Chapter 29 21 Peace - 1

academic rich In public, Pauling could be considered a complete victory.He forced a step back from the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee, which no longer dared to threaten Congress with contempt of Congress.Todd's desperate attempt to slander Pauling doesn't seem to have had much effect; most of the news media dismissed his trite accusations.Less than a month after the hearings ended, Kennedy won the race for the White House, and American politics was about to take a new direction.The Pauling hearings were effectively the last attempt at a witch hunt against dissidents in the name of anti-communism.

Pauling's firm stand made him a great hero in the peace movement.Two weeks after the clash with the Senate home security subcommittee, the National Committee for Sound Nuclear Policy organized a rally in New York that spontaneously turned into an honor for Pauling.Hearing that Pauling was going to speak at the conference, more than 2,000 people crowded into the ballroom of the hotel yacht club, and hundreds of people crowded into several nearby rooms to listen to his speech through loudspeakers.In addition, hundreds of people left angrily after being dissuaded.Everyone wants to see for themselves the man who beat the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee.In order to support Pauling's spirit of daring to fight in Congress, tens of thousands of local college students signed a petition.When Pauling took over the petition, the audience applauded enthusiastically.They listened attentively to Pauling's personal experience of struggling with the subcommittee.Pauling's call for an end to war forever and the restoration of human rights won the cheers and applause of the audience.He has learned something from his own experience. 'The struggle for peace,' he told the audience, 'cannot be separated from the struggle for freedom. "

The fight against the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee was won.From then on, Pauling could put his flag to rest, let his horse go to Nanshan, and put this experience behind him.However, he cannot do this.Having endured the torment of being questioned by others, and facing the despicable tricks that deliberately slandered his reputation, his personality has been greatly insulted.Pauling was furious, thinking that all this was the resurgence of McCarthyism.Not only did he not walk away, on the contrary, he was more energetic than before.He continued to lobby everywhere, frequently appeared on TV, attacked Todd, repeatedly accused the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee and the House Un-American Activities Committee of "immorality", and scolded the senator as "a jerk".

"As far as I know, we have only a few thousand Communists in the United States, compared to millions in France and Italy," Pauling wrote shortly after Todd's hearing. "I really don't understand how the American people are endangered by thousands of Communists. The Communists may become a threat to our human rights and freedom. We should be sober about this, and we must remain vigilant when the situation is serious. . . . (but) the anti-communist repressive forces are now in a position of power and are therefore even more of a threat—they are now depriving us of our legitimate rights.” At this point, Pauling devoted part of his time to Cancel the activities of this type of investigative committee, and make up your mind to deal with these old enemies who are about to die.

However, Todd fought back.Although Pauling succeeded in delaying the publication of the report of the last Senate hearing—there had been some debate in early 1961 about including the opening statement and other relevant material that Todd did not read—then Pauling The German-led subcommittee issued a separate report anyway, covering the Pugwash movement, outlining the dubious backgrounds of some of its participants, and devoting more than nine pages to Pauling's "obvious inclination towards the cause of communism .The original subcommittee report, published in March 1961, included the full text of Todd's opening statement.Accompanying this article was a press release from the Subcommittee stating, "We have reason to suspect that the organization of the Communist Party played a significant role.” The evidence provided in the article is mainly Pauling’s history of contacts with the left. "In the peaceful offensive of our Communists in our country, Pauling has played the leading role of the scientific community in almost every major event," the report concluded, and there are a series of signs that it is not all " It happened by accident or without his awareness."Fearing that Pauling's colleagues would not understand what it meant, Todd offered copies of the report to members of the National Academy of Sciences and other eminent scientists.

