Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wendy Swanberg
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Submitted to the History Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Annual Conference, Chicago IL
August 2008
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Abstract
In March of 1950, the U.S, Atomic Energy Commission forcibly destroyed a 3,000-copy
run of the popular magazine, Scientific American. At issue were a few lines of technical
information about the hydrogen bomb, written by physicist Dr. Hans Bethe as part of a Scientific
American series on the worldwide implications of the controversial nuclear weapon -- commonly
The magazine’s publisher Gerard Piel objected, insisting the article in question contained
only information that previously had been made public elsewhere. While Piel ultimately conceded
to government demands, his was an early voice of dissent in the relative government-press
complicity of the early Cold War. Before long the AEC’s censorship animated a simmering
discourse among scientists, journalists, and government officials about warfare in the atomic age,
and about the parameters of press freedom in the uneasy peace after World War II. The debates
that followed in 1950 resemble the more famous discussions that arose nearly thirty years later,
with the 1979 censorship of The Progressive magazine for its technical article on the H-Bomb.
Focusing on the role of journalist and publisher Gerard Piel, this essay will explore the
near-forgotten censorship of Scientific American in 1950 in light of the broader debate about civil
liberty and national security taking place among three groups of professionals during the early
Cold War. It also will compare briefly this censorship’s context with that of the 1979 Progressive
case. Using news accounts, congressional testimony, oral history, and the records of the American
Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), this paper describes the struggles encountered by
scientists, government officials and journalists as they confronted the intricacies of redefining First
2
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
On March 15, 1950, in the early years of the long Cold War, the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission sent an urgent telegram to the editors of the popular monthly magazine Scientific
American. The telegram directed the magazine to stop printing immediately its forthcoming April
The magazine agreed. Scientific American publisher Gerard Piel first stopped the presses,
then demanded an explanation. He was told that the AEC – which recently had been granted
broad regulatory authority over all atomic information in the country -- was concerned that certain
technical material in an article on the H-bomb, written by renowned nuclear physicist Dr. Hans
Bethe, was “restricted data” that must not be disclosed. Piel disagreed, insisting that Bethe’s
article contained only information that either was common scientific knowledge or previously had
been made public elsewhere. But the government insisted on suppressing publication, and after
hasty arrangements a group of AEC security officers arrived at the printing plant to supervise
destruction of the offending article. Some days later Gerard Piel described the censorship process
to the New York Times: “A total of thirty-two pages were cut apart and burned in the incinerator,”
the Times reported. In addition to destroying the 3,000 magazine copies themselves, the AEC
brought the linotype slugs to the “smelting room,” destroyed the printing plates, and confiscated
1
Gerard Piel, “Need for Public Understanding of Science.” Science, New Series, Vol. 121, No.
3140 (March 4, 1955), pp. 318.
2
The Grenwich facility was operated by Conde Nast Publications. See William R. Conklin, “U.S.
Censors H-Bomb Data; 3,000 Magazine Copies Burnt.” New York Times, 1 April 1950, p. 1. Piel’s oral
history recollection places the facility in Hartford, CT.
3
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
the complete “galley, page and foundry” proofs.3 In short, the government destroyed all printing
From a modern vantage, such heavy-handed censorship may seem a clear breach of the
First Amendment’s protection against prior restraint of the press. But as this essay will illustrate,
the circumstances surrounding Bethe’s article were exceptional, and 1950 was a singular year in
the history of America’s nuclear enterprise. In addition, the American judicial system never
wrestled with this particular censorship case, for despite some talk that Piel wanted to challenge
the AEC in on First Amendment grounds, the matter was never litigated.5
Circumstances were quite different three decades later when a similar instance arose – the
now-famous case of The Progressive magazine’s censored article, “The H-Bomb Secret: How We
Got It, Why We Are Telling It.”6 In that 1979 case a freelance writer for The Progressive had
prepared a meticulously researched article illustrating, in detail, the design and construction of a
hydrogen bomb. The federal government, this time through the Department of Energy, sued to
stop publication. Unlike Scientific American three decades earlier, The Progressive fought the
censorship in court, insisting that its article contained no classified data and therefore posed no
present danger. Eventually the Progressive case was litigated in a federal district court in the
magazine’s home state of Wisconsin. While it never went before the U.S. Supreme Court, United
States v. Progressive, Inc.7 holds a unique place in the canon of First Amendment law as the first
3
New York Times, 1 April 1950, p. 1.
4
The hydrogen bomb (which in 1950 had not yet been perfected) operates by nuclear fusion,
rather than by the nuclear fission process used in all prior atomic bombs. The H-bomb would be many
times more powerful than the A-bomb.
5
In discussions with the New York Times, Piel reportedly said, “If the Commission makes it an
issue, this case may go before the United States Supreme Court.” New York Times, 1 April 1950, p. 7.
6
This was the title as originally proposed by The Progressive’s freelance writer Howard
Morland. The article Morland eventually published in November 1979 was titled, “The H-bomb Secret:
To know how is to ask why.” The Progressive, November 1979, p. 14 et seq.
7
U.S. v. Progressive, 467 F. Supp. 990 (1979).
4
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
occasion in American history where a court used the tool of “preliminary injunction” to stop a
In both of these matters, then, an American magazine had planned to print detailed
scientific information about the hydrogen bomb, and in both instances a government agency
intervened to stop publication. In both cases the government alleged that the objectionable
material was “restricted data,” while the authors and publishers insisted the information was
already in the public domain and posed no danger to national security. From there, the cases
differ considerably -- in the eras of their occurrence, the motives of the censored authors, the state
of nuclear science at the time, the political context of the censorship, and the evolution of First
Amendment jurisprudence. Some of those differences will be discussed in the body of this essay.
