8 October 1963

The Earl Russell

Plas Penryhn

Penrhyndeudraeth

Merioneth

Wales

Dear Professor Russell:

I hope that you will not consider it an imposition for me to ask some questions about the Bentley Glass affair.

You sent me a copy of your letter of 25 March 1963. In this letter to Glass you wrote "I shall be very grateful if will let me know the details of your accusations against Pauling. I am willing to hold up for two weeks a letter which I have seat to the Bulletin. If you are willing to send me a reply within that time, I shall wish to send your reply to Dr. Pauling and, if I think it necessary, sake such alterations in my letter to the Bulletin as seem to me to be called for.”

As you know I did not receive the reply, and the statement by Bentley Glass in June 1963 issue of the Bulletin came as a surprise to me. Did Bentley Glass send a reply to you, with in two weeks after your letter?

You know that I feel that it was an injustice to me for Rabinowitch to have published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in June 1963 a communication by Bentley Glass in which essentially false statements were made about me and to carry out this publication without informing me, in such a way that three months would go by before I had the opportunity to reply.

On 9 September 1963 I wrote to Professor Rotblat, saying that I had been told that Rotblat had told you, on behalf of Rabinowitch and Glass that you should withdraw your letter, because toe publication of your letter would force the Bulletin to publish a reply by Glass that would be scandalous and would seriously damage my reputation. (My notes, written at the time, contain the sentence "they have suggested that they have really damaging evidence that I would not like to have published.”)

Rotblat has answered as follows; "I did not ask Lord Russell on behalf of Rabinowitch and Glass to withdraw the letter about you. What I did do was to plead with Russell either to withdraw or to modify the letter, not on behalf of anybody but myself. I made it clear that I was doing it for the sake of Pugwash because it appeared that Glass would have to resign from the Committee if Russell insisted on publication of the letter in the Bulletin attacking him without first having heard his side of the story. Lord Russell was mistaken to he told you that I was speaking on behalf of Rabinowitch and Glass. I sorted this out with hint, and he agreed it was due to a misunderstanding.”

I judge that the circumstances are now such that Glass might resign from the Pugwash Committee. I hope that both Glass and Rabinowitch will resign from the Committee. They have dominated the three-man American Pugwash Committee, and have prevented me from attending several Pugwash meetings which I wanted to attend, because of my deep interest in disarmament and in the Pugwash movement.

I hope that I can see you the next time I come to England however, I do not have any trip planned at the present time.

Sincerely yours,

Linus Pauling:hpg

cc: Professor J. Rotblat

8 October 1963

Mr. D. S. Greenberg

Science

1515 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington 5, D.C.

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

I write to object to your reference to me, in association with Professor Teller, in a sentence concluding with reference to "scores of thousands of persons who are revolted by the twisting of scientific evidence to suit political conceptions."

Your sentence suggests to the reader that I am a person who twists scientific evidence to suit political conceptions, and there is no basis for your having written such a suggestion.

You may have been influenced by the statements made by Bentley Glass in his article in the May 1962 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. You probably know that I replied, in an article that appeared in the December 1962 issue of the Bulletin, and you may have seen the statement by Bentley Glass in the June 1963 issue of the Bulletin.

I hope that you will study my answer to his June 1963 statement - it is in the September 1963 issue. You will see, if you will read all of the statements, that there has been no published substantiation of the charge about me that was originally made by Bentley Glass in May 1962.

Again I point out to you that there is no justification for you, in the 4 October 1963 issue of Science, to have suggested, as you have done in this article, that I have twisted scientific evidence to suit political conceptions.

I must express to you and to the Editor of Science my strong objection to your carelessness in having published a completely unjustified reflection on my scientific integrity.

Yours truly,

Linus Pauling:hpg

cc: Dr. Phillip H. Abelson