1969 12 00 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Vol 25 No 10 - E U Condon

Magazine Overview

This issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, dated December 1969, features an article titled "UFOs I Have Loved and Lost" by E. U. Condon, a professor of physics at the University of Colorado. The issue also includes an article titled "Public Policy and Behavioral Science" by Margaret Mead.

UFOs I Have Loved and Lost by E. U. Condon

E. U. Condon recounts his experience leading a "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects" for the U.S. Air Force from late 1966 to the summer of 1968. The full report was published by Bantam Books and E. P. Dutton and Co. Condon explains that the study was requested by the U.S. Air Force to investigate potential defense hazards posed by UFO sightings.

He traces the origin of modern UFO interest to Kenneth Arnold's sighting near Mt. Rainier in June 1947, where objects were described as "flying saucers." Condon notes that while the term UFO is preferable, the Air Force has been concerned with thousands of reports over nearly 22 years.

From their study, the Air Force concluded long ago that no defense problem was involved, and their attention to the matter became minimal after the first four or five years. Condon points out the rise of sensational pseudo-science magazine articles and paperback books in the early 1950s, citing Frank Edwards' "Flying Saucers-Serious Business" as a bestseller. He mentions that the Condon report itself had an initial printing of 200,000 copies, and that 40,000 school children had written to the Air Force for UFO data in the preceding three years.

The principal driver of widespread interest, according to Condon, is the contention that some UFOs might represent craft from other civilizations. While acknowledging this possibility, Condon stresses the need for extreme caution in language and states that his study found no such evidence. He clarifies that the report did not "prove that flying saucers do not come from outer space" but rather found no evidence in support of their extra-terrestrial origin in the cases examined.

Condon concludes that continuing the traditional method of field study, interviewing observers, is unproductive. He cites difficulties such as the rarity of apparitions, their short duration, and the tendency of observers to misreport or delay reporting. He also notes the extraordinary disagreement in descriptions of known objects, like the Zond IV re-entry, highlighting the lack of certainty in specific details of reports.

Despite these findings, Condon states that they do not rule out all future study, but rather suggest that any scientist with adequate training and a clearly defined, specific proposal should be supported. He criticizes "flying saucer buffs" who he believes make money from sensationalism and collecting dues from pseudo-science organizations.

Condon shares anecdotes illustrating the blurred line between real science and pseudo-science. He recounts the case of a young airman whose wife died, and cult members believed her spirit had gone to Venus on a flying saucer, leading them to store her body instead of burying it. He also describes being approached by a man claiming to be an agent for the "Third Universe" who proposed a $3 billion contract to teach the U.S. to make inter-stellar flying saucers, requiring an "earnest money" deposit.

He argues that most people lack a basic understanding of scientific principles and readily accept ideas on faith, making pseudo-scientific propositions seem plausible. He contrasts the large number of astrologers with astronomers, suggesting that pseudo-sciences have a considerable following.

Condon expresses a strong stance against the abuse of children's minds by pseudo-sciences, advocating for severe punishment for publishers and teachers who promote them as established truth.

Public Policy and Behavioral Science by Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead, Curator of Ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History, discusses the role and influence of behavioral scientists in shaping public policy. She notes that while physical scientists have been influential in Washington, the influence of behavioral scientists has waned since the end of World War II.

Mead draws on her extensive experience during World War II, working with the National Research Council on problems of nutrition, national morale, civilian defense, and cross-national communication. She participated in interdisciplinary studies for the Office of Naval Research, Rand, and MIT, focusing on the Soviet Union, China, and France. Since 1952, she has studied technical assistance, political implications of culture change, education, international order, warfare, population control, environmental control, urbanization, cross-ideological communication, and the generation gap.

She highlights the successes achieved during World War II through the utilization of behavioral sciences, which helped in understanding national cultures, predicting responses to policies, clarifying relationships with allies, and managing civilian morale. These successes were enabled by a state of preparedness, mobilization, and a willingness of the scientific community to contribute time and effort.

Mead contrasts this with the current situation, questioning the diminished influence of behavioral scientists in Congress and on Capitol Hill. She implies that the conditions that fostered their influence during the war—a clear moral effort against overwhelming power and risk, and community commitment—may be different today.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific methodology and critical evaluation of evidence, particularly in contrast to sensationalism and pseudo-science. E. U. Condon's article serves as a cautionary tale against accepting unsubstantiated claims, advocating for a clear distinction between belief and fact. The inclusion of Margaret Mead's piece suggests the magazine's interest in the application of scientific thinking, including behavioral sciences, to societal and governmental issues. The overall stance appears to be one that values evidence-based reasoning and critical inquiry, while being wary of popular misconceptions and unscientific trends.