But one similarity is striking in both its fundamental nature and its force, a tenet as quietly central
to the significance of these cases as it is to the functional role of the First Amendment. It is a
notion put forth by the authors of both articles: That any future use of the hydrogen bomb was a
serious matter of public policy in which the stakes were immeasurably high. Therefore, it was not
sufficient for determinations about the H-bomb to be made by a handful of government men
huddled in secrecy. If the American people were to make informed and prudent decisions about
nuclear weaponry, it was imperative that they understand the science behind the bomb.
8
See comments by David Rudenstine, dean of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, in
“Symposium” Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press: Seminal
Issues as Viewed Through the Lens of The Progressive Case.” Cardozo Law Review (Vol. 26, No. 4.,
March 2005), p. 1338. This symposium was convened to explore concerns about government secrecy
surrounding the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The issues discussed in the 2005 symposium parallel closely
those addressed in both the 1979 Progressive matter and the lesser-known 1950 Scientific American
matter, underscoring the complexity and tenacity of tensions between press freedom and national security.
5
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Anyone who knew Gerard Piel in 1950 would not have been surprised to find him at odds
with the government on matters of science and secrecy. Piel was trained as both an historian and a
science journalist. He graduated magna cum laude with a history degree from Harvard University
in 1937, then fell into science journalism almost by happenstance after an editorial traineeship at
Time, Inc. Eventually Piel became a science editor for Life magazine, where he honed his passions
both for history and for science journalism. Some have gone so far as to assert that Gerard Piel
“virtually invented modern science journalism” by combining the rigor of scientific explanation
Then in 1947, moved by a personal concern for the role of science in American public life,
Piel brought together a group of investors to purchase and renovate Scientific American magazine,
which recently had been put up for sale after a long and respectable run. Initially, Piel had
intended to start a new magazine called “The Sciences.” But his colleague Dennis Flanagan, a
fellow science editor for Life, learned through a family connection that the venerable monthly
Scientific American was about to be sold. Piel and Flanagan ultimately changed course and
decided to launch their new magazine as a reincarnation of Scientific American – a decision aided
by the fact that the magazine’s assets included a Manhattan address and a working telephone line,
9
Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, recorded between 1 July 1981 and 28 August 1996, Columbia
University Oral History Research Office Collection (hereinafter CUOHROC), 188.
10
See the obituaries for Piel at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0908piel.shtml;and
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/obituaries/07piel.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/P
/Piel,%20Gerard. Piel has his own observations about the need for a journalistic sensibility to convey
scientific information to the public. “There is a certain amount of autism,” he recalled, “in the writings
that we get from the scientists.” See Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, CUOHROC, 180.
6
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
amenities hard to come by in the immediate postwar years.11 So with the help of a handful of
Their first issue of the new magazine, published in May 1948, scarcely resembled its
predecessor. The former Scientific American had been in continuous publication since 1845; it
was a popular periodical for many years and at one point was considered at the top of its craft.
But by the 1940s circulation had fallen steeply, and the magazine gradually was “outdistanced by
or hobbycraft science. 12 Piel himself held a harsher view: “The old magazine consisted largely of
press handouts from large corporations,” he noted, “and speeches written by the Public Relations
Piel and Flanagan’s first reformulated issue in 1948 was another creature altogether – a
sleek, visually attractive blend of in-depth technical articles, science news briefs, national
commentary, and sophisticated graphics -- including the striking four-color cover that would
become the magazine’s hallmark.14 From the start Piel and Flanagan set their editorial standards
high, soliciting articles from top researchers in science and engineering. “Piel clearly foresaw the
rise of a new breed of technological man,” wrote Time magazine. “It was his conviction that a
magazine beamed at this burgeoning breed would grow right along with it.”15
By 1950, the year of the censorship in question, the new Scientific American had hit a
stride. Its readership and advertising revenue were growing and its format and layout had begun
11
John Rennie, “Dennis Flanagan: A Proud ‘Renaissance Hack,” Scientific American, 25 January
2005. Piel’s own description of the procurement of Scientific American is full of color and detail,
particularly with regard to the initial group of investors. See Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, 148-165.
12
“Transfusion,” Time magazine, 6 October 1947.
13
Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, 161, sic.
14
The magazine became famous for its beautiful, artful covers. One good online compilation of
cover art can be found at http://west-penwith.org.uk/misc/sciam2.htm
15
“Window on the Frontier,” Time, 21 December 1959.
7
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
to stabilize. One significant feature was a monthly section called “Science and the Citizen,” a
roundup of news highlighting the relevance of science to everyday life. Many of the section’s
brief articles dealt with general news -- developments in things like color television, the polio
vaccine, the Nobel Prize competition, even the release of L. Ron Hubbard’s first Scientology
book, Dianetics. But over the course of the year1950, in what appears to be an editorial shift or at
least an editorial concentration, more and more space in “Science and the Citizen” was devoted to
matters of atomic science and nuclear weaponry, and often included commentary on the political
aspects of nuclear science. A sampling of article titles illustrates the new focus of “Science and
the Citizen:”
• The Specter of Defense (about civil defense plans for nuclear attack)
• Radiological Warfare16
Scientific American was moving beyond the realm of pure science and further into the
realm of science as cultural and political force, with nuclear matters at the heart. Of chief concern
was the growing government restriction on scientists’ ability to exchange information with one
another, and the fear that such restriction would lead to bad science. This became a recurring topic
for the magazine. Nowhere was this editorial priority more evident than in a four-part series of
16
Scientific American, various issues January 1950 - December 1950.
