COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub" source
C00010 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub" source
∂AIL Dr. Mark Mellman↓Committee of Concerned Scientists↓9 East 40th Street
↓New York, N.Y. 10016∞

Dear Dr. Mellman:

	The recent article in %2Science%1 about the antisemitism of
certain prominent Soviet mathematicians, especially Pontryagin and
Vinogradov, triggered some ideas.  Some Soviet scientists have particularly
good human rights records.  Some have protested injustice, however
tentatively, and others have refused to be involved in campaigns
against refuseniks and dissidents.  For example, xxxx
has been able to refuse to fire someone who
was expelled from the Komsomol for signing a position, and continued
the employment of an emigree up to the day he left on
his way out of the country.  There are many other examples of scientists
with some administrative responsibilities who have behaved well.
(I decided to delete the name in case this letter gets circulated).

	There are also examples who have behaved badly.  Besides those
mentioned in the article, Academician Trapeznikov has apparently been
a major force in preventing Alexander Lerner from emigrating.

	I would like to suggest that the Committee of Concerned Scientists
maintain lists of Soviet scientists who have behaved particularly well
or badly.  This imposes some problems.

	1. The list of those who have behaved well must not be published
and even its existence should not be published.  These are not very
courageous people, and they will consider themselves harmed by being
identified as good guys.  However, once there is such a list and
its existence becomes informally known, then these people should find
it easier to get invitations and reports and visa extensions, and
the meetings they organize should be regarded with greater favor.
It would be best if there weren't a known formal list, but it became
known that the Committee and other American scientists had opinions
on the matter.

	2. The "bad guys" list can be treated differently.  What
they have done that is bad can be made known.  This is especially
straightforward if what they have done is public, e.g. signed
a statement urging the punishment of Sakharov (there was one) or
wrote to Pravda like Glushkov and (I think) Nesmayanov
approving the invasion of Czechoslovakia.  (I am
sorry that my specific examples are somewhat dated).  These people
should meet with obstacles, and Americans should resist their
election to office in international organizations.  Their institutes
should meet difficulty in getting people accepted as visitors on
the exchange programs, and the difficulties should come from
American scientists rather than from the State Department.

	Of course, we have to be careful that the "bad guys" list
doesn't become a vehicle for emigres to settle personal grudges.
Therefore, some standards of evidence, however informal, should
be required before Committee people pass on reports.

	With the thousands of Soviet scientists now living in the
U.S., Israel, and other Western countries, I am sure that
enough well verifiable information exists to maintain considerable
pressure.

	Incidentally, I expect to receive an invitation to attend
a "scientific pilgrimage" to the birthplace of Al Khowarismi in
Uzbekistan.  The word "algorithm", which plays a big role in
computer science, comes from his name, and the pilgrimage is planned
for October.  It is being organized by Andrei Ershov and Donald Knuth
of Stanford.  When the dates become precise, I would like to arrange
to give a talk in the Sunday seminar in Moscow.  I would hope to find
an attractive topic about which I won't talk in the Soviet Union at
any other forum.  I am trying to persuade Don Knuth, who has strong
inhibitions about getting politics mixed with science, that this is
a reasonable thing for him to do also.

	If this seems like something worth considering, you might
pass it on to Board members.

.sgn

P.S. I have just read the Annual Report of the Committee, and I
see that the Committee has lots of information that would make
discrimination among individual Soviet scientists possible.

P.P.S. An letter recently appeared in %2Communications of the ACM%1
criticizing the ACM support of Shcharansky for various reasons, among
which was the author's contention that Shcharansky might have been a spy.
Ordinarily, this might be difficult to disprove, but my impression
is that the actual charges at Shcharansky's trial turned out to be
trivial, i.e. the information he was accused of giving Toth would
not be regarded as secret anywhere else and is often informally
available in the Soviet Union from people who are not charged with
espionage.  If I could get documentation on this point, I would write
a letter.  Do you have or do you know where the actual
"evidence" presented at Shcharansky's trial was reported?