage Books, 1979); D.J. Kevles, 'Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945-56', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 20 (1990), 239-64; Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Silvan S. Schweber, 'The Mutual Embrace of Science and the Military: ONR and the Growth of Physics in the United States after World War Two', in Mendelsohn, Smith & Weingart (eds), Science, Technology, and the Military, Vol. 1, op. cit., 3-45; Mark Solovey, 'Introduction: Science and the State during the Cold War: Blurred Boundaries and Contested Legacies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 165-70.
100. On the politics of science advice in America, see: Joel Primack and Frank von Hippel, Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York: New American Library, 1974); Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Brian Balogh, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000).
101. On the politics of science advice in America, see: Joel Primack and Frank von Hippel, Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York: New American Library, 1974); Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Brian Balogh, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000).
102. On the politics of science advice in America, see: Joel Primack and Frank von Hippel, Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York: New American Library, 1974); Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Brian Balogh, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000).
103. On the politics of science advice in America, see: Joel Primack and Frank von Hippel, Advice and Dissent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York: New American Library, 1974); Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Brian Balogh, Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000).
104. Yaron Ezrahi, The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).
105. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 9-40, esp. 13, 29. See also the distinction between being 'in authority' and being 'an authority', discussed in R.B. Friedman, 'On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy', in Joseph Raz (ed.), Authority (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 56-91, esp. 77-85.
106. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 9-40, esp. 13, 29. See also the distinction between being 'in authority' and being 'an authority', discussed in R.B. Friedman, 'On the Concept of Authority in Political Philosophy', in Joseph Raz (ed.), Authority (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), 56-91, esp. 77-85.
107. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 141-42.
108. Ezrahi, ibid., 128-66. On the influence of Newtonianism on the Constitution, see I. Bernard Cohen, Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), 237-80. The centrality of science and technology in the practices and norms of democratic representation in America, and the implications of this for Science and Technology Studies, are
109. Ezrahi, ibid., 128-66. On the influence of Newtonianism on the Constitution, see I. Bernard Cohen, Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), 237-80. The centrality of science and technology in the practices and norms of democratic representation in America, and the implications of this for Science and Technology Studies, are highlighted in Michael Lynch et al., 'Pandora's Ballot Box: Comments on the 2000 US Presidential Election', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (June 2001), 417-67.
110. Ezrahi, ibid., 128-66. On the influence of Newtonianism on the Constitution, see I. Bernard Cohen, Science and the Founding Fathers: Science in the Political Thought of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and James Madison (New York: W.W. Norton, 1995), 237-80. The centrality of science and technology in the practices and norms of democratic representation in America, and the implications of this for Science and Technology Studies, are highlighted in Michael Lynch et al., 'Pandora's Ballot Box: Comments on the 2000 US Presidential Election', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 3 (June 2001), 417-67.
111. 36. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 218.
112. Ibid., 45.
113. Chandra Mukerji, A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 201.
114. 39. Ibid., 190-203, esp. 203.
115. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
116. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
117. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
118. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
119. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
120. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
121. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
122. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
123. 40. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
124. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
125. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
126. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
127. Ezrahi calls it a 'God's eye view": Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 25-26. The term 'view from nowhere" is from Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); see also Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), esp. 109. On the historical development of modern notions of objectivity, see Lorraine Daston, 'Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity", Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 8 (1991), 337-63; L. Daston, 'Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 597-618; L. Daston, 'The Moral Economy of Science', Osiris, Vol. 10 (1995), 3-24; L. Daston, 'Fear and Loathing of the Imagination in Science', Daedalus, Vol. 127 (1998), 73-95; Peter Dear, 'From Truth to Disinterestedness in the Seventeenth Century', Social Studies of Science, Vol 22, No. 4 (November 1992), 619-31; Theodore M. Porter, 'Quantification and the Accounting Ideal in Science', ibid., 633-52; T.M. Porter, 'Objectivity as Standardization: The Rhetoric of Impersonality in Measurement, Statistics, and Cost-Benefit Analysis', Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 (1992), 19-59; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 193-242, esp. 223-27; S. Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. 162-65; S. Shapin, ' "The Mind Is Its Own Place": Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 191-218.
128. David A. Hollinger, Science, Jews, and Secular Culture: Studies in Mid-Twentieth-Century American Intellectual History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), esp. 80-120, 155-74.
129. 42. Mukerji, op. cit. note 38, 190.
130. 43. David Lilienthal was a major advocate for such a rôle for science, as discussed in Neuse, op. cit. note 5.
131. Max Weber, 'Bureaucracy', in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1958), 196-244, esp. 214-16.
132. Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995); see also Porter, opera cit. note 40.
133. Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995); see also Porter, opera cit. note 40.
134. Porter, Trust in Numbers, op. cit. note 45, 195; see also Jasanoff, op. cit. note 31, 9-12.
135. Porter, Trust in Numbers, op. cit. note 45, 195; see also Jasanoff, op. cit. note 31, 9-12.
136. Mukerji, op. cit. note 38, 200.
137. Porter, op. cit. note 45, 7.
138. Mukerji, op. cit. note 38, 198-201, quoting 198.
139. On issues of personal trust, embodiment and credibility in science, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 126-92, 409-17; Steven Shapin, 'Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 3 (1995), 255-75; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, 15-20; Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, esp. 548-53, 576-80; Charles Thorpe, 'Science Against Modernism: The Relevance of the Social Theory of Michael Polanyi', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52 (2001), 19-35.
140. On issues of personal trust, embodiment and credibility in science, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 126-92, 409-17; Steven Shapin, 'Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 3 (1995), 255-75; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, 15-20; Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, esp. 548-53, 576-80; Charles Thorpe, 'Science Against Modernism: The Relevance of the Social Theory of Michael Polanyi', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52 (2001), 19-35.
