Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!mordor!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!COWAN
From: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need
Message-ID: <12268564255.17.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 15:36:16 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12268564255.17.MCGREW
Posted: Mon Jan  5 15:36:16 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Jan-87 22:45:00 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


To: kontron!cramer@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU

Clayton Cramer compares scientists supporting nuclear winter to
scientists in Germany opposing "Jewish physics."  Then he lumps the
whole shebang under the evil title "politics" and likens it to the
anti-SDI pledge.

The analogy is flawed.  German physicists who signed the pledge
weren't refusing money by doing so; I assume they were supporting
Government policy.  The nuclear winter people weren't really refusing
money either.  What makes the anti-SDI pledge remarkable is that the
scientists have refused a large amount of money offered to them.

Is the SDI pledge a political act?  Of course it is.  It's a judgement
that requires blending science and politics.  I'd trust scientists
with scientific-political judgements more than politicians!

Rich
-------
-------