Connecticut College New London, Conn. 13 March, 1948 The Emergency Com. of At. Scientists 90 Nassau Street Princeton, New Jersey. Dear Sirs: I have for some years been a minor contributor to your fund for education, including, I have hoped, public speakers. I should much appreciate it if you will see that this letter gets other than s form-letter answer. If worst comes to worst, will you pass it on to some physicist among your working members and say that merle Tuve's sister wants a straight answer to a question. They may have had their scraps with M.A.T. (so have I) but also they may sit down and write me a personal letter - in case office policy and short staff keeps you from writing other than noncommittally. Does Frederick Osborn go out for speeches under your auspices? This college recently acted as host to a community atomic-energy afternoon, got up by the 'Eastern Connecticut Atomic Information Committee.' Although the college was not among the planners, but merely co-operated, it was the impression of my colleagues and myself that E.C.A.S. was the group through whom the speakers were to be provided. After a useful 'popularizing' speech indicating certain concepts utilized in atomic research, by Dr. John Dunning of Columbia, I was surprised to find that the next speech, by General Osborn, amounted really to a veiled warning that co-operation was pretty well impossible with Russia, in the field of atomic control. I have been struck by the tone of moderation and patience which has characterized your literature, which I have followed for some years. The speech referred to seemed in no way consonant with the axioms you emphasize -- which stress rather that, difficult or no, we must cooperate and that another war is not a solution. I should like very much to find out whether General Osborn appears under your sponsorship, the implication being that you also have been forced sadly to give up your 'higher realism' in favour of another sort. Or, alternatively, whether these are not really 'your men' and your reputation for moderation and integrity is being somewhat traded upon by groups like that regional group responsible for these sessions. You will notice the similarity in name, of the Conn. group: is it one of those you finance? I believe a 'Readers Digest' man (Mr. Drake) was active in the planning. This is not an isolated session, I understand, in Connecticut. I was simply audience, but I take it that under either of the above alternatives, you would be glad of reports from out in the field. I hold no brief for the Russians, who sound beyond measure exasperating. At the same time, as a person occupied constantly and for some years with the train-ing of minds of college age, I am very much aware of the effect of ridiculing the motives of those with whom we still hope to come to an understanding, and of implying that all reasonable methods of cooperation have been tried and must fail. The effect is on which your printed materials constantly warn against. Yours faithfully, S/ (Dr.) Rosemond Tuve