COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	@make(letterhead,Phone"497-4330",Who "John McCarthy", Logo Old, Department CSD)                    
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
@make(letterhead,Phone"497-4330",Who "John McCarthy", Logo Old, Department CSD)                    
@style[indent 5]
@blankspace (8 lines)
@begin(address)
Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz
Thayer School of Engineering
Dartmouth College
Hanover, New Hampshire  03755
@end(address)
@greeting(Dear Dr. Kantrowitz:)
@begin (body)

	Thanks for your paper on anti-technology, with which I
mainly agree.  Much of the expressed opposition to technology
isn't very serious in the sense that people expressing it act
somewhat differently, though often still harmfully, if they
get some power, as many of them did in the Carter Administration.
It seems to me that many ideologies serve as flags for individuals
seeking prominence, publicity and power.  If a belief is serving
this role in an individual's public persona, then he isn't in a
problem solving, policy evolving mode where he is open to other
ways of achieving widely agreed objectives.  Who are the villains
and what laws should be passed are part of his agreement with
his fellows, and he doesn't feel free to change them, no matter
what the arguments.

	I think science courts are a good idea, but I am not
optimistic about their widespread adoption, mainly for the
reasons you cite in your lectures.

	Let me elaborate a little the idea of a peer-review
journal in this area analogous to "Behavioral and Brain
Sciences" abbreviated BBS.  BBS owes everything to its
founder and editor, Stevan Harnad (note spelling) of Princeton University
who solicits papers and commentary.  As I mentioned in the
discussion in Steve Kline's office, each issue contains 2 to
4 papers, 15 to 30 commentaries on the papers and a reply by
the author.  The journal is published by Cambridge University
Press but in the U.S. I think.

	The prime requirement for such a journal is an editor,
and if you were to edit it, I would bet it would get an
excellent reception: from publishers, libraries, potential
authors and individual subscribers.  I would be interested
in being on an editorial board -- for example, for computer
issues.

	I see two kinds of papers, and they should be sharply
distinguished.  The first corresponds closely to the science
court idea in that such papers would address strictly scientific
issues as defined by agreement between the editor and author.
The editor would have to make sure that the paper and the
commentaries avoided mixing policy advocacy with science.
Even scientific assertions not germane to the issue as defined
might be excluded.  Experience would be required to determine
how best to formulate and enforce these restrictions.
The reward for narrowing the issues might be a higher probability
of reaching consensus.  In fact, there might be some method of
trying to formalize consensus.

	The second kind of article would concern the policy issues
themselves, and the authors and reviewers would be less restricted
in what they could say.  However, I would advocate some editorial
policy of relevance appropriate to a scientific audience; certainly
the standards should be much higher than those of the News and Comment
section of Science magazine.  Consensus would be much less likely
than for the first class of article.

	An alternative is to publish only the first class of article,
at least in the beginning.

	It occurs to me that John Kemeny's experience with the
Three Mile Island investigation might make him sympathetic to
the project.  If you speak to him, please give him my regards.

	A possible title would be "The Science Court Reporter",
thus keeping your original idea before the public in the hopes
that more of it would be used.

	One possible consensus on an issue might be that research is
required to answer a specific relevant question.
This consensus might help generate support for the research.
@end(body)
Sincerely,
 
   
    
John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science