8
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
articles, beginning in March 1950, devoted to frank discussion of the hydrogen bomb – the series
Given the tenor of the times, Gerard Piel’s decision to commission this series in the spring
of 1950 was notable for its context amid the string of events that preceded it. The previous
September, President Harry S. Truman announced that the Soviets had detonated their first-ever
atomic fission bomb, ending America’s nuclear monopoly and raising the Cold War ante. (It
should be reiterated that the bombs used in WWII were atomic fission bombs, while the new
hydrogen bomb would operate using the more volatile and powerful process of atomic fusion.) 17
In January 1950, former Los Alamos physicist Klaus Fuchs confessed to having passed American
nuclear secrets to the Soviets, and former State Department official Alger Hiss was convicted of
perjury in a communist espionage trial. That same month, to the surprise of many scientists,
Truman directed the AEC to proceed with development of the hydrogen bomb.18 In February,
Sen. Joseph McCarthy gave his now-famous speech alleging communist infiltration of the
government.19 In March, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring the FBI to screen
certain scientists for loyalty.20 Meanwhile, rumblings of war were intensifying between Soviet-
backed North Korea and U.S.-backed South Korea.21 The communist enemy was all around us in
1950, and pressure to increase government secrecy was prodigiously high. To many, the Soviets’
uncertainty about America’s mysterious new H-bomb seemed a valuable strategic advantage for
17
See Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986),
767.
18
Ibid, 768; also Jessica Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety, (Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press, 1999) 236-238.
19
McCarthy’s speech on 9 February 1950 before the Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling,
West Virginia is widely considered to have launched the senator’s anticommunist career.
20
The bill referred to employees of the National Science Foundation. See Wang, 257.
21
When the Korean conflict (for the conflict was never technically a “war”) began with North
Korea’s invasion of South Korea, Scientific American had just published the fourth article on the H-
Bomb.
9
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
the United States. So when Scientific American published its first technical article on the H-bomb
Before exploring the details of Scientific American’s series of H-bomb articles, more must
be said about the state of conversation at the government level. Although American
anticommunism was growing and fears of Soviet designs were widespread, not everyone in the
executive and legislative branches was of the same mind about how to proceed. In fact, this
period presents a rare Cold War glimpse at some frank discussion about the dangers of too much
secrecy. Certain members of Congress, and some officials in Truman’s own administration, were
openly skeptical about the direction the country was taking and its implications for the democratic
process.23 Where Piel and his colleagues worried about the corrosive effect secrecy was having on
the integrity of science and the free exchange of research, some U.S. politicians worried about the
corrosive effect secrecy might have on democracy itself. In many ways these were parallel
arguments, both corollary to the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor: Scientific research depends
absolutely on peer review, on careful evaluation by other scientists to prevent error and to advance
knowledge. In a similar way the democratic process of self-government requires the free
22
Sen. Thomas Connally, D-TX, Hearing before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States. Eighty-first Congress, First Session on Atomic Energy Report to
Congress, February 2, 1949, p. 7.
23
For a succinct summary of the dynamic of arguments within the Truman administration, see
Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power, National Security, the Truman Administration, and the
Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 327-332. Jessica Wang provides a thorough
discussion from the view of science in American Science . . . 232-288.
10
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
exchange of ideas and a tolerance of dissent, particularly about matters relevant to public life. In
Cold War terms, this free exchange of ideas was one of the core principles distinguishing the
American system from the Soviet system. Yet the national security-civil liberty conundrum
seemed inescapable: Too little control of information and we might lend advantage to our
totalitarian enemy. Too much control, and we risked becoming totalitarian ourselves.24
The dispute about secrecy went on for a number of years and in a number of government
contexts, but one particularly succinct conversation took place before a joint congressional
committee on 2 February 1949. At this point in history Cold War tensions were well established,
and American fears of Soviet motives increasingly were part of the nation’s political and cultural
architecture. Excerpts of this 1949 congressional dialogue distill perfectly the difficulties faced by
scientists, politicians and journalists alike. The occasion was AEC Chairman David E.
Lilienthal’s 1949 report to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The congressmen speaking are
Sen TYDINGS:
It does occur to me . . . that there is a great deal to be said for not giving out information which
has to do with the improvement of the atomic-bomb-weapon. . .
Sen CONNALLY:
. . . It is a mistake, as I see it, for us to rush into the press every time we make any progress
whatever, and tell our enemies just what we are doing here . . . It has the double effect of putting
the enemy on alert, and nursing our people into a state of indifference . . .
Mr. LILIENTHAL:
It is a very difficult question because we are expending public funds.
24
This is, of course, an oversimplification of an exceedingly complex political time. One
historian places these disputes in the context of a cross-party struggle between an “older political culture”
that distrusted internationalism and military government, and the postwar “national security state.” See
Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), esp. 463-468.
11
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Sen CONNALLY:
Why is it necessary, because you spend public money, to go out and blah blah all over the country
about these bombs?
Mr. LILIENTHAL:
It is the principle of public accountability of reporting within the limits of security . . .
Sen CONNALLY:
It seems to me that one of the strong points about the atomic weapon is the fact that it creates
mystery. . .
The more we talk about them, and the more we deduce about them, the more we rush into the
papers and get a headline, the more they find out about our lack of preparation or our preparation.
And it takes away from the appeal that might otherwise be made . . .
Mr. LILIENTHAL:
Senator, this is of course a subject that is our daily difficulty, because we today live in a country
which has a habit of openness and is not inclined to secrecy. That is the kind of country it is.
What we are trying to do is balance that wholesome habit with the necessity of secrecy and the
requirements of public accountability. I am sure the Senator is aware that that is a difficult
question.
Sen TYDINGS:
I furthermore believe that the American people will not criticize the wholesome and sound
secrecy that has to do with such a devastating weapon as the atomic bomb . . . I am hoping the
day will come when we can outlaw it. Pending that day I believe we would be very wise to err on
the side of secrecy rather than publicity.
