!! spellx done
New York Times  1 June  1986
5/17/86

  In their op-ed "Back to Science Advisers" on May 17, Hans A. Bethe
and John Bardeen argue for the restoration of "PSAC", a president's
science advisory committee that was dismantled by President Nixon
in 1972.  I am in full agreement with the view that this has
seriously diminished the quality, breadth and impact of scientific
advice to the president, in an era when this is most needed.  Bethe
and Bardeen did not, however, explore some political realities that
must be recognized and honored if a PSAC is to be effective.

  Above all is the authentic need for a president to have advisers
whose discretion and confidence can be trusted, however deeply they
may disagree with him on specific issues.  He deserves advisers who
can bring a range of well-informed critical views to executive
policy-making.  He is unlikely to confide in them, however, if they
criticize his judgments in public as well as in private counsels.
Even if they meticulously respect national security classification
of data, their prestige as members of PSAC will give them advantages
in public debate that a president would be loath to enhance for his
critics.  By the same token, that prestige should not be exploited to
win public support for the president's final policy positions.

  Discreet counsellors can be found as readily or more among
scientists, as among domestic and foreign policy advisers.  Academic
scientists may be exposed to special pressures on campus, and from
the press and the Congress, that could undermine their confidential
relationship to the president.  For many, especially those who are
critical of a given administration's policies, the prospect of being
muzzled in public expression of their critical views may place them
in a grave dilemma.

  These issues have been successfully faced up to during the many
years during which PSAC thrived.  Bethe and Bardeen are among this
country's most respected scientists. They have, as is entirely
appropriate, publically voiced their own convictions critical of the
SDI.  It would have helped to clarify the case for PSAC had they also
articulated how members of a PSAC should not have the same privilege.


			Joshua Lederberg.