141. On issues of personal trust, embodiment and credibility in science, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 126-92, 409-17; Steven Shapin, 'Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 3 (1995), 255-75; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, 15-20; Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, esp. 548-53, 576-80; Charles Thorpe, 'Science Against Modernism: The Relevance of the Social Theory of Michael Polanyi', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52 (2001), 19-35.
142. On issues of personal trust, embodiment and credibility in science, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 126-92, 409-17; Steven Shapin, 'Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 3 (1995), 255-75; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, 15-20; Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, esp. 548-53, 576-80; Charles Thorpe, 'Science Against Modernism: The Relevance of the Social Theory of Michael Polanyi', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52 (2001), 19-35.
143. On issues of personal trust, embodiment and credibility in science, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 126-92, 409-17; Steven Shapin, 'Cordelia's Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 3 (1995), 255-75; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, 15-20; Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, esp. 548-53, 576-80; Charles Thorpe, 'Science Against Modernism: The Relevance of the Social Theory of Michael Polanyi', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52 (2001), 19-35.
144. Edward A. Shils, The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies (Chicago, IL: Elephant Paperbacks, [1956] 1996), 122.
145. Morton Grodzins, The Loyal and the Disloyal: Social Boundaries of Patriotism and Treason (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1956), 221, 223.
146. Donald C. Pelz, 'Some Social Factors Related to Performance in a Research Organization', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1956), 310-25, esp. 311-13; Alvin W. Gouldner, 'Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles -1', ibid., Vol. 2 (1957), 281-306; A.W. Gouldner, 'Organizational Analysis', in Robert Merton, Leonard Broom and Leonard Cottrell (eds), Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, 1959), 410-19, esp. 415; Barney G. Glaser, 'The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 3 (November 1963), 249-59.1 am grateful to Steven Shapin for drawing my attention to this literature.
147. Donald C. Pelz, 'Some Social Factors Related to Performance in a Research Organization', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1956), 310-25, esp. 311-13; Alvin W. Gouldner, 'Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles -1', ibid., Vol. 2 (1957), 281-306; A.W. Gouldner, 'Organizational Analysis', in Robert Merton, Leonard Broom and Leonard Cottrell (eds), Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, 1959), 410-19, esp. 415; Barney G. Glaser, 'The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 3 (November 1963), 249-59.1 am grateful to Steven Shapin for drawing my attention to this literature.
148. Donald C. Pelz, 'Some Social Factors Related to Performance in a Research Organization', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1956), 310-25, esp. 311-13; Alvin W. Gouldner, 'Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles -1', ibid., Vol. 2 (1957), 281-306; A.W. Gouldner, 'Organizational Analysis', in Robert Merton, Leonard Broom and Leonard Cottrell (eds), Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, 1959), 410-19, esp. 415; Barney G. Glaser, 'The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 3 (November 1963), 249-59.1 am grateful to Steven Shapin for drawing my attention to this literature.
149. Donald C. Pelz, 'Some Social Factors Related to Performance in a Research Organization', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 1 (1956), 310-25, esp. 311-13; Alvin W. Gouldner, 'Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles -1', ibid., Vol. 2 (1957), 281-306; A.W. Gouldner, 'Organizational Analysis', in Robert Merton, Leonard Broom and Leonard Cottrell (eds), Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, 1959), 410-19, esp. 415; Barney G. Glaser, 'The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientist', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 3 (November 1963), 249-59.1 am grateful to Steven Shapin for drawing my attention to this literature.
150. On the contrast with the 'company man', see Gouldner (1957), op. cit. note 53, 288; see also Edward Shils' discussion of the conflict between politicians and intellectuals in Shils, op. cit. note 51, 119-25.
151. On the contrast with the 'company man', see Gouldner (1957), op. cit. note 53, 288; see also Edward Shils' discussion of the conflict between politicians and intellectuals in Shils, op. cit. note 51, 119-25.
152. Jessica Wang terms this combination as 'antiradical nativism': J. Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 4. See also Shils, op. cit. note 51, 122-23; David Riestnan and Nathan Glazer, 'The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes', Partisan Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1955), 47-72. Arnold Forester, general counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, said: There was an evident quota of anti-Semitism in the McCarthy wave of hysteria. Jews in that period were automatically suspect. Our evaluation of the general mood was that the people felt if you scratch a Jew, you can find a Communist. (quoted in Victor Navasky, 'Cold War Ghosts', The Nation [16 July 2001], http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i = 20010716&c = 6&'s = navasky, 6). PSB member, chemist Ward Evans, commented privately to the other Board members that in his experience 'nearly all subversives were Jews': Evans' comment paraphrased in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 218.
153. Jessica Wang terms this combination as 'antiradical nativism': J. Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 4. See also Shils, op. cit. note 51, 122-23; David Riestnan and Nathan Glazer, 'The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes', Partisan Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1955), 47-72. Arnold Forester, general counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, said: There was an evident quota of anti-Semitism in the McCarthy wave of hysteria. Jews in that period were automatically suspect. Our evaluation of the general mood was that the people felt if you scratch a Jew, you can find a Communist. (quoted in Victor Navasky, 'Cold War Ghosts', The Nation [16 July 2001], http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i = 20010716&c = 6&s = navasky, 6). PSB member, chemist Ward Evans, commented privately to the other Board members that in his experience 'nearly all subversives were Jews': Evans' comment paraphrased in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 218.
154. Jessica Wang terms this combination as 'antiradical nativism': J. Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 4. See also Shils, op. cit. note 51, 122-23; David Riestnan and Nathan Glazer, 'The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes', Partisan Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1955), 47-72. Arnold Forester, general counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, said: There was an evident quota of anti-Semitism in the McCarthy wave of hysteria. Jews in that period were automatically suspect. Our evaluation of the general mood was that the people felt if you scratch a Jew, you can find a Communist. (quoted in Victor Navasky, 'Cold War Ghosts', The Nation [16 July 2001], http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i = 20010716&c = 6&s = navasky, 6). PSB member, chemist Ward Evans, commented privately to the other Board members that in his experience 'nearly all subversives were Jews': Evans' comment paraphrased in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 218.