(Tydings then suggests that AEC reports be screened by CIA before release)
Mr. LILIENTHAL:
I hope you will hear us on at least, to indicate how costly this kind of secrecy will be in making
progress ourselves.
If we could have both that kind of secrecy and democracy, then obviously I would be for it.
12
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
If we could have that kind of secrecy and rapid scientific progress in our country, then we would
be all for it, but we cannot have them both and we have to decide how to modify it.25
This exchange displays the kind of genuine and often vigorous disagreement that arose in
the early Cold War among American government officials, most of whom certainly wished to
protect American interests and preserve a democratic system of government. The uncertainties
wrought by atomic weaponry had thrust the Truman administration into an unfamiliar relationship
with both the public and the press. For many government officials, the threat posed by a Soviet
nuclear program eclipsed the far less apparent threat posed by constrictions of press freedom and
government transparency.
It was against the backdrop of this political struggle about nuclear secrecy that an article
titled “The Hydrogen Bomb: Presenting an account of the theoretical background of the weapon
and a discussion of some questions it has raised in regard to our present policy of security,”
appeared in the March 1950 issue Scientific American.26 This first article (which was not
censored) was written by Louis N. Ridenour, dean of graduate studies at University of Illinois
and a physicist who had worked on radar research during the war. In the second paragraph of the
five-page article Ridenour threw down a gauntlet for the Truman administration: “On January 31
the President of the U.S. announced that he had instructed the Atomic Energy Commission to
work on the hydrogen superbomb,” he wrote. “Thus a major issue of public policy, one quite
25
Hearing before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. Eighty-
first Congress, First Session on Atomic Energy Report to Congress, February 2, 1949, p, 7-18.
26
“The Hydrogen Bomb, Scientific American, (March 1950, Vol. 182, No. 3), p.11-15.
13
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
possibly involving our national existence, was decided in a fully authoritarian way.”27 Ridenour
was unrelenting in his criticism of the secrecy surrounding development of the H-bomb program.
He went on to make the point that it was critical for the public to understand the specific
properties of the H-bomb – the physics behind its operation -- in order to engage in any kind of
meaningful discussion about whether or not it was prudent to embark on a military program to
develop the weapon. “The military and political questions . . . cannot be dissociated from the
physical problems surrounding the bomb’s design,” he argued, going on to describe that while
the fission process that gave birth to the A-bomb could be harnessed for peaceful purposes, there
were no such peaceful uses conceivable for nuclear fusion. “Thus when we discuss the
‘hydrogen bomb’ we are clearly speaking of a weapon, and a weapon only.” Since its sole
purpose was mass destruction, Ridenour maintained, the H-bomb was a beast wholly different
from its predecessor. “And we can dispose of the ‘morality’ argument at once,” he wrote.
“Once it is decided that people are to be killed, the ‘moral’ question is fully settled. . . .”28
The anger in Ridenour’s piece is unmistakable, and toward the end of the article he hinted
at something that soon would be echoed by many other scientists: That America’s H-bomb
program actually made the U.S. more vulnerable, not more secure. Hence, the national security
justification for secrecy was not legitimate. In a final paragraph he made his position clear with
A government does not adequately protect its citizens by taking decisions for them that
they can neither know about nor take part in . . .
27
Ibid, p. 11, emphasis added.
28
Ibid, p. 14.
14
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
We may appreciate the bankruptcy of our secrecy policy when we see how it excludes us
from decisions vital to us without in any way hiding the question under discussion.29
Ridenour’s points certainly invite argument, but the extraordinary thing about this article was that
Scientific American chose to print it in such contentious times, when scientists and journalists both
were under the heavy scrutiny brought on by anti-Soviet fears. No doubt Piel and his editors were
aware they might be poking a beehive, and it is reasonable to suggest that they were taking a
calculated risk.
The next article in the series proved to be riskier still: “The Hydrogen Bomb: II, In which
the technical and strategic discussion of last issue is continued, and a proposal is made for a first
step toward the international control of atomic weapons.”30 This was the article eventually
censored by the Atomic Energy Commission. Its author was one of the most accomplished
nuclear physicists in the world, German-born Hans A. Bethe, professor of physics at Cornell
University who from 1943 to 1946 was chief of the theoretical physics division at Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory, the very heart of America’s wartime nuclear weapons program. He was
among the pioneers of nuclear physics in the 1930s and one of the most credible scientists in the
world on atomic fusion, so when Bethe wrote about the H-bomb his words carried authority of the
29
Ibid, p. 15. It should be noted that the nation’s atomic scientists had been issuing warnings
about the dangers of a security policy based on atomic weaponry since shortly the bombs were dropped
on Japan. In 1946 the world’s foremost nuclear scientists published a best-selling collection of essays
addressing somber realities of atomic science and its dangers. See Dexter Masters and Katharine Way,
eds., One World or None (New York: The New Press, 2007. Originally published in 1946 by McGraw-
Hill, New York.) Between 1946 and 1950 this discord grew, coming to a head in 1948 when the House
Committee on Un-American Activities questioned the loyalty of respected physicist Edward Condon.
Wang discusses this fully in American Science. . . pp. 130-152; for a good description of the political
climate see Walter Goodman, The Committee: The Extraordinary career of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968), pp. 143-156.
30
Hans A Bethe, “The Hydrogen Bomb: II,” Scientific American (April 1950, Vol. 182, No. 4), p.
18-23. This citation refers to the censored article eventually published.
