COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source;

∂AIL Editor %2Stanford Daily%1:∞

	I just noticed that Professor Paul Ehrlich, replying to the
Stanford News Service request for reactions to the defeat of
Proposition 15, said %2"The defeat of Proposition 15 shows what
well-financed liars can do, but I'm afraid that the utilities, oil
companies, reactor manufacturers, and their accomplices have wasted
their money and time.  They are not going to be able to expand
nuclear power in a state where one-third of the voters already
realizes that atomic power plants are a threat to both their lives
and their liberty."%1

	As one organizer of the Stanford area campaign against
Proposition 15 and one of about 90 Stanford science faculty signers
of a statement against it, I would like to know if Prof. Ehrlich
wishes to characterize 90 colleagues (including Holt Ashley, Felix
Bloch, Thomas Connolly, Robert Hofstadter and myself who solicited
the signatures) as %2well-financed liars%1 or as %2accomplices of the
utilities, oil companies, and reactor manufacturers%1.  Are
Senator Tunney, Congressman McCloskey, the %2Palo Alto Times%1 and
the %2San Francisco Chronicle%1 also merely %2liars%1?

	We feel wronged by his charges, because our Stanford campaign
against Proposition 15 was financed by the Stanford faculty named
above, and all but our one nuclear engineer are unconnected with the
nuclear industry.  We in SENSE, Scientists for Enlightenment on
Nuclear Sources of Energy, believe the country needs nuclear energy
and that scientists must defend it against what we consider
irrational ideological attack.

	We scientist opponents of Proposition 15 were offended by
full page ads in the last days of the campaign ignoring scientific
opposition, slighting the issue itself, and suggesting that the only
opponents of 15 were companies.  Perhaps voters suspected that the
last minute attack on the opponents' motives meant that the
proponents of 15 had run out of arguments - contributing to the swing
against 15 just before the election.

	Nevertheless, the statewide campaign against 15 involved
industry money and personal efforts by industry people
in publicizing statements against 15 by scientists and
others.  Industries have a right to defend themselves from what they
regard as wrongful attack, but for two reasons, we need
issue-oriented citizens' organizations supporting the application of
new useful technology.  First, if we depend on industry to defend
technology in the political arena, many will be affected by charges
like Ehrlich's, and second, a new technology may have no established
industrial interest to defend it.

	Will Professor Ehrlich recognize our sincere motives
and genuine convictions?
.skip 2

.begin verbatim
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science
.end