COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00006 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	opinio[f83,jmc]		Science and Technology Opinion
C00004 00003	Draft statement of purpose
C00009 00004	Possible contents
C00012 00005	possible contributors
C00013 00006	Refereeing:
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
opinio[f83,jmc]		Science and Technology Opinion

1983 December 18

Science and Technology Opinion is to be a journal, a monthly
would be desirable, but a quarterly may be more feasible, that
would provide a forum for other than liberal views about science.
It would be written by scientists and would counteract
the journalists who run the News and Comment section of
Science.

The project has been discussed with Miro Todorovich, David
and Gregory Chudnovsky, and Irving Kristol.  David thinks
working capital of $250,000 is required.  Kristol thinks
a quarterly can be done for $100,000 or even for $50K to $60K
per year subsidy provided the editors are amateur.  He suggests
talking to Walter Lammi of the Institute for Contemporary Studies
in San Francisco.  Miro will talk to him.  Miro is interested in
being editor.  SE2 and UCRA might be sponsors.

Scientific points of view
A scientific point of view
Scientific viewpoints

Mark Halpern of Oakland (information has 482-0337) has a letter in
the 1984 December Commentary recounting another instance of bias
by Science.

Skeptical Inquirer, conversation with Michael McCarthy Mar 8, Paul Kurtz
... Fraser
mg. editor $300,000 annual budget, 25 thousand circulation
6 part time
Draft statement of purpose

	Science and Technology Opinion will provide %2news%1 about
scientific and technological events affecting the public interest
in general and science policy in particular.  It will also provide
a forum for %2comment%1, especially by scientists and engineers
on policy issues.  News and comment will be kept separate, and
an appropriate high standard fairness in both will be maintained
and enforced by the editors.  A major objective is to raise
the standards for discussion of social and political issues
towards those already achieved in discussion of technical scientific
issues.

	The atmosphere of public discussion of scientific and
technological issues suffers from moralistic intimidation.
This has produced an inhibition of rational discussion of
numerous issues.  For example, rational discussion of the level
of damage that would be caused by nuclear war and how it might
be mitigated by civil defense is almost non-existent by arguments
that anyone who asserts that certain bad things might not happen
is in favor of nuclear war.  Similar inhibitions affect discussions
of the nature and inheritance of intelligence and the nature of the
differences between the sexes.  While Science and Technology Opinion
will not emphasize such issues, it won't avoid them either.

	The editorial board is not a random sample of scientific
opinion and wishes to announce its collective opinion in certain
matters, although we still welcome contributions from people who
are not in complete agreement.

	#. Science provides the main way of understanding the world
including the social world.

	#. Science is important both as an expression of the collective
curiosity of mankind and for its contributions to human health,
longevity, prosperity, public order and enjoyment.  These benefits
are realized through technology.

	#. Human progress since the renaissance is real, has been
beneficial to humanity, and can and should continue.

	#. Technology has been the prime contributor to human progress
and there is much more to come.

	#. Social science is very difficult, but successful and applicable
social science is possible and some even exists.  However, it is
necessary to be modest and tentative in asserting the likelihood that
any particular strategy for solving a social problem will work.  It is
even necessary to be modest and tentative about one's identification
of the problems.

	#. The defense of the United States is important, and American
scientists and technologists should do their best to increase its
effectiveness and reduce its cost.

	#. 
Possible contents

Forum on CO2.

Forum on the effects of nuclear war.

Forum on "nuclear winter".

Forum on the facts about racial, sexual and genetic equality.

Biases in scientific journalism.

Quality standards for scientific journalism.

When aren't safety measures cost effective.

Indoor pollution

Political intrusions on scientific consensus.
(The New York City Council has ruled that Haitians are not especially
at risk from AIDS).


Appropriate technology

Forum on what level and kind of secrecy will help the country.

Forum on Star Wars.

The state of nuclear energy

The search for alternate energy sources

Prospects for the future in computing, AI, energy, manufacture

Forum on what would be good to invent.  Announce with quotes from
Gabor and Stent

The evidence on yellow rain.

Verification of arms agreements

Strengths and weaknesses of Soviet science - Chinese.

History of Marxist attitudes to science

Reviews of Gould and other books where science and ideology interact

The importance of space exploration to humanity

Why more research on nuclear weapons.

Spelling out why the U.S. should be supported in its conflicts with the
USSR.

Politics and institutions related to the support of science.

Are scientists hostile to technology?  History of this hostility.

Civil defense

Moralistic bullying vs. rationality.  Attacks on rationality.

Forum on the prospects for longer human life.  (Prof. Roy Walford, UCLA).
possible contributors

Bobby Inman
Daniel Graham
Freeman Dyson
Edward Teller
Henry Hurwitz
Bernard Cohen
Bernard Davis
Andrei Sakharov
Zhores Medvedev
Robert Jastrow
John McCarthy
Igor Shafarevich
David Chudnovsky
Gregory Chudnovsky
Tom Connolly
George Keyworth
Hans Mark
Hans Bethe
Frederick Seitz
Bruce Ames
Petr Beckmann
Arthur Kantrowitz
Lowell Wood
Robert Forward
Jerry Pournelle
Richard Meehan
Elizabeth Pate-Cornell
Chauncey Starr
William Shockley
Arthur Jensen
Hans Eysenck
Roy Walford
Refereeing:

title: Science, Technology and Politics

	Science, Technology and Politics will be a refereed journal.
At least it will start that way.

	For those not familiar with the concept, refereeing is a process
whereby the editors send a manuscript to experts in the field for
review and suggestions for change and take into account
what the referees say in deciding on publication.

	Clearly, the refereeing process needs to be somewhat different
for a journal of opinion than for a scientific journal proper.  The
referees will not be allowed to require that the author agree with
them on controversial issues.  They can set some standards of fairness,
e.g. avoidance of ad hominem remarks, and can propose that certain
issues be taken into account.  We envision that the latter will be the
most common function of the referee, because it is common that controversial
articles ignore points commmonly made by the other side rather than
answer them.  The referees and the editors should have little to say
about how the points are addressed, but should make sure that they are
addressed.