Paul Doty

First, I would like to congratulate Yuri Orlov on his paper. His perception, analysis, and thoughtful suggestions for the future, all delivered without, despite what he has been through, any rancor, are a tribute to him and to all of his breed, and I appreciate it very much.

Second, I am in a somewhat delicate position because, as I told Dr. Stellar when he invited me to come, I could not pass as a human rights activist, although I share their concerns and their goals. Instead, I think I am here to represent the several dozen members of the academy who, over the years, have pursued a somewhat parallel, but much less dramatic and much less heroic and much safer, course, personally, of trying to bring about a bridge between the scientists in the Soviet Union and those here and to explore in all the ways that we could between the two sides of finding a safer world ahead, depending less and less for our security upon the enormous stockpiles of weapons that we have assembled.

This has taken the form within the academy of two different programs. In 1959, President Bronk initiated the exchange of scientists with the Soviet academy; in 1960 I became the first chair of the committee overseeing that program and carried on for several years. It has been a continuous operation and now bears the name of the Soviet-East European Affairs Program.

Over its 27 years or so, it has been handmaiden to the exchange of several thousand scientists each way. It is not possible to evaluate how much good that has done, but it created a net pool of shared interests and knowledge of each other that I think cannot but be helpful in the days and years ahead.

The second operation is that of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control, of which those of you who come hear words from us on the Sunday before each annual meeting. That committee, which began in 1980, had its origins in 1960 or before, first with the Pugwash meetings and then with a committee operated by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and this academy during the 1960s and 1970s, in which we carried out a number of initiatives with the Soviets.

I think, for example, that even the negotiators on both sides would say that we were an important link in the chain that led to the SALT I agreements, as an example of our efforts.

In this work, one has to deal with the people on the other side who have access to their governments or with people who are in the governments. Among this large number of Soviets that I have had to deal with, I have made many friends, despite the adherence that many of them have to government policy.

On the other hand, there are other contacts that have been anything but a labor of love. I cannot help but remember times when, breaking bread with officials of the academy of sciences or with members of the Central Committee, that I was probably talking with the same people who aided in putting Yuri Orlov in the camps. This is not a very pleasant business, and when I come home from each trip, and I will go next month for my 50th trip to Moscow, I always think of what I forgot to say at the right time, whose case I did not bring up.

So, it is a mixed bag and I do not wish to deny it, but it is a labor in which not only I, myself, but also many others in the academy, have put in an enormous effort. I think, while the results are not quantifiable and cannot be measured, we are all glad that we spent our time that way.

So, I will stop there and hope that we can have this conversation with Yuri more extensively some other time. Thank you.