155. Jessica Wang terms this combination as 'antiradical nativism': J. Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 4. See also Shils, op. cit. note 51, 122-23; David Riestnan and Nathan Glazer, 'The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes', Partisan Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1955), 47-72. Arnold Forester, general counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, said: There was an evident quota of anti-Semitism in the McCarthy wave of hysteria. Jews in that period were automatically suspect. Our evaluation of the general mood was that the people felt if you scratch a Jew, you can find a Communist. (quoted in Victor Navasky, 'Cold War Ghosts', The Nation [16 July 2001], http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i = 20010716&c = 6&s = navasky, 6). PSB member, chemist Ward Evans, commented privately to the other Board members that in his experience 'nearly all subversives were Jews': Evans' comment paraphrased in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 218.
156. Jessica Wang terms this combination as 'antiradical nativism': J. Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists, Anticommunism, and the Cold War (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 4. See also Shils, op. cit. note 51, 122-23; David Riestnan and Nathan Glazer, 'The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes', Partisan Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1955), 47-72. Arnold Forester, general counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, said: There was an evident quota of anti-Semitism in the McCarthy wave of hysteria. Jews in that period were automatically suspect. Our evaluation of the general mood was that the people felt if you scratch a Jew, you can find a Communist. (quoted in Victor Navasky, 'Cold War Ghosts', The Nation [16 July 2001], http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i = 20010716&c = 6&s = navasky, 6). PSB member, chemist Ward Evans, commented privately to the other Board members that in his experience 'nearly all subversives were Jews': Evans' comment paraphrased in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 218.
157. Shils, op. cit. note 51, 185; see also Wang, op. cit. note 55, esp. 44-84, 253-95; and Lawrence Badash, 'Science and McCarthyism', Minerva, Vol. 38 (2000), 53-80, esp. 60-62.
158. Shils, op. cit. note 51, 185; see also Wang, op. cit. note 55, esp. 44-84, 253-95; and Lawrence Badash, 'Science and McCarthyism', Minerva, Vol. 38 (2000), 53-80, esp. 60-62.
159. Shils, op. cit. note 51, 185; see also Wang, op. cit. note 55, esp. 44-84, 253-95; and Lawrence Badash, 'Science and McCarthyism', Minerva, Vol. 38 (2000), 53-80, esp. 60-62.
160. Robert K. Merton, 'The Normative Structure of Science [1942]', in R.K. Merton (ed. Norman W. Storer), The Sociology of Science (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), 267-78, at 276.
161. Richard Hofstadter noted that 'much of American education aims, simply and brazenly, to turn out experts who are not intellectuals or men of culture at all': quoted in Porter, op. cit. note 45, 195.
162. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 109-10, 126-27. He argues that this visual culture was derived from the epistemic and social norms of early modern science: ibid., 67-96. See also Steven Shapin, 'Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November 1984), 481-520; Steven Shapin and Simon Shaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 22-79.
163. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 109-10, 126-27. He argues that this visual culture was derived from the epistemic and social norms of early modern science: ibid., 67-96. See also Steven Shapin, 'Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November 1984), 481-520; Steven Shapin and Simon Shaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 22-79.
164. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 109-10, 126-27. He argues that this visual culture was derived from the epistemic and social norms of early modern science: ibid., 67-96. See also Steven Shapin, 'Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November 1984), 481-520; Steven Shapin and Simon Shaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 22-79.
165. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 109-10, 126-27. He argues that this visual culture was derived from the epistemic and social norms of early modern science: ibid., 67-96. See also Steven Shapin, 'Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November 1984), 481-520; Steven Shapin and Simon Shaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 22-79.
166. Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 70.
167. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text, and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996), esp. 89-121, 243-44, quoting 89, 94. Lynch and Bogen show in detail how the Iran-Contra hearings turned instead into a spectacle of abject failure to achieve coherent rational order based on 'facts of the matter', or even to affirm the legitimacy of 'truth' as a basis for democratic political order.
168. Harold Garfinkel, 'Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 5 (March 1956), 420-24. This type of ritual is used also in scientific politics: Thomas Gieryn and Anne Figert, 'Scientists Protect Their Cognitive Authority: The Status Degradation Ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt', in Gernot Böhme and Nico Stehr (eds), The Knowledge Society: The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986), 67-86.
169. Harold Garfinkel, 'Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 5 (March 1956), 420-24. This type of ritual is used also in scientific politics: Thomas Gieryn and Anne Figert, 'Scientists Protect Their Cognitive Authority: The Status Degradation Ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt', in Gernot Böhme and Nico Stehr (eds), The Knowledge Society: The Growing Impact of Scientific Knowledge on Social Relations (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986), 67-86.
170. Garfinkel, op. cit. note 62, 423.
171. Major, op. cit. note 8, 19.
172. Lynch & Bogen, op. cit. note 61, 243-44.
173. Hoover had been worried that because 'there would be a lot of information which could not be publicly disclosed', Oppenheimer would have the sympathy of the public: Hoover to Toison, Ladd & Nichols (3 December 1953), op. cit. note 7.
174. Major, op. cit. note 8, 192-93.
175. Ezrahi makes a relevant distinction between 'ritualistic' and 'substantive' forms of instrumentalism: Ezrahi, op. cit. note 32, 121-23.
176. Ibid., 62-63, quoting 62.
177. See the relevant discussion of objectivity and the fact-value distinction in Shapin (1996), op. cit. note 40, 162-65.
178. This attempt to combine the 'pure' scientific vocation with nuclear weapons work for the state is at the heart of Schweber's concern in his recent book on Bethe and Oppenheimer: Schweber, op. cit. note 3, esp. 166-70.
