Planning reactions to the Oppenheimer security-clearance review
After spearheading the design of the first nuclear weapons at the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II, J. Robert Oppenheimer became a key adviser to the US government on nuclear policy in the immediate postwar period. As Cold War tensions heightened during the late 1940s and early 1950s, Oppenheimer’s emphatic opposition to the development of the hydrogen bomb and desire for international mediation of atomic research brought him into conflict with many government and military figures. His opponents in the government began challenging his loyalty to the US, pointing to his associations with Communists and Communist organizations in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
In response to being informed in December 1953 that the Atomic Energy Commission was suspending his security clearance, pending the resolution of 24 allegations leveled against him, Oppenheimer requested a formal hearing before an AEC Personnel Security Board. So in 1954, the AEC assembled a three-person board to hear the case and recommend whether to strip Oppenheimer of his security clearance.
Aware of the outcome’s implications for the future relationship between scientists and the US government, the physics community closely monitored the hearing. With one member dissenting, the board recommended on 27 May 1954 that Oppenheimer’s security clearance be revoked; in a 4 to 1 vote, that decision was upheld by the AEC on 29 June. The decision provoked widespread outcry from the scientific community, who saw it as diminishing the value and influence of scientific expertise in public policy. (For PT’s coverage of the hearing, see “The Oppenheimer case ” in the July 1954 issue. For more about the outcome, see “Decision ” in the August 1954 issue.)
Draft statements from the American Physical Society
In preparation for the AEC decision, the council of the American Physical Society drafted two different statements to be signed by APS president Hans Bethe: version A, to be issued if the charges were dismissed, and version B, to be issued if Oppenheimer’s clearance was to be revoked. APS’s official statement, issued on 12 June in response to the board’s vote to revoke, included much of version B. (Scans courtesy of the AIP Niels Bohr Library & Archives, J. H. Van Vleck papers, 1853–1981.)
A glimpse into AIP’s deliberations
In this letter, Robert R. Davis, the editor of Physics Today, updates a member of the governing board of the American Institute of Physics, publisher of the magazine, about developments in the Oppenheimer hearings and about discussions within AIP regarding how—and if—to respond. At the time, the AIP federation comprised the Acoustical Society of America, APS, American Association of Physics Teachers, Optical Society of America (now Optica), and Society of Rheology.
Recounting actions and perspectives of people both inside and outside the organization—AEC commissioners Lewis Strauss (chair), who vigorously opposed Oppenheimer, Eugene Zuckert, and Henry Smyth; review board chair Gordon Gray; Joint Committee on Atomic Energy chair W. Sterling Cole; Oppenheimer lawyer Lloyd Garrison; radio broadcaster Fulton Lewis Jr; and AIP governing board members Frederick Seitz (chair), Karl Darrow, Hugh Knowles, Harry Olson, George Pegram, and Mark Zemansky and secretary Wallace Waterfall—the letter captures much of the concern and political turbulence surrounding the hearing. (Scans courtesy of the AIP Niels Bohr Library & Archives.)
