World Cooperation of Scientists

Leningrad. 24 Nov. 1961. Akademia Nauk. Linus Pauling.

It is a great honor for me to participate in a celebration of the 250 anniversary of the birthday of the great Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov, and also a great honor for me to have been elected a member of the Akademia Nauk USSR. I express my thanks to you.

Lomonosov's ideas about atoms and the structure of matter were brilliant but primitive. Some of his statements were wrong, or require much reinterpretation in the light of modern knowledge; but they were not significant in this epoch.

A century ago another great Russian scientist, A. M. Butlerov, developed the structure theory of molecules of chemical substances. This was a most important advance. The classical structure theory, which applies very well to many molecules, uses the concept of single bonds, double bonds, triple bonds. These bonds do not exist by themselves in nature; they are idealizations, without precise definition; but they are valuable intellectual constructs of the chemist. I am sure that Lomonosov would agree that today, while we honor his memory, we should think not only about the past, but also about the future.

Let us ask what would have happened if Butlerov's ideas had been examined by a committee. Russian scientists might have concluded that these ideas should not be used, because of the idealizations, the not-real double bonds.

Thirty years ago there was developed an addition to structure theory, consisting in writing two or more valence-bond structures to be fused together to represent the structure of a molecule for which no one structure is satisfactory. About ten years ago this theory was vigorously discussed by Soviet chemists and the decision was made not to use it.

I am sorry that I was not able to take part in this discussion - I was 1500 km. away. I have refrained from criticising this action from a distance.

But I cannot refrain longer. Soviet chemistry has been seriously damaged, set back, by this decision. Especially students are harmed, who are prevented from learning about a significant part of modern chemistry.

As a member of the Akademia Nauk, it is my duty now to speak. I am in a sense a Soviet scientist, as well as an American scientist. I have the strong feeling that I am a part of the whole human race, and the whole world is my concern.

I think that the time has come to reconsider the decision about the theory of resonance in chemistry. As the years go by the world changes. Engels and Lenin did not believe that a decision in an important general field should be made once for all time. The thesis and antithesis must be presented and the synthesis found - but not forever, not as a binding restriction that will never be changed.

Criticism and discussion should not be abandoned because a synthesis was achieved at some past time.

The time has come for the theory of resonance to be discussed again, and for the arguments against it, both ideological and scientific, to be reexamined, and the arguments in its favor to be discussed; and this time I hope that I will be able to participate.

For the sake of science, of the younger generation, let us examine this question of the theory of resonance again. The world changes. New ideas become a part of our thinking. Who can say that the decision now would be the same as ten years ago?

In 1935 Pauli rejected the chirality of the neutrino. Over twenty years went by before this idea was seriously reexamined, by Lee and Yang, and found to be right.

Continued discussion of important questions such as the theory of resonance is needed. Scientists must always examine and reexamine their science. This is a most important way to make progress. I do not advocate making a new decision that is final.

And as in chemistry, so also in world affairs. Soviet scientists participating in the Pugwash conferences with other scientists, and also in the Oslo conference, made very important contributions toward the achievement of world peace. But we must not be satisfied with the synthesis achieved in the Vienna Declaration of the Third Pugwash Conference. These discussions must continue. Again and again the thesis and antithesis must be examined and the synthesis attempted. No matter how hard the task, how discouraging the circumstances, it is our duty as scientists and as human beings to stand side by side and to work for general and complete disarmament, world peace, and the enduring friendship and cooperation of all peoples. I am confident that we shall succeed, and that the future will be a future of peace and world cooperation.