179. Schweber, ibid., 38-39. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer remained a central unifying and inspiring figure in the world of academic physics: Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 69-83; George Johnson, Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics (New York: Alfred Knopfj 1999), 80-82; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein's Office? Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987): 139-52; Jeremy Bernstein, The Life It Brings: One Physicist's Beginnings (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1987), 79-124.
180. Schweber, ibid., 38-39. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer remained a central unifying and inspiring figure in the world of academic physics: Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 69-83; George Johnson, Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics (New York: Alfred Knopfj 1999), 80-82; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein's Office? Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987): 139-52; Jeremy Bernstein, The Life It Brings: One Physicist's Beginnings (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1987), 79-124.
181. Schweber, ibid., 38-39. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer remained a central unifying and inspiring figure in the world of academic physics: Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 69-83; George Johnson, Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics (New York: Alfred Knopfj 1999), 80-82; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein's Office? Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987): 139-52; Jeremy Bernstein, The Life It Brings: One Physicist's Beginnings (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1987), 79-124.
182. Schweber, ibid., 38-39. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer remained a central unifying and inspiring figure in the world of academic physics: Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 69-83; George Johnson, Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics (New York: Alfred Knopfj 1999), 80-82; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein's Office? Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987): 139-52; Jeremy Bernstein, The Life It Brings: One Physicist's Beginnings (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1987), 79-124.
183. Schweber, ibid., 38-39. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer remained a central unifying and inspiring figure in the world of academic physics: Freeman Dyson, Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 69-83; George Johnson, Strange Beauty: Murray Gell-Mann and the Revolution in Twentieth-Century Physics (New York: Alfred Knopfj 1999), 80-82; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein's Office? Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987): 139-52; Jeremy Bernstein, The Life It Brings: One Physicist's Beginnings (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1987), 79-124.
184. In 1953, Oppenheimer criticized the effect of secrecy in reducing public debate over nuclear weapons to a 'mass of published rumor, fact, press release and speculation', and he called for a new policy of 'candor': J.R. Oppenheimer, 'Atomic Weapons and American Policy', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 31 (July 1953), 525-35, quoting 531, 532. On 'Operation Candor', see Newman, op. cit. note 4, 63-70. Oppenheimer's views on candour were part of the information examined by the AEC the next year: Newman, ibid., 165.
185. In 1953, Oppenheimer criticized the effect of secrecy in reducing public debate over nuclear weapons to a 'mass of published rumor, fact, press release and speculation', and he called for a new policy of 'candor': J.R. Oppenheimer, 'Atomic Weapons and American Policy', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 31 (July 1953), 525-35, quoting 531, 532. On 'Operation Candor', see Newman, op. cit. note 4, 63-70. Oppenheimer's views on candour were part of the information examined by the AEC the next year: Newman, ibid., 165.
186. In 1953, Oppenheimer criticized the effect of secrecy in reducing public debate over nuclear weapons to a 'mass of published rumor, fact, press release and speculation', and he called for a new policy of 'candor': J.R. Oppenheimer, 'Atomic Weapons and American Policy', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 31 (July 1953), 525-35, quoting 531, 532. On 'Operation Candor', see Newman, op. cit. note 4, 63-70. Oppenheimer's views on candour were part of the information examined by the AEC the next year: Newman, ibid., 165.
187. See Grodzins' pluralist critique of the security system's demand for direct and unitary loyalty to the nation state: Grodzins, op. cit. note 52, 219-58. See also Lewis Coser's classic sociological discussion of the problem of the loyalties of advisors and administrators, and tensions between personal and impersonal principles of rule: L. Coser, 'The Political Eunuch', in Coser, The Pleasures of Sociology (New York: New American Library, 1980), 304-12. Also relevant is Andrew Mendelsohn's rich account of the connection between technocratic expertise and social dislocation: A. Mendelsohn, 'The Scientist as Technocrat, or: The Technocratic Life', paper delivered at the session on 'Scientific Personae', History of Science Society Annual Meeting (Pittsburgh, PA, 4-7 November 1999).
188. See Grodzins' pluralist critique of the security system's demand for direct and unitary loyalty to the nation state: Grodzins, op. cit. note 52, 219-58. See also Lewis Coser's classic sociological discussion of the problem of the loyalties of advisors and administrators, and tensions between personal and impersonal principles of rule: L. Coser, 'The Political Eunuch', in Coser, The Pleasures of Sociology (New York: New American Library, 1980), 304-12. Also relevant is Andrew Mendelsohn's rich account of the connection between technocratic expertise and social dislocation: A. Mendelsohn, 'The Scientist as Technocrat, or: The Technocratic Life', paper delivered at the session on 'Scientific Personae', History of Science Society Annual Meeting (Pittsburgh, PA, 4-7 November 1999).
189. See Grodzins' pluralist critique of the security system's demand for direct and unitary loyalty to the nation state: Grodzins, op. cit. note 52, 219-58. See also Lewis Coser's classic sociological discussion of the problem of the loyalties of advisors and administrators, and tensions between personal and impersonal principles of rule: L. Coser, 'The Political Eunuch', in Coser, The Pleasures of Sociology (New York: New American Library, 1980), 304-12. Also relevant is Andrew Mendelsohn's rich account of the connection between technocratic expertise and social dislocation: A. Mendelsohn, 'The Scientist as Technocrat, or: The Technocratic Life', paper delivered at the session on 'Scientific Personae', History of Science Society Annual Meeting (Pittsburgh, PA, 4-7 November 1999).
190. The description of the room is I.I. Rabi's, quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 222. On the setting, see also Stern, op. cit. note 2, 257.
191. The description of the room is I.I. Rabi's, quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 222. On the setting, see also Stern, op. cit. note 2, 257.
192. Quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 228; John S. Rigden, Rabi: Scientist and Citizen (NewYork: Basic Books, 1987), 228.
193. Quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 228; John S. Rigden, Rabi: Scientist and Citizen (New York: Basic Books, 1987), 228.