"Slandering ... slander ... is the worst slander I've ever seen," Welling told Pauling after reading the report.Pauling fully agrees with this view.The next day, he sent a letter to the Humane Society of the United States, lashing out at Todd's actions, asking him or any other member of the subcommittee if he would dare to waive the immunity of congressmen so that Pauling could sue them.Pauling had also said earlier that he could have an open debate with Todd. Pauling's reactions also extended to those who followed Todd's lead, including newspaper articles wagging lips on the heels of the subcommittee, and conversational statements that Pauling believed discredited him. “Some newspapers have become accomplices to the resurgence of McCarthyism,” he said. "These newspapers should be closed." To this end, he fought again single-handedly.Over the next year, he and his lawyers filed five lawsuits.He demanded $60,000 in damages from the Bellingham, Washington Herald for publishing letters to the editorial office expressing doubts about Pauling's patriotism; Because the organization published a pamphlet based on the report of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee; the St. Louis Global Democracy published an editorial against Pauling, who demanded tens of thousands of dollars in damages; Lin is a pro-communist "semi-public American mouthpiece", and he demanded another $500,000 in damages; he also demanded $1 million in damages from Hearst Newspapers Group and King's Newspaper Syndicate because the old right-wing columnist who has been against Pauling A friend, Fulton Lewis Jr., wrote an article attacking him.

The entanglements with the Senate Homeland Security subcommittee and other unhappiness, including the cliffhanger, made Pauling thin and thin.Whereas before he generally shrugged off criticism, he is now sensitive to criticism, whether it comes from the right or the left.In the two years since his Senate hearing, he has offended many of his former allies in the cause of peace.He resigned as founder of the National Committee for Sound Nuclear Policy and stopped talking to founder Norman Cousins, arguing he had bowed to Todd.He seriously considered whether to sue the Transactions of the Atomic Scientists for $1 million.Pauling had at one point helped the journal through Einstein's Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, but instead it published an article in which Bentley Glass, a prominent antinuclear activist, He confuses Teller, arguing that both scientists were tainted with ulterior motives and tinged with their own politics when interpreting the nuclear test data.The magazine's editorial staff spent weeks trying to persuade Pauling to drop the lawsuit.Pauling had little contact with the journal or its editor, Eugène Robinovich, for many years after that.He also fell out with the organizers of the Pugwash conference because they insisted on inviting Glass, Robinovitch, and others whom he disapproved of; Political forums for the free and open expression of new ideas have been reduced to parrot-like reiterations of official government lines.

Another factor in his altered sensibility may have been Eva Helen.Ideologically, Eva has always been more left than her husband.She personally believes that old-fashioned peace groups based on religious beliefs are "reactionary," and that new groups like the National Committee for Sound Nuclear Policy are no better.None of these organizations were willing to base their anti-nuclear testing activities on a critique of capitalist society.She thought, if you don't change the economic system that breeds war, how can you eliminate war?At this time, when Pauling criticized American society, his words became more sharp.Capitalism is a factor, plus the dirty dealings between the defense industry and the authorities in Washington.Why are some people opposed to banning nuclear tests? "There is no question that making Cold War profits was an important motivation," he notes.

In Pauling's mind, there is no one more despicable in the world than an educated person, especially a scientist, who gains ill-gotten gains from wars and people's suffering.He picked up a new term from a news publication and began using it in his own speeches: "academic plutocrats."There are about a hundred or so scientists who have used their research talents to amass wealth for themselves in the defense industry.In Pauling's eyes, these academic tycoons, like Teller, sold themselves for glory, and their appearance was a symbol of the corruption and degeneration of a once noble industry.

However, apart from himself, there are only Eva, Russell and a few active friends who can observe the problem from such a condescending position.It appears that in the pure cause of opposition to nuclear weapons, no one has reached their heights. Pauling still enjoyed great prestige—for example, in 1960, the Rationalist Society named him Rationalist of the Year for that year; One of the scientists named "Person of the Year"—but, as leader of the peace movement, he has become more of a free cannon than a hero, a respected The welcome speaker, a counterweight to Teller, is also an unpredictable, independent and increasingly quarrelsome.Someone who feels more comfortable the further away from the leftist core.

