Two letters taken from
'Science', vol.162, 25. October 1968


  UFO Story: Is Propriety the Issue ?


In letters recently published here (30 Aug. and 27 Sept.),
Condon and Branscomb question the propriety of 'Science'
reporting on the administrative difficulties surrounding the UFO
study that Condon is conducting for the Air Force. Since they
raise the question of propriety, I think it is desirable for
'Science' readers to be informed of the following concerning the
celestial Bay of Pigs that Condon is running in Boulder.

  Not long after the publication of a 'Look' article attacking
Condon for his management of the projcct, Condon offered to help
'Science' prepare a story about the project. It was his hope, he
explained, that an article in 'Science' would present the
situation in a way that would counteract the effects of the
'Look' article. As it turned out, independent of the 'Look'
article or Condon's invitation, the news department was planning
a story anyway. Condon assured us of his complete cooperation
and did not raise any question of propriety.

  When the 'Look' article, though critical, failed to evolve any
significant public interest, Condon concluded that it would be
inappropriate for 'Science' to touch the matter, withdrew his
offer of cooperation, and proceeded to enunciate high-sounding
principles in support of his new-found belief that 'Science'
should not touch the subject until after publication of his
report. When reminded that he had sought to initiate an article
and had assured 'Science' of his cooperation, Condon flatly
refused to discuss the matter further.

  Since Condon does not set the editorial policy of this
journal, we proceeded to investigate the situation and prepared
an article on the basis of the information that could be
obtained. When there was reason to believe that relevant
information was lacking, it was so indicated in the article.
(For such lacks, it might be added, Condon can only blame
himself.)

  As for the propriety of an article in 'Science' prior to the
issuance of the Condon report (which we await with great
interest), it is difficult to know where to begin. But when
public funds and matters of public concern are involved, where
is it prescribed that nothing may be said until the public is
presented with a 'fait accompli' ?

  As for Branscomb's anguished assertion that "the tragedy is
that 'Science' apparently fails to perceive that public
acceptance of the rationality of science is at stake"; if it is
at stake, it should be noted that 'Science' merely presented a
report on the interesting events in Boulder, it didn't create
those events.

                                      D.S. Greenberg, 'Science'

---------------------------------------------------------------

  Since Condon (Letters, 30 Aug.) characterizes 'Science's'
article on his UFO project as gossip, perhaps he could be
persuaded to answer two questions:

  1) Is the memo printed at the end of the article "Colorado UFO
fiasco" by Curtis Fuller beginning on page 30 of the magazine
'Fate' (Septemher 1968) an accurate transcription or copy of a
memo written by Robert J. Low concerning the UFO projeet at the
University of Colorado ?

  2) Is Low the author of this project's report, or otherwise
associated with it in some capacity in the past or now?

                                            J. B. HATCHER
                                   3104 Silver Lake Road,
                            Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418