194. André Malraux, quoted in Haakon Chevalier, Oppenheimer; The Story of a Friendship (New York: George Braziller, 1965), 115-16.
195. On the concept of a 'file person', see Rom Harré, Personal Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1984), 69-70; Spencer Cahill, 'Toward a Sociology of the Person', Sociological Theory, Vol. 16 (1998), 131-48, esp. 143. On information control as an aspect of self-management, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), and as an aspect of institutional authority, see Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 15-20. On Oppenheimer's FBI file, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 165; Kunetka, op. cit. note 3, 203.
196. On the concept of a 'file person', see Rom Harré, Personal Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1984), 69-70; Spencer Cahill, 'Toward a Sociology of the Person', Sociological Theory, Vol. 16 (1998), 131-48, esp. 143. On information control as an aspect of self-management, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), and as an aspect of institutional authority, see Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 15-20. On Oppenheimer's FBI file, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 165; Kunetka, op. cit. note 3, 203.
197. On the concept of a 'file person', see Rom Harré, Personal Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1984), 69-70; Spencer Cahill, 'Toward a Sociology of the Person', Sociological Theory, Vol. 16 (1998), 131-48, esp. 143. On information control as an aspect of self-management, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), and as an aspect of institutional authority, see Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 15-20. On Oppenheimer's FBI file, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 165; Kunetka, op. cit. note 3, 203.
198. On the concept of a 'file person', see Rom Harré, Personal Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1984), 69-70; Spencer Cahill, 'Toward a Sociology of the Person', Sociological Theory, Vol. 16 (1998), 131-48, esp. 143. On information control as an aspect of self-management, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), and as an aspect of institutional authority, see Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 15-20. On Oppenheimer's FBI file, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 165; Kunetka, op. cit. note 3, 203.
199. On the concept of a 'file person', see Rom Harré, Personal Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1984), 69-70; Spencer Cahill, 'Toward a Sociology of the Person', Sociological Theory, Vol. 16 (1998), 131-48, esp. 143. On information control as an aspect of self-management, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), and as an aspect of institutional authority, see Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 15-20. On Oppenheimer's FBI file, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 165; Kunetka, op. cit. note 3, 203.
200. On the concept of a 'file person', see Rom Harré, Personal Being (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1984), 69-70; Spencer Cahill, 'Toward a Sociology of the Person', Sociological Theory, Vol. 16 (1998), 131-48, esp. 143. On information control as an aspect of self-management, see Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959), and as an aspect of institutional authority, see Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 15-20. On Oppenheimer's FBI file, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 165; Kunetka, op. cit. note 3, 203.
201. Transcript, 4-5, 9, 101-02, 111-12, 186-88; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 20, 107-08, 130-32; Major, op. cit. note 8, 249-50; Special Agent D.L. Johnson, Memorandum for the Officer in Charge, 'Subject: Frank Friedman Oppenheimer, Re: Acquaintance Check' (22 July 1943), Investigation Files, Box 100, General Correspondence, 1943-47, Records of the Office of the Commanding General, Manhattan Project, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77, National Archives II, College Park} Maryland.
202. Transcript, 4-5, 9, 101-02, 111-12, 186-88; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 20, 107-08, 130-32; Major, op. cit. note 8, 249-50; Special Agent D.L. Johnson, Memorandum for the Officer in Charge, 'Subject: Frank Friedman Oppenheimer, Re: Acquaintance Check' (22 July 1943), Investigation Files, Box 100, General Correspondence, 1943-47, Records of the Office of the Commanding General, Manhattan Project, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77, National Archives II, College Park} Maryland.
203. Transcript, 4-5, 9, 101-02, 111-12, 186-88; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 20, 107-08, 130-32; Major, op. cit. note 8, 249-50; Special Agent D.L. Johnson, Memorandum for the Officer in Charge, 'Subject: Frank Friedman Oppenheimer, Re: Acquaintance Check' (22 July 1943), Investigation Files, Box 100, General Correspondence, 1943-47, Records of the Office of the Commanding General, Manhattan Project, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77, National Archives II, College Park} Maryland.
204. Transcript, 4-5, 9, 101-02, 111-12, 186-88; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 20, 107-08, 130-32; Major, op. cit. note 8, 249-50; Special Agent D.L. Johnson, Memorandum for the Officer in Charge, 'Subject: Frank Friedman Oppenheimer, Re: Acquaintance Check' (22 July 1943), Investigation Files, Box 100, General Correspondence, 1943-47, Records of the Office of the Commanding General, Manhattan Project, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Record Group 77, National Archives II, College Park} Maryland.
205. Transcript, 153-54, Findings, 1002; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 282-83.
206. Transcript, 153-54, Findings, 1002; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 282-83.
207. Transcript, 5, 117-34, 268-77, 811-13, Findings, 1006-07, 1018, Decision & Opinions, 1051-52; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 48-51; Major, op. cit. note 8, 49-51, 224-25.
208. Transcript, 5, 117-34, 268-77, 811-13, Findings, 1006-07, 1018, Decision & Opinions, 1051-52; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 48-51; Major, op. cit. note 8, 49-51, 224-25.
209. Transcript, 5, 117-34, 268-77, 811-13, Findings, 1006-07, 1018, Decision & Opinions, 1051-52; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 48-51; Major, op. cit. note 8, 49-51, 224-25.
210. Transcript, 5, 117-34, 268-77, 811-13, Findings, 1006-07, 1018, Decision & Opinions, 1051-52; Stern, op. cit. note 2, 48-51; Major, op. cit. note 8, 49-51, 224-25.
211. The different accounts are neatly summarized in Stern, op. cit. note 2, 44; see also Chevalier, op. cit. note 77, esp. 52-54. Much of the security hearing transcript deals with this incident and different accounts of it which Oppenheimer gave Manhattan Project intelligence officers.