15
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
highest order.31 Bethe’s article was to be published in both Scientific American and Bulletin of the
professional courtesy.32 The pre-circulated article found its way to the AEC, prompting the
The AEC initially insisted that all technical information about the H-bomb be deleted from
the article. But Piel and his editor strenuously objected on the grounds that every one of Bethe’s
technical descriptions had been published previously and posed no threat to security. Ultimately
the AEC settled for deletion of just a few technical sentences, and the altered article was published
in the reassembled April 1950 issue. Yet reading the published article in full invites speculation
that Bethe’s political and moral statements may have caused the government at least as much
consternation as his deleted technical statements. Reflecting on Ridenour’s earlier article, Bethe
wrote, “I agree entirely with his view that the creation of the H-bomb makes our country more
vulnerable rather than more secure . . .”34 Later in the piece he issued a forthright statement of
doubt about the ultimate value of the H-bomb program: “I believe the most important question is
the moral one . . . Can we who have always insisted on morality and human decency between
nations as well as inside our own country, introduce this weapon of total annihilation into the
accompanying the article’s text show that the “blast effect” of an H-bomb was 1,000 times greater
than that of an A-bomb, and that while the “flash effect” of the A-bomb over Hiroshima caused
31
See Rhodes, 188-189; also the Bethe biography at the Nobel Foundation Web site,
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1967/bethe-bio.html
32
Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, 201.
33
Gerard Piel, address to American Society of Newspaper Editors, 21 April 1950. In Problems of
Journalism: Proceedings of the 1950 Convention, American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 20, 21,
22, Hotel Stadler, Washington, D.C., p. 148.
34
Bethe, p. 18.
35
Ibid, p. 21.
16
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
fatal burns up to 5,000 feet, the flash effect of an H-bomb could cause fatal burns at distances of
“20 miles or more.”36 “Whoever wishes to use the hydrogen bomb in our conflict with the USSR,
either as a threat or in actual warfare,” Bethe wrote, “is adhering to the old fallacy that the ends
justify the means . . . We would invalidate our cause if we were to use in our fight means that can
One last part of Bethe’s article raises another issue entirely, one that I argue lies in the very
I believe there was a deep feeling in this country right after the war that the use of atomic bombs in
Japan had been a mistake, and that these bombs should be eliminated from national armaments . . .
But our inability to eliminate atomic bombs is no reason to introduce a bomb which is a thousand
times worse.38
Here, five years after the atomic bombings that ended WWII, the nation’s foremost nuclear
physicist was giving voice to something that in 1945 would have been unutterable, but that in the
postwar years had become a common refrain among nuclear scientists.39 Some of the very
scientists who created the atomic bomb were now regretting its wartime deployment. Just weeks
before the Scientific American H-bomb series began, Dr. Albert Einstein said this in a speech at
Princeton University: “The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present
state of military technique, a disastrous illusion.”40 Einstein was setting American science at clear
odds with national policy. Yet it was atomic science itself that had determined the state of Cold
36
Ibid, p. 19.
37
Ibid, p. 21.
38
Ibid, p. 22.
39
Jessica Wang offers a comprehensive description of atomic scientists’ organized efforts to raise
awareness and prevent nuclear weapons proliferation after the war. See Wang, 12-25.
40
Dr. Albert Einstein, “Peace in the Atomic Era: Peaceful Cooperation Depends Primarily on
Mutual Trust.” Speech delivered at Princeton, N.J., for broadcast on N.B.C. Television Program,
Debruary 19, 1950. Reprinted in Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 16 (New York: The City News Pub.
Co., 1950), p. 302.
17
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
War foreign policy in 1950! The trajectories of science and politics seemed at cross-purposes,
made more difficult by the relative public ignorance of the science behind the politics.
Perhaps, then, one important element of the nation’s ambivalence about nuclear secrecy
was linked to a deeper ambivalence about its leaders’ 1945 choice to unleash the world’s first
atomic bombs on Japan, and also to a discomfort with America’s consequent postwar status as
world superpower. By this light, the Cold War broadly construed was more than a competition
between two superpowers. It was also an arena for each superpower’s struggle to define the
boundaries of human scientific activity in the face of the searing realities of the atomic age.41
The government’s arguments about science and secrecy mirrored arguments that had
aroused American newspeople for a long time. By 1950, American journalists had engaged in
discussions about peacetime government secrecy for a number of years. Records of the annual
meetings of the main national organization for news editors, the American Society of Newspaper
Editors (ASNE), for 1947, 1948 and 1949 are full of discussions, debates and floor motions about
the proper relationship between journalists and government. The details of these ASNE
proceedings at times seem trivial, but it is important to note that in the late 1940s, newspapers
were the primary source of government information for the American public; the editorial
41
For two thoughtful discussions of this ambivalence, see Robert J. Lifton and Greg Mitchell,
Hiroshima In America: Fifty Years of Denial (New York: Putnam, 1995); and the concluding essay by
Anthony Weller in George Weller’s First Into Nagasaki: The Censored Eyewitness Dispatches of Post-
Atomic Japan and its Prisoners of War (New York: Crown Publishers, 2006).
42
Gerard Piel, address to American Society of Newspaper Editors, 21 April 1950. Problems of
Journalism: Proceedings of the 1950 Convention… p. 146.