Kennedy, Oslo, Brain Ice The new president of the United States has not escaped Pauling's sharp eyes.Pauling, a longtime supporter of Stevenson, remained tepid about the aggressive young senator from Massachusetts. In 1960, there were some private discussions about electing Pauling as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize (in a mock ballot by Stanford students, he got 152 votes from 3,000 self-reported candidates), but He thought it was a joke.He told supporters — some of whom later suggested he could run for Senate or mayor of Los Angeles — that he was not a politician. In order to push forward the long-stalled Geneva negotiations, Kennedy at least expressed his emotions appropriately.Soon after he took office, he established the Bureau of Arms Control and Disarmament. "I personally speak highly of the desire of our new president to achieve disarmament," Pauling wrote shortly after the presidential campaign.Kennedy was also gracious, inviting Pauling and 166 "Americans of creative contribution" to the presidential inauguration in Washington in early 1961.Pauling was unable to attend due to other appointments, but he was still quite touched. After all, this was a new gesture. For 12 years, he had always been looked down upon by the White House.He sent a reply to the invitation, along with a personal note: "I am delighted to join in welcoming and congratulating you on your election, our great hope for world peace." His hopes were not lost. In 1961, Kennedy delivered a speech at the United Nations, challenging the Soviets as president: "No arms race, but a peaceful race." As a start, atmospheric nuclear testing could be banned.At the same time, Kennedy once again enriched the US peace negotiating team in Geneva, sending Arthur Dean as the chief negotiator, demanding "a new effort and the greatest determination." Although these are positive signs, Pauling believes that the relevant parties must continue to exert pressure.Kennedy was talking about banning nuclear tests, but his men were still talking about supplying nuclear weapons to NATO, as a further reminder to the Soviets that they could not win a ground war in Europe.There are also reports that the Chinese are also developing an atomic bomb.According to Pauling, the phenomenon of possible proliferation of nuclear technology represents a new and very dangerous tendency.The more countries that have nuclear weapons, or the means to produce them, the more likely it is that there will be a nuclear accident, theft of nuclear technology, or insane catastrophe. Convinced that Kennedy was effectively negotiating a test ban, Pauling turned to a new goal in early 1961: stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Paulings decided the best course of action would be a new petition.With the help of several active friends, Pauling drafted an appeal calling for an end to the arming of the NATO bloc with nuclear weapons, a solid step in the direction of general disarmament, a stronger role for the United Nations, and its A force for world peace.They titled it "A Appeal to Stop Nuclear Proliferation" and immediately sent it to the 2,000 scientists who had signed their previous petition.The address and recipient's name on the envelope were all filled out by the Paulings at their kitchen table. Within a month, Pauling received more than 700 signatures from all over the world, including 38 Nobel Prize winners and 110 members of the National Academy of Sciences.This is a good start. On February 16, Pauling delivered the petition to Hammarskjöld at the United Nations.On the same day, they also discreetly circulated a brochure to the press detailing how the petition was launched and where the funds came from. Subsequently, Pauling cleverly used the broadness of the United Nations representatives and began to seek the support of people all over the world.He asked representatives of various countries to solicit hundreds of thousands of signatures through the media.Signatures should finally arrive by mid-April, when NATO representatives meet in Oslo to discuss nuclear arming.A petition of this magnitude has never been seen before. However, even though it was a petition on an unprecedented scale in history, Pauling was still not satisfied in his heart.In order to focus the world's attention on this issue, he decided to hold an international peace conference in Oslo on the eve of the NATO meeting.This meeting must return to the spirit of the Pugwash meeting, and invite respected scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain to participate, to show the world that militarism is by no means the only way to ease international tensions.The preparations for the convention could be made in Pasadena, and his friends who were enthusiastic about the event could be asked to act as organizers.They hoped to provoke "a roar of protest" from people all over the world, he wrote in the minutes of a preparatory meeting held at Pauling's apartment. Planning the convention, rostering the attendees, arranging their transportation, and raising funds for the conference, Pauling spent much of the rest of the spring doing just that.He first wrote to the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, Garner