212. The different accounts are neatly summarized in Stern, op. cit. note 2, 44; see also Chevalier, op. cit. note 77, esp. 52-54. Much of the security hearing transcript deals with this incident and different accounts of it which Oppenheimer gave Manhattan Project intelligence officers.
213. Transcript, 6, 14, 153, 168, 863-71; Chevalier, op. cit. note 77, 165-66.
214. Transcript, 6, 14, 153, 168, 863-71; Chevalier, op. cit. note 77, 165-66.
215. For a relevant discussion of the 'documentary method of interrogation' in the Iran-Contra Hearings, see Lynch & Bogen, op. cit. note 61, 201-35.
216. However, after Oppenheimer's attorney protested, transcripts and recordings of Oppenheimer's wartime interrogations by Manhattan Project security officers were made available to Oppenheimer and his counsel. See esp. Transcript, 201, 203, 281, 285-93. For a discussion of this, see Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 213-18.
217. However, after Oppenheimer's attorney protested, transcripts and recordings of Oppenheimer's wartime interrogations by Manhattan Project security officers were made available to Oppenheimer and his counsel. See esp. Transcript, 201, 203, 281, 285-93. For a discussion of this, see Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 213-18.
218. Transcript, 146, 149.
219. Transcript, 137. That evening, Robb told his wife that he had 'seen a man destroy himself on the witness stand': quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 227.
220. Transcript, 137. That evening, Robb told his wife that he had 'seen a man destroy himself on the witness stand': quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 227.
221. Groves believed that he had. Groves testified that when he ordered Oppenheimer to tell him the name of the intermediary, 'I got what to me was the final story': Transcript, 168.
222. Transcript, 153.
223. Recommendations of the General Manager, 1043; Decision & Opinions, 1050-51.
224. Recommendations of the General Manager, 1043; Decision & Opinions, 1050-51.
225. The definition of 'a security risk' was unclear during the hearings. AEC procedure was that derogatory information would be weighed against the benefit of the individual's continued employment. However, Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450, of April 1953, mandated the removal of any individual about whom there was derogatory information. See Green, op. cit. note 8, 14-15; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1465-67; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 10-11. On the development of Cold War security procedures, see: Forman, op. cit. note 30; Naomi Oreskes and Ronald Rainger, 'Science and Security Before the Atomic Bomb', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 31 (2000), 309-69, esp. 311.
226. The definition of 'a security risk' was unclear during the hearings. AEC procedure was that derogatory information would be weighed against the benefit of the individual's continued employment. However, Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450, of April 1953, mandated the removal of any individual about whom there was derogatory information. See Green, op. cit. note 8, 14-15; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1465-67; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 10-11. On the development of Cold War security procedures, see: Forman, op. cit. note 30; Naomi Oreskes and Ronald Rainger, 'Science and Security Before the Atomic Bomb', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 31 (2000), 309-69, esp. 311.
227. The definition of 'a security risk' was unclear during the hearings. AEC procedure was that derogatory information would be weighed against the benefit of the individual's continued employment. However, Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450, of April 1953, mandated the removal of any individual about whom there was derogatory information. See Green, op. cit. note 8, 14-15; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1465-67; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 10-11. On the development of Cold War security procedures, see: Forman, op. cit. note 30; Naomi Oreskes and Ronald Rainger, 'Science and Security Before the Atomic Bomb', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 31 (2000), 309-69, esp. 311.
228. The definition of 'a security risk' was unclear during the hearings. AEC procedure was that derogatory information would be weighed against the benefit of the individual's continued employment. However, Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450, of April 1953, mandated the removal of any individual about whom there was derogatory information. See Green, op. cit. note 8, 14-15; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1465-67; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 10-11. On the development of Cold War security procedures, see: Forman, op. cit. note 30; Naomi Oreskes and Ronald Rainger, 'Science and Security Before the Atomic Bomb', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 31 (2000), 309-69, esp. 311.
229. The definition of 'a security risk' was unclear during the hearings. AEC procedure was that derogatory information would be weighed against the benefit of the individual's continued employment. However, Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450, of April 1953, mandated the removal of any individual about whom there was derogatory information. See Green, op. cit. note 8, 14-15; Bernstein (1990), op. cit. note 8, 1465-67; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 10-11. On the development of Cold War security procedures, see: Forman, op. cit. note 30; Naomi Oreskes and Ronald Rainger, 'Science and Security Before the Atomic Bomb', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Vol. 31 (2000), 309-69, esp. 311.
230. Transcript, 469.
231. Transcript, 470.
232. Transcript, 470.
233. Transcript, 470.
234. This contrast maps closely on to sociological distinctions between personal and systemic modes of trust: Antony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), esp. 83-88; Niklas Luhmann, 'Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives', in Diego Gambetta (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 94-107; Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 409-17.
235. This contrast maps closely on to sociological distinctions between personal and systemic modes of trust: Antony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), esp. 83-88; Niklas Luhmann, 'Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives', in Diego Gambetta (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 94-107; Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 409-17.
236. This contrast maps closely on to sociological distinctions between personal and systemic modes of trust: Antony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), esp. 83-88; Niklas Luhmann, 'Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives', in Diego Gambetta (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 94-107; Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, esp. 3-41, 409-17.
237. Transcript, 649-50.
238. In fact, this image of impersonal objectivity was belied by the way in which the security apparatus had become a vehicle for personal vendettas, demonstrated in the Oppenheimer case by the close working relationship between Strauss and Hoover, and the key rôle played by Teller. Lilienthal said that Strauss's rôle in the Oppenheimer case showed 'how much the course of events is affected by wholly personal quirks, by what seem at the time little personal things': quoted in Stern, op. cit. note 2, 130 (emphasis in original).
239. Findings, 1013.
240. Findings, 1019.
241. Findings, 1018. On Oppenheimer being influenced by colleagues and friends, see also Transcript, 134, 210-15, 252-53.
