Moscow’s plea to scientists

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33664, 14 October 1974, Page 17

Moscow’s plea to scientists

(N Z PA -Reuter—Copyright) MOSCOW, Oct. 13. The Soviet Union has called on Western scientists to withdraw their support from a group of Jewish scientific workers who tried to organise an international conference in Moscow last summer. The meeting was banned by the authorities as “a provocation.”

The call comes in a commentary by the official news agency, Tass, which accused the Jewish scientists — all of whom have been refused exit visas to emigrate to Israel — of engaging in hostile anti-Soviet activity. The timing of the commentary puzzled observers: the conference was due to have been held in July, but was blocked; visas were denied foreign scientists due to attend, and many of its Soviet organisers were detained. Tass says that dozens of prominent Soviet scientists, including other Jews, have written to the authorities, demanding that measures be taken “to put an end to these anti-Soviet activities camouflaged as science.” This is seen as an indication that the weekly conferences held by the would-be emigrants — whose specialities range from mathematics and physics to cybernetics — might be stopped. Two weeks ago, they said

that they had been prevented by the police from assembling. The Tass commentator, Boris Chekhonin, says that two of the foreign scientists on the international preparatory committee arranging the ill-fated July conference were connected with nonscientific activities: Professor Edward Stern, of Washington, was engaged in intensive activity in various reactionary Zionist organisations, and Professor Uval Neuman, of Tel Aviv University had been deputy head of the Israeli military intelligence, . the commentator alleged. He made no mention of the Nobel Prize winners who were on the board, or were sponsors of the conference. They included Dr Kenneth Arrow, of Harvard University, and Dr Rodney Porter, of Oxford University. “It should be hoped that those scientists of Western countries who, .unwittingly,

■ have been caught in the; i mesh of Zionist propaganda,! will be able to realise what; , are the actual purposes of: ; the anti-Soviet function that: , wt« planned,” Mr Chekhonin] ■ writes. ! He praises Professor! I Albert Szen Gyoergyi, • whom he identifies as a ■ prominent American scien- • tist, for refusing to have any ■ contacts with “The masterminds of the planned anti- ' Soviet provocation,” and he goes on: “Obviously, the real ' purpc.se of these provoca- ’ teurs who now plan a con- ’ ference in Moscow is to sow ■ discord among the scientists of various countries, and f prevent the establishment of i real scientific co-operation.” : : The commentator adds: . “The Jewish scientists are i temporarily denied exit visas ’ • because they have had ■ access to defence secrets , which the Soviet Union, i naturally, does not intend to share with the Israeli and

'Western intelligence services.” ( According to an Italian newspaper, Mb Helen Bonder Sakharov, the wife of (the Soviet scientist and dis(sident, Professor Andrei Sakjharov, needs urgent medical care for her eyes, but has not received the invitations that would enable her to go to Italy for treatment. The Milan Daily, “11 Giornale,” quotes a friend of the Sakharovs, Mrs Maria Olsufieva, of Florence, a.t saying that she telephoned Dr Sakharov last week, and was told that various telegrams from Italian doctors were never received by the Skaharvos. The invitations, sent in September, would be needed before the Sakharovs could apply for a visa to leave the Soviet Union. “11 Giornale” does not dis-; close the exact nature of I Mrs Sakharov’.s eye ailment,: but says that she risks going blind unless given appropriate medical care.