Jahn, and asked him to agree to open the Nobel Academy as a meeting place.He persuaded Schweitzer, Russell, and twenty other eminent persons to serve as sponsors for the meeting.He titled the meeting "a conference to study the possible spread of nuclear weapons to further states or groups of states"—although others refer to it as the Oslo conference.He started raising another $30,000 for the convention.In the end, the Paulings had to pay a large sum of money for the meeting out of their own pockets. During this time, Pauling celebrated his first birthday at a party arranged for him by Eva.He was so excited that night, surrounded by old friends, colleagues and former students.They have been scattered and many have not been seen for many years.Among those who came to the evening was a particularly popular man named David Harker, a student of Pauling in the 1990s and later a rival in protein research.Both Huck and Pauling have experienced their glorious years and their downfalls. Now, Huck recalls the anecdotes and anecdotes of his student days, which aroused bursts of laughter. The sentence that left the deepest impression on everyone Became Pauling's famous saying.Huck asked his mentor at the time: "Dr. Pauling, how do you have so many good ideas?" Pauling thought for a while, and replied: "Oh, David, I have a lot of ideas, and the bad ones I was thrown out of the sky." Pauling is still the same.Although his activism for peace was enough to keep many investigative committees busy, he still managed to find some time for scientific work. He revised "University Chemistry" and published a new version of this textbook.He told friends that he was going to write a new book on the basics of molecular science.A research project in psychiatry was in the final stages of a five-year Ford grant, but he had little to show for it.Repeated urine analysis and blood tests on psychotic patients have revealed some promising signs, but not yet a simple solution that could be applied clinically to what he believes is a cure for phenylketonuria.Urine and blood have a wide variety of chemical compositions that cannot be effectively analyzed using existing technologies.The analyzes that can be done show that the chemical composition of these complex fluids varies greatly from person to person, so that it is very difficult to determine which specific factor is directly responsible for the disease in terms of mental disorders. Regarding the function of the brain, Pauling once proposed a rather important new insight, but unfortunately it has little relationship with the topic of psychiatric research.For years he had pondered a conclusion he had heard from a physician in 1952, that xenon was a wonderful anesthetic.He attaches great importance to it, because according to his own experience, xenon is the least reactive noble gas in nature.How can an element that does not react chemically with any element have such miraculous biological effects? Seven years later, he finally found the answer.While browsing a paper on the crystalline structure of an alkyl-substituted hydrochloride with a long-chain structure, it occurred to him that water might be the answer to that anesthetic problem.Previously, he had shown that water molecules could gather around molecules of several other elements of appropriate size to form hydrates.This is a polyhedral-shaped framework with its molecules at its core, and its properties are clearly different from ordinary water.Hydrates behave in some ways like ice crystals.What happens if stable hydrates form around protein side chains in the brain, allowing nitrogen to act as an anesthetic? Such crystals may hinder the movement of adjacent protein side chains and ions, reducing the amplitude of brain wave oscillations, leading to loss of consciousness.Metaphorically speaking, xenon freezes brain activity. Over the next year, Pauling read a great deal of literature, and he realized that not only was his theory new in the field of anesthesia, but it also applied to many other anesthetics such as chloroform and nitric oxide, which consist of hydrates. .The fact that lowering the temperature of the brain can also have an anesthetic-like effect is a strong support for his theory.In both cases, Pauling thought, the result might be related to the formation of crystallites. In the spring of 1960, he began drafting a thesis—and tasked one of his new students with trying to find the evidence.The student was Frank Catchpool, the former medical director under Schweitzer, who later came to Caltech with Pauling.At the two meetings, Pauling introduced the preliminary results, and his ideas were well received by the participants, which made him very encouraged.A leading anesthetist called the results "very ingenious" and "fascinating".Pauling decided to publish these ideas in a journal, even though Catchpool had yet to find any strong evidence.His paper, entitled "A Molecular Theory of General Anesthesia," appeared in the July 1961 issue of Science.Pauling regards it as the most important work he has done since the study of protein structure ten years ago.In order to prove the correctness of his results, he transferred more manpower from his