242. Findings, 1018. On Oppenheimer being influenced by colleagues and friends, see also Transcript, 134, 210-15, 252-53.
243. Findings, 1019.
244. Boris T. Pash to Lt Col. John Lansdale (6 September 1943), 'Subject: J.R. Oppenheimer', Transcript, 273; see also Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 81.
245. Boris T. Pash to Lt Col. John Lansdale (6 September 1943), 'Subject: J.R. Oppenheimer', Transcript, 273; see also Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 81.
246. Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (12 February 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828 Sec. 19.
247. William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (23 August 1954); SAC Newark to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (24 August 1954); J. Edgar Hoover [Director, FBI] to General Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President, 'Re: Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (26 August 1954); Director, FBI to Legal Attache, London, England, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 49; Director FBI to Attorney General (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 48. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 288.
248. William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (23 August 1954); SAC Newark to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (24 August 1954); J. Edgar Hoover [Director, FBI] to General Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President, 'Re: Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (26 August 1954); Director, FBI to Legal Attache, London, England, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 49; Director FBI to Attorney General (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 48. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 288.
249. William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (23 August 1954); SAC Newark to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (24 August 1954); J. Edgar Hoover [Director, FBI] to General Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President, 'Re: Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (26 August 1954); Director, FBI to Legal Attache, London, England, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 49; Director FBI to Attorney General (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 48. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 288.
250. William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (23 August 1954); SAC Newark to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (24 August 1954); J. Edgar Hoover [Director, FBI] to General Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President, 'Re: Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (26 August 1954); Director, FBI to Legal Attache, London, England, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 49; Director FBI to Attorney General (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 48. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 288.
251. William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (23 August 1954); SAC Newark to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (24 August 1954); J. Edgar Hoover [Director, FBI] to General Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President, 'Re: Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (26 August 1954); Director, FBI to Legal Attache, London, England, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 49; Director FBI to Attorney General (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 48. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 288.
252. William F. Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (23 August 1954); SAC Newark to Director, FBI, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (24 August 1954); J. Edgar Hoover [Director, FBI] to General Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the President, 'Re: Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (26 August 1954); Director, FBI to Legal Attache, London, England, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 49; Director FBI to Attorney General (27 August 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828 Sec. 48. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 288.
253. Findings, 1015.
254. Lakoff, op. cit. note 8, 66. An FBI agent described Oppenheimer as 'a master at in[n]uendo and evasive answers... [If] Oppenheimer can evade a question by talking around it, he will do so': W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (31 March 31 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828, Sec. 29.
255. Lakoff, op. cit. note 8, 66. An FBI agent described Oppenheimer as 'a master at in[n]uendo and evasive answers... [If] Oppenheimer can evade a question by talking around it, he will do so': W.A. Branigan to A.H. Belmont, 'Dr J. Robert Oppenheimer' (31 March 31 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File 100-17828, Sec. 29.
256. Transcript, 6.
257. Transcript, 7-20, quoting 19.
258. Transcript, 81; see also Transcript, 251.
259. Transcript, 250. See also Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 226-27.
260. Transcript, 250. See also Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 226-27.
261. Transcript, 803.
262. Transcript, 663-64.
263. Transcript, 664-65.
264. This is an example of what Adi Ophir and Steven Shapin refer to as 'denigration by contextualization': A. Ophir and S. Shapin, 'The Place of Knowledge: A Methodological Survey', Science in Context, Vol 4 (1991), 3-21, at 4.
265. Transcript, 517.
266. Transcript, 518.
267. Transcript, 461.
268. Rabi and others have described Oppenheimer's charismatic rôle at wartime Los Alamos in somewhat similar terms, emphasizing his importance as a unifying and morale-building influence and as a facilitator of collegial communication in the laboratory: Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, 570-75. Thorpe and Shapin note that the controversy surrounding the hearing was an important context for reflections and reminiscences on wartime Los Alamos, and that 'The official judgement that Oppenheimer had defects of character generated an immediate and vigorous defence of that character by his friends and sympathizers' (ibid., 580). For methodological reflections on the use of such retrospective accounts, see ibid., 580-81.
269. Rabi and others have described Oppenheimer's charismatic rôle at wartime Los Alamos in somewhat similar terms, emphasizing his importance as a unifying and morale-building influence and as a facilitator of collegial communication in the laboratory: Thorpe & Shapin, op. cit. note 3, 570-75. Thorpe and Shapin note that the controversy surrounding the hearing was an important context for reflections and reminiscences on wartime Los Alamos, and that 'The official judgement that Oppenheimer had defects of character generated an immediate and vigorous defence of that character by his friends and sympathizers' (ibid., 580). For methodological reflections on the use of such retrospective accounts, see ibid., 580-81.
270. Transcript, 384.
271. Transcript, 566-67, 565.
272. Major, op. cit. note 8, 144-45.
273. Transcript, 567.
274. Transcript, 385; quoted in part also in Major, op. cit. note 8, 145.
275. Transcript, 385; quoted in part also in Major, op. cit. note 8, 145.
276. Transcript, 23.
277. Quoted in Major, op. cit. note 8, 145; see also Stern, op. cit. note 2, 510.
278. Quoted in Major, op. cit. note 8, 145; see also Stern, op. cit. note 2, 510.
279. On problems of ascribing motives in social scientific and historical accounts, see C. Wright Mills, 'Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive', American Sociological Review, Vol. 5, No. 6 (December 1940), 904-13; Michael Lynch, 'Springs of Action or Vocabularies of Motive?', in Penelope Gouk (ed.), Wellsprings of Achievement: Cultural and Economic Dynamics in Early Modern England and Japan (Aldershot, Hants., UK: Varorium, 1995), 94-113.
