‘Copies to: Berkner, GoldL g, Hartline

STANFORD UNIVERSITY Ce
XOPANRORD, CALIFORNIA a
Palo Al; to

DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS
School of Medicine

October 26, 1959
Dear Dr, Odishaw:

It was a pleasure to meet you at the past meeting of the Space Acience
Board, and to join in its deliberations,

It was too bad that we could not find time to get together for sane pre-
paratory discussions concerning the man-in-space program, but I hope something
can be done along these lines in time for the next meeting of the Board, I
can of course readily pefeeive sane of the complex issues, not all relating
to the Board's interests, which attach to this program. However, I believe
that it would be both futile and irresponsible for us to attempt to conceal
the impatience of many U.S. scientists with this program, or perhaps more
accurately with the popular image of it. As you know, Leo Goldberg!s sub-
committee has already formally reported its conclusion that it could find
no scientific justification to warrant support of a manned space platforn,
and this reaction was shared by all of the Board members (and scientists
throughout the country) with whan I have discussed this point. On the other
hand, "man-in-space" is almost universally confounded with our national pro-
gram in space science, This confusion is, I believe, largely responsible for
the remarkable disinterest exhihited by the majority of scientists (outside
fields related to aerology) for what should be one of the outstanding scien-
tific challenges in human history,

Dr. Drydents candor was refreshing and commendable; however, we must have
a continuing responsibility to transmit the views of the scientific community
to the administration, Furthermore, we must solve the problem of dispelling
the confusion betweem space science and the other aspects of space exploration
which are not within the Board's immediate province. The wisdom of pressing
these views more urgently, or more publiely, is debatble but it is, I believe,
one of the Board's most pressing problems in its task of long-reage criticism.
We may ultimately face a most awkward situation if a congressional committee
elicits testimony of a long held critical attitude which had, for any reason,
been quieted. The tensions of an election year are approaching, but they can
add only some &dditional urgency to the moral necessity for complete candorin
our own evaluation of space programs,

These questions can properly be deferred to the next meeting of the Board.
However, may I make a suggestion that requires pranpt action, nameiy to take
Tutt advantage of the pubircation uf Science-in-Space to stress the point that
Dr. Berkner had made at the meeting: the three objectives of national prestige,
practical application (military and civil), ana screntafic research must ait be
taken account of in the space program as formulated by the national space council.
The volume itself will then agcentuate the positive accomplishments and aspirations
of science in space without overreaching the role of the SSB by criticising other
aspects. That the special role of the SSB concerns space science perhaps deserves
some stress. These general remarks perhaps should go in a preface, a more detailed
account of the history and organization of space operations going into the con-
cluding chapter. Yours cordially,

Joshua Lederberg