own laboratory to research on this subject. Low temperature is conducive to crystallization, and the requirement for anesthesia can be reduced.In order to test this theory, a research team under Pauling conducted a series of experiments using goldfish as experimental animals.Dozens of goldfish are placed in bowls, which are dripped with a certain dose of anesthetics and equipped with instruments for temperature control.The researchers watched the bowls closely, checking the temperature and discussing whether each goldfish had truly lost consciousness.Seeing this scene, the senior chemists in the chemistry department shook their heads and expressed their puzzlement. Pauling's research progress in other areas is not great.He was juggling the cause of peace and hearings before the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee, but he still managed to finish revisions to the third edition of "The Nature of the Chemical Bond" before the deadline.This edition was not warmly received by the critics.The book still does not discuss Mulliken's molecular orbital theory, but this theory was accepted by more and more chemists at that time.This time, reviewers began to accuse Pauling of this blind and evasive attitude, and Pauling argued that the molecular orbital theory was too mathematical for him to treat it in general—“I am intent on making this book The book is easier to understand," he wrote to one reviewer—however, several journalists provided him with a few simple examples of the application of molecular orbital theory, showing that lengthy calculations are not necessarily necessary, It was only then that Pauling retracted his statement, and began to talk about the theory of molecular orbitals that he paid more attention to when preparing for the fourth edition. However, by this point it had already had a considerable impact.Pauling, as the pioneer of chemical bond theory, now seems to be out of date. "In the third edition, he basically didn't—nor wanted to—touch on topics that were already popular at the time. Far from being an oversight, it was largely down to his prejudices," says his former A student commented. "Based on the feeling I got, I guess, that's how other people who look up to Pauling feel too, and it's a shame." Still, the Oslo meeting that spring lifted Pauling's spirits again.About 35 physicists and biologists from 15 countries, as well as 25 social scientists, participated in the meeting, including 4 representatives from the Soviet Union.Garner Jain and representatives of the Nobel Institute attended the conference as observers and expressed their appreciation for Pauling's smooth presidency of the meeting.As the culmination of the conference, a public outline was unanimously adopted that briefly stated its goals.The "Oslo Statement" called on countries that now have nuclear weapons to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries and groups of countries, to completely ban nuclear tests, to implement general and comprehensive disarmament, and to study how to transition from a militarized economy to a demilitarized economy.As a result of the meeting, a public meeting was held in the large Aura conference hall of the University of Oslo, attended by more than five hundred people.At the meeting, the statement was read out.Due to Pauling's outstanding public relations skills, the American news media made extensive reports on the meeting. "Nearly everything was done flawlessly," Pauling could not help saying at the close of the conference. "The Oslo conference was fantastic." A torchlight parade took place through the streets, which was the icing on the cake. Besieged In September 1961, the Soviets began nuclear tests again.When Pauling heard the news on a news program, he immediately called Khrushchev to ask the Soviets to reconsider their decision "in the name of science." Khrushchev did not listen to him.Kennedy followed with his own proclamation, announcing that the United States might be forced to resume nuclear testing—underground nuclear testing, he said, that would not emit radioactivity.Pauling sent numerous indignant cables and letters to the leaders of both countries.Point out the danger of radioactive fallout and persuade them to stop nuclear testing in the name of mankind.In his rambling eight-page reply, Khrushchev blamed everything on the West's decision to rearm Germany.Kennedy was silent. Between September and November, the Soviets brazenly conducted the most insane series of nuclear tests the world has ever seen.In one test, the magnitude was as high as 58 million tons.According to Pauling's estimates, the resulting radioactivity may cause 160,000 children to have birth defects, and the increase in carbon-14 content alone is enough to cause 4 million miscarriages, stillbirths and childbirths in the next few generations. defect. "This is tantamount to the murder of millions of people," Pauling told the media. "Compared to the fascists sending Jews to the gas chambers." At this time, Pauling planned to make a visit to the Soviet Union. Long before this new round of nuclear tests, he had been invited to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of Russian science by Lomonosov.Pauling