18
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
decisions made by newspapers often determined the extent to which the citizens understood the
In 1947, two years after the end of WWII, the country in some ways was still transitioning
from a wartime footing to a peacetime footing, and most of the ASNE discussions had to do with
American journalists’ efforts to spread press freedom across the globe -- a movement historian
Margaret Blanchard called “Exporting the First Amendment.” 43 There was little contention at the
1947 ASNE meeting when guest speaker Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower lavished praise on the
gathered press for its cooperation in helping to spread the American message abroad, and for
helping to inform the American people of the importance of recruiting and maintaining a strong
and ready Army.44 Likewise, there was no evident argument when ASNE President Wilbur
Forrest issued this warning to the assembled editors about a just-completed, off-the-record speech
by Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson: “Nothing is to be printed about it. The candor with
which the Under Secretary was able to speak was with that understanding.” 45
By the following year’s ASNE conference, the tenor had altered slightly. By this time
ASNE had formed a standing committee on Atomic Information whose charge it was to
negotiate the rules for reporting sensitive scientific information, and this committee worked
closely with the government to define those parameters. (Politics were heating up for the
November 1948 presidential election, so there was a partisan flavor to some of these ASNE
proceedings.) But wartime press consensus was beginning to wobble: Earlier that year the news
wire services Associated Press (AP) and United Press (UP) had stopped supplying stories to the
43
Margaret A. Blanchard, Exporting the First Amendment: the press-Government Crusade of
1945-1952, (New York: Longman, 1985).
44
Problems of Journalism: Proceedings: Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Convention, American
Society of Newspaper Editors, April 17-19. 1947. Hotel Statler, Washington, D.C., 198-201.
45
Ibid, 139. Acheson’s was one of many off-the-record speeches by government officials typical
of ASNE gatherings.
19
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
government-run radio service Voice of America (VOA), concerned that cooperation with an
agency of government propaganda would compromise their journalistic integrity.46 The VOA
matter set the press-government relationship into high relief at the ASNE meeting, where some
editors balked at government pressure on ASNE to persuade the wire services to cooperate with
VOA requests. By 1948 the wartime government-press cooperation was beginning to show signs
of stress.47
By 1949 the wire service/VOA standoff had intensified, and the tone at ASNE had
changed significantly. One group of editors made a floor motion urging AP and UP to work
with the government. A rival group objected and moved to table the original motion, making the
comment that “To exert pressure on editors even collectively to influence their opinion is the
beginning of thought control.”48 Later in the proceedings, a group of editors from smaller papers
resolution that was denounced, tabled, and allowed to fade away. So while journalists over all
by no means were refusing to work with the government, by 1949 their skepticism about
For American newspaper editors, then, the period between 1947 and 1949 was one of
gradual and mounting skepticism about secrecy compacts between journalists and government.
By the April 1950 meeting, the transformation away from a cooperative, wartime footing had
begun in earnest. The 1950 ASNE agenda was full of government-secrecy-related items, and
one of the main speakers was Scientific American publisher Gerard Piel. The censorship of Hans
46
While it is not considered in this essay, the conflict between the wire services and the VOA
impacted some political aspects of American broadcasting. A forthcoming paper will address that matter.
47
Problems of Journalism: Proceedings: American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 15, 16,
17, 1948. Hotel Statler, Washington, D.C., 18-19; 36-50.
48
Dr. Carl Ackerman, Graduate School of Journalism (no affiliation noted), Ibid. p. 150. The
VOA discussion continues through p. 160.
20
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Bethe’s article on March 15 (just weeks before the ASNE meeting) had caught the attention of
ASNE, prompting leaders to arrange a morning discussion titled, “What Price Security?” The
speakers were Dr. Henry De Wolf Smyth of the AEC, and Piel. The comments of these men are
abbreviated here, though their discussion went on for many transcribed pages.
Dr. Smyth was a respected physicist who had authored a controversial 1945 report about
the Manhattan Project detailing the historical development of the atomic bomb.49 His present
service was with the Atomic Energy Commission, and his message to the ASNE editors in 1950
was one of caution. After giving a nod to concerns about the role of a free press in modern
democracy, Smyth turned directly to the Bethe article, noting Bethe’s service with the U.S.
government and referring to the “twilight zone” of information that appeared when civilian
scientists have had access to classified information: “We believe such men share with us the
responsibility for seeing to it that no significant information is revealed.”50 It was precisely Dr.
Bethe’s credibility, Smyth argued, that made his article a threat to national security.
Gerard Piel had another opinion. In a measured speech that managed to sidestep high
emotion, Piel described generally the information in Bethe’s censored article on the H-Bomb.
Being careful not to disclose “restricted data,” Piel averred that the censored portions of the article
49
This report, formally titled “Atomic Energy for Military Purposes” and commonly called the
Smyth Report, was a detailed account of the WWII Manhattan Project. Some felt the report was too
forthcoming and compromised national security. So, Dr. Smyth as its author could not be considered a
hard-line opponent of Piel’s freedom of information appeals at the ASNE meeting.
50
Problems of Journalism: Proceedings of the 1950 Convention, American Society of Newspaper
Editors, April 20, 21, 22, Hotel Statler, Washington, D.C., p. 144.
21
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Piel’s point was that the AEC’s censorship of Scientific American was not an attempt to protect
national security – it was really a message to all atomic scientists to “keep their traps shut.”51 He
went on to question whether the government censorship of atomic information could ever
genuinely be in the public interest. “Because [atomic questions are] so walled off by secrecy from
the legitimate enquiry of the press,” Piel noted, the AEC “has not enjoyed the advantage of public
surveillance and even public controversy . . .” 52 By keeping a shroud over frank discussion of the
H-bomb, the government not only deprived scientists of valuable critique by their colleagues, it
also deprived citizens of the chance to scrutinize a singularly crucial public policy decision. Piel
For the pall of secrecy which so dangerously frustrates its legitimate activities, the press must
blame itself . . . Our newspapers and magazines have sold themselves a gold brick. When you
extract a banner in 64 point type out of a mislaid milligram of Uranium, you have helped to create
In closing Piel offered a quote from Los Alamos physicist and AEC advisor J. Robert
Oppenheimer: “We know that the only way to avoid error it to detect it. We know the wages of
secrecy are corruption. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”54 To
Gerard Piel, the hazards of censorship were every bit as threatening to the integrity of democracy
51
Ibid, 149.