280. On problems of ascribing motives in social scientific and historical accounts, see C. Wright Mills, 'Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive', American Sociological Review, Vol. 5, No. 6 (December 1940), 904-13; Michael Lynch, 'Springs of Action or Vocabularies of Motive?', in Penelope Gouk (ed.), Wellsprings of Achievement: Cultural and Economic Dynamics in Early Modern England and Japan (Aldershot, Hants., UK: Varorium, 1995), 94-113.
281. Edward Shils, for example, wrote that: 'The standard of truth in science has nothing to do with the criteria of political success or political loyalty': Shils, op. cit. note 51, 178.
282. Quoted in Major, op. cit. note 8, 145.
283. Findings, 1019.
284. Findings, 1017.
285. Findings, 1015.
286. Findings, 1016.
287. Findings, 1016.
288. Findings, 1016.
289. Findings, 1016.
290. Findings, 1017; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 152.
291. Findings, 1017; Curtis, op. cit. note 8, 152.
292. Findings, 1017-18.
293. Findings, 1017.
294. For example, the Alsops accused the ABC of infringing on scientists' 'right to be wrong ... the privilege of making an honest error of judgment without being labelled a traitor - is basic to free science and a free society': Joseph and Stewart Alsop,'Sighting-In on U.S. Scientists', Washington Post (11 April 1954), reproduced in Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 31.
295. Findings, 1020. Bizarrely, Evans' dissent was actually penned by Robb. Evans' original version was apparently so poorly constructed that Gray feared embarrassment to the Board: Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 239.
296. Findings, 1020. Bizarrely, Evans' dissent was actually penned by Robb. Evans' original version was apparently so poorly constructed that Gray feared embarrassment to the Board: Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 239.
297. Eisenhower's statement is discussed in A.H. Belmont to L.V. Boardman, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (11 April 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 31. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 11, 266.
298. Eisenhower's statement is discussed in A.H. Belmont to L.V. Boardman, 'J. Robert Oppenheimer' (11 April 1954), Oppenheimer FBI File, 100-17828, Sec. 31. See also Major, op. cit. note 8, 11, 266.
299. Decision & Opinions, 1047-65, quoting 1049.
300. Decision & Opinions, 1055.
301. Decision & Opinions, 1052-55, quoting 1052.
302. Decision & Opinions, 1055-58, quoting 1057, 1058.
303. Decision & Opinions, 1058-61, at 1058. Murray believed that it was clear that Oppenheimer's judgement was in error. He stated (ibid.): 'Dr Oppenheimer advanced technical and political reasons for his attitude to the hydrogen-bomb program. In both respects he has been proved wrong; nothing further need be said'.
304. Decision & Opinions, 1059.
305. Decision & Opinions, 1059.
306. Decision & Opinions, 1061.
307. Decision & Opinions, 1061-65.
308. Decision & Opinions, 1065.
309. So, later that year, Strauss was at pains in interviews with the press to counter the impression that scientists could be labelled security risks just for giving unpopular advice, although that was the lesson many drew from the hearing: Major, op. cit. note 8, 278.
310. On dramaturgy and scientific authority, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, 126-92; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 5-20.
311. On dramaturgy and scientific authority, see Shapin (1994), op. cit. note 40, 126-92; Hilgartner, op. cit. note 31, esp. 5-20.
312. Karl K. Darrow to Dr H.A. Bethe and Dr R.T. Birge (5 June 1954), Raymond Thayer Birge papers [ca. 1928-1954], Bancroft Library, Berkeley.
313. Borrowing these terms from, respectively, Nagel, op. cit. note 40, and Christopher Lawrence and Steven Shapin (eds), Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998).
314. Borrowing these terms from, respectively, Nagel, op. cit. note 40, and Christopher Lawrence and Steven Shapin (eds), Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998).
315. Findings, 1015.
316. Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (London: Penguin, [1963] 1990), 17ff.
317. The legitimacy of the hearing depended on Oppenheimer's moral ordinariness. Rabi, for example, denied that Oppenheimer was merely normal, and therefore saw the hearings as illegitimate: 'He was a great man, who had done something very great for his country. And to be hauled up before those pygmies, I thought, was terrible': quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 222. Steven Shapin has shown just how recently the moral ordinariness of scientists came to be widely taken for granted: S. Shapin, 'The Moral Equivalence of the Scientist: The History of an Idea' (unpublished manuscript).
318. The legitimacy of the hearing depended on Oppenheimer's moral ordinariness. Rabi, for example, denied that Oppenheimer was merely normal, and therefore saw the hearings as illegitimate: 'He was a great man, who had done something very great for his country. And to be hauled up before those pygmies, I thought, was terrible': quoted in Bernstein (1982), op. cit. note 8, 222. Steven Shapin has shown just how recently the moral ordinariness of scientists came to be widely taken for granted: S. Shapin, 'The Moral Equivalence of the Scientist: The History of an Idea' (unpublished manuscript).
319. This was recorded in a memo to Lewis Strauss by Chester Heslop, an Atomic Energy Commission liaison officer with the United States Information Agency. Heslop adds in brackets, 'This last phrase is mine and he [Teller] agrees it is apt': quoted in Stanley Blumberg and Gwinn Owens, Energy and Conflict: The Life and Times of Edward Teller (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1976), 359.
320. Major, op. cit. note 8, 192-93, 276-97.
321. Coughlan, op. cit. note 11, 34A.
322. Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 400. Dr James R. Killian, Jr, thought the hearings created a climate of conformity among scientists: 'One of the frightening aspects of the Oppenheimer case was the fear it created... that technical advice, when not in support of some current military or political policy, might be condemned' (quoted in Newman, op. cit. note 4, 181).
323. Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 400. Dr James R. Killian, Jr, thought the hearings created a climate of conformity among scientists: 'One of the frightening aspects of the Oppenheimer case was the fear it created... that technical advice, when not in support of some current military or political policy, might be condemned' (quoted in Newman, op. cit. note 4, 181).