didn't want to refuse the invitation to protest the Soviets' experiments. He thought it would be better to take this opportunity to open the channel of information exchange and preach the importance of peace to the Soviets.He also reminded Soviet chemists: his chemical bond theory is correct, and the timing may not be good, but he always felt that increasing rational discussions is an effective way to deal with international issues; yes, 1961 was the Bay of Pigs incident. The year of the Berlin Wall was also the year of the construction of the Berlin Wall, but Pauling wanted to show through his visit that in international relations, there are better methods than intimidation and intimidation.He wants to develop a diplomacy with his own characteristics. However, when he went to the Soviet embassy in France to apply for a visa, the staff there refused him without any explanation.Seeing that his trip to the Soviet Union was in danger of being cancelled, he had no choice but to go to Yugoslavia to attend an academic conference as planned.During the meeting, a Russian scientist explained the reason to him: "In Paris, you go to our embassy and say that you are Linus Pauling (Pauling used to pronounce his name like this when he was in Europe. ). Linus Pauling is a representative of idealism in the Western capitalist world. The chemical theory he created is incompatible with dialectical materialism, so no patriotic Soviet scientist would use this theory. You should Tell me, you are Linus Pauling, a great friend of the Soviet Union and a man who fought for world peace." Pauling corrected the pronunciation of his name, and the visa was granted. Pauling arrived in Moscow in the second half of November, just in time for the grand celebrations in Lomonosov's memory.Afterwards, he stayed in this country for nearly a month, sightseeing and giving various lectures at the same time.He gave twelve academic lectures—two of which were dedicated to the merits of his "rotten" resonance theory—and gave a public speech on peace to an assembly of a thousand Muscovites.In his speech, both he and Eva expressed their opposition to the resumption of nuclear testing.After much coverage in the Soviet press—Eva in particular, portrayed by some publications as a role model for the peace-loving American woman—they both had a great time during this time.They watched Bolshevik ballets, visited churches and schools, talked with peace activists, and attended many banquets.The only disappointment was that they repeatedly asked to see Khrushchev but failed to do so.However, they had tea with Khrushchev's wife and once spoke on the same stage. In the United States, some people often accused Pauling of being too "soft" towards the Soviet Union, and the American media also played up this image a lot.They ignored the fact that Pauling had protested to Khrushchev, and caught on to his similar protests against Kennedy.To a certain extent, especially compared with the mainstream of American public opinion, Pauling is relatively moderate.Needless to say, he does not think communism is inferior to capitalism; he sees the two systems as two forms of politics-economy, a bit like matrix mechanics and wave mechanics, or like chemistry with valence-bond theory or molecular The method of one-track theory——On the surface, the two concepts are very different, but when they are perfected in depth, they lead to the same goal by different routes.He believed that both systems would eventually look a lot like Swedish socialism. Although he could be harshly critical of the Soviet government—blaming them publicly for mistreating the Jews, suppressing the Hungarian uprising, implementing Stalinist purges, using political dogma to limit the development of science, and punishing "economic crimes" with the death penalty, in his words, There were also many examples of "a great power acting immorally" - he still found himself liking the Russian people, their friendliness and pragmatism, their sincere desire for peace.He and Eva heard the Soviets explain why there was an arms race: They were told that the United States had taken the lead in new weapons—the first to make the atomic bomb, the first to make the hydrogen bomb, the first to make Unleashing the uranium bomb - for the survival of the country, the Soviet Union can only catch up.Both of them were deeply moved by this.The analysis of the United States as the primary cause of the arms race became an integral part of Pauling's thinking in the 1960s. There is also an element of common sense in Pauling's focus on US policy. "Whenever I criticize the Soviet government," he said, "I always feel dissatisfied with what the U.S. government is doing because I'm an American . . . Compared with others, their wives and children, I feel that the requirements for my own family should be stricter. Therefore, I think that criticizing the US government should be more severe than criticizing the Soviet government." In addition, he added, " I can hardly hope that the use of criticism will have much effect on the Soviet government." In the second half of November, the intermittent negotiations on the test ban in Geneva started again, but neither side held much optimism.