52
Ibid, 154.
53
Ibid, 154. Here Piel refers to a recent, widely publicized controversy over misplaced nuclear
material – one that most scientists thought trivial but that was nonetheless reported with some fanfare.
54
Ibid, 154.
22
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
The story of Gerard Piel and Scientific American is something of a neglected piece of First
Amendment history. Since the matter never was litigated, it holds no place in the canon of
American censorship history or law. But a strikingly similar case does -- United States v.
Progressive, Inc.56 By the time the Progressive case arose in 1979 the Cold War was three
decades old. U.S-Soviet tension had settled in, saturating American policy and public life. The
hydrogen bomb was no longer theoretical: Following Truman’s 1950 directive, American
scientists worked to perfect the “superbomb” and on 1 November 1952 they managed the first
successful detonation of an H-bomb, at a test site in the Marshall Islands. The 10.4 megaton bomb,
nicknamed “Mike,” was 500 times more powerful than the fission device dropped on Nagasaki.57
Nine months later in August 1953, the Soviets detonated their own, smaller H-bomb, and the
Something about the nature of the hydrogen bomb kept it in the shadows, more of a dark,
potential menace than an active, present threat. Perhaps the kind of scientific warnings published
in Scientific American in 1950 had exposed the bomb’s destructive power sufficiently to arouse
caution among Cold War decision-makers and their publics. In any event, by 1979 when The
Progressive magazine was poised to publish its article exposing the H-bomb’s secrets, the science
behind the bomb was still a tightly-held secret, its release still punishable under American law.
55
District Judge Warren, United States of America v. Progressive, Inc.
56
467 F. Supp. 990, 1000 (W.D. Wisc. 1979).
57
Richard Rhodes’ epilogue offers a thorough description of the personal, political and scientific
complexities surrounding America’s development of the H-bomb. See Rhodes, 749-788.
23
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
In the Progressive matter, freelance writer Howard Morland spent many months
researching the H-bomb, trying to determine its precise construction and operation. Morland
would later refer to himself as a “nuclear abolitionist.” He wrote that one of his article’s goals had
been “to demystify the bomb, show it to be a product of industry, and assemblage of
components.”58 Unlike Hans Bethe, Morland was not a trained physicist and had no access to
classified material, but he had managed to tease out the H-bomb’s construction through research
and diligent questioning. His editor at The Progressive had sent one of Morland’s freehand H-
bomb drawings to an MIT physicist, who then dutifully sent it along to Washington for
classification.
When the U.S. Department of Energy got wind of the article they asked The Progressive to
withhold publication. The magazine refused, insisting that nothing classified would be released
since all data in Morland’s article was gleaned from public sources – encyclopedias, libraries,
published papers, etc. The case landed in federal district court in Wisconsin, where Judge Robert
Warren granted first a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction – the first
time in American history that such an injunction had been issued against the press.59 The
Progressive appealed, convinced it was within its rights and determined to fight the censorship.
Even the government prosecutor in charge of the Progressive case, U.S. Attorney Frank
Tuerkheimer, had serious doubts about the government’s case for prior restraint. Upon reviewing
the file and seeing what was marked as “restricted data,” Turkheimer was stunned. “I saw that
there was information in those boxes that was not new to me,” he recalled, “in fact, I had known it
for literally twenty-five years.”60 When he conveyed his misgivings to the other government
58
Howard Morland in Cardozo “Symposium . . ,” p. 1367.
59
See Rudenstine’s description in Cardozo “Symposium . . ,” 1338.
60
Tuerkheimer in Cardozo “Symposium . . ,” 1363..
24
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
attorneys, they were less than receptive, but Tuerkheimer maintained very serious concerns about
the First Amendment implications of the government’s suppression of Morland’s article. He spent
published articles that contained precisely the information the DOE had labeled “restricted.”
Tuerkheimer passed the copies along to his superiors at the Department of Energy. He went on to
make numerous attempts to have the case dropped, even contacting President Carter’s Attorney
General Griffin Bell, but the government would not back down.61
Then, within weeks of The Progressive’s appeal of the injunction, another writer published
information on the H-bomb that was so similar to Morland’s that the government dropped the
Progressive case altogether. Morland’s article – newly titled “The H-Bomb Secret: To Know
How is to Ask Why” -- was published in the November 1979 issue of The Progressive, nine
In comparing these two instances of H-bomb censorship, the differences are not nearly as
notable as the similarities. In 1950 the H-bomb was still in development, while by 1979 the
Soviets had possessed the H-bomb “secret” for over a quarter century, yet both censorships took
place in peacetime rather than wartime. Bethe was a physicist while Morland was an anti-nuclear
activist, yet both authors felt strongly that the American public needed access to the science
behind the bomb in order to fully understand the weapon’s implications. Piel was a publisher and
Tuerkeimer was a prosecutor, yet both were convinced that the government was engaged in grave
61
Interview by author with Tuerkheimer, 19 November 2007, Madison, Wisconsin.
62
Howard Morland, “The H-Bomb Secret: To Know How is to Ask Why,” The Progressive
(November 1979), p. 14 et seq.
25
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
information. And in a curious twist of time and orientation, Hans Bethe, the author of the 1950
censored article, had filed an affidavit on behalf of the government in the Progressive case
The comparison of these two stories of science and censorship brings some larger
questions of government secrecy into focus. Upon learning that Bethe’s affidavit had supported
censorship of The Progressive, nuclear weapons designer Dr. Ray Kidder – a scientist at
California’s Livermore Laboratory who had objected to the censorship of The Progressive and had
testified on the magazine’s behalf -- became convinced Bethe had been misled by the government
about the details of Morland’s original article. While the Progressive case was still in litigation,
Kidder suggested that he and Bethe continue discussing the matter through private
correspondence. Beginning in April 1979, Drs. Bethe and Kidder exchanged a series of detailed
letters discussing the implications of the Progressive censorship, and debating which information
had and had not been properly classified. Near the end of this correspondence, Kidder reiterated
his conviction that certain technical information in the Morland article -- called “Exhibits 3 and 5”
throughout the correspondence – had been in the public domain long before 1979, and that much
of the material at issue in Progressive had never been “restricted data” at all. In the last of his
responses, handwritten and undated, Hans Bethe ultimately agreed with Kidder that the
63
Bethe and Kidder had disagreed about why France did not get the H-bomb until 1968.
26
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
The Bethe-Kidder letters remained classified for twenty-two years, long after the Progressive
matter was dropped. The letters finally were released in 2001 at the urging of Howard Morland.
Epilogue
Today, the Progressive case is well known to students of media and First Amendment
history, while the Scientific American matter is omitted from most academic histories of press
freedom. During the early Cold War, certainly some journalists objected to government secrecy
and to restrictions on press freedom, but these objections were submerged by the safer and more
compelling “Cold War consensus” that moored so much of American journalism through the
1960s. By the time of the Progressive case, the country had been through the war in Vietnam, the
Pentagon Papers matter, the Watergate trauma, and the 1975 congressional disclosure of CIA and
FBI misadventures; by 1979 journalists had regained some of their pre-WWII muscle and
skepticism. Yet the underlying issues in both matters were nearly identical.
This comparison makes Gerard Piel’s resolve in 1950 all the more notable. He took a
position on press freedom that was almost directly opposite the one held by the U.S. Supreme
Court of the time – the Court was likely to permit prior restraint in matters where a “clear and
present danger” was alleged. But Piel appeared to believe that it is precisely in those times of
“present danger” that the country was most in need of unrestricted communication, particularly
among scientists.65
64
Transcribed correspondence between Bethe and Kidder, Federation of American Scientists
Web site, http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bethe-kidder.html Emphasis added.
65
In this regard, Piel’s idea closely mirrors that of philosopher Alexender Meiklejohn whose
classic text on the First Amendment was published the same year Piel took over Scientific American. See
Meiklejohn, Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government (New York: Harper, 1948).
27
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Piel remained a strident opponent of censorship for the rest of his life. Under his
stewardship Scientific American became perhaps the world’s most widely-read and respected
magazine of science – it retained that reputation for many subsequent years under the direction of
his son Jonathan Piel. The magazine currently is published in 18 countries, and for many years
was published in the Soviet Union where Piel had been trying to make inroads since the 1960s.66
In 1983, near the end of the Cold War, and after five years of negotiations with the Soviets, Piel
The first 20,000 copies were distributed behind the “Iron Curtain” in February 1983. Predictably,
the Soviets reserved the right to censor any article they found unsuitable. “Among taboo
subjects,” reported Time magazine, were “social and economic sciences and defense matters.” 67
In 1955, five years after the censorship of the Bethe article, Piel wrote a piece for Science
magazine, reflecting on the deeper matters embedded in questions of science and journalism in a
free society. He stressed once again the importance to democracy of a free flow of scientific
thought, and his brief statement brings a proper close to this story:
66
Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, 189-190..
67
“Mir Science; a Soviet-U.S. Magazine,” Time, 28 February 1983.
68
Gerard Piel, “Need for Public Understanding of Science” Science, (New Series, Vol. 121, No.
3140, Mar. 4, 1955), 317-322.
28
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
SOURCES CONSULTED
Reminiscences of Gerard Piel, recorded between 1 July 1981 and 28 August 1996, in
the Columbia University Oral History Research Office Collection.
Collins, Ronald K.L. and David M. Skover. “What is War: Reflections on Free Speech in
Wartime.” Rutgers Law Journal, Vol. 36: 2005, p. 833+.
Curtis, Charles P. The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1955
Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997.
Goodman, Walter. The Committee: The Extraordinary Career of the House Committee on
Unamerican Activities. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1964.
29
The Forgotten Censorship of Scientific American in 1950
Hearing before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States Eighty-
first Congress, First Session on Atomic Energy Report to Congress, February 2, 1949.
Hearing before the Senate Section of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Eighty-First
Congress, First Session, on Confirmation of Gordon E. Dean and Henry DeWolf Smyth
as Members of the Atomic Energy Commission, May 12 and 18, 1949.
Kramish, Arnold. The Peaceful Atom in Foreign Policy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1963.
Masters, Dexter and Katharine Way, eds. One World Or None: A report to the Public on the
Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb. New York: The New Press, 2007. Originally
published in 1946 by McGraw-Hill, New York.
Meiklejohn, Alexander. Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper,
1948.
Millis, Walter, ed. The Forrestal Diaries. New York: The Viking Press, 1951.
Piel, Gerard. “Need for Public Understanding of Science.” Science, New Series, Vol. 121, No.
3140 (Mar. 4, 1955), pp. 317-322.
________. “Science, Censorship, and the Public Interest. Science, New Series, Vol. 125, No.
3252 (Apr. 26, 1957), pp. 692-694.
Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986.
Stone, Geoffrey R. “Government Secrecy vs. Freedom of the Press.” First Report (The
Freedom Forum), Vol. 7, No. 1, December 2006.
Summers, Robert E., ed. Federal Information Controls in Peacetime. New York: The H.W.
Wilson Company, 1949.
Symposium: Transcript of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Security, and a Free Press:
Seminal Issues as Viewed through the Lens of The Progressive Case. Cardozo Law
Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (March 2005).
Wang, Jessica. American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Science, Anticommunism and the Cold
War. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.
30