Lubos Motl has taken to signing some of his postings with “leashed”, and Capitalist Imperialist Pig has speculated that “My dark suspicion is that he might have gotten caught in a PC violation in the Summers Affair, forcing him to do a T reversal to save his Lorentz invariant m ass”. Lubos wrote in to tell him “Unfortunately your intuition is perfectly correct, but I am not sure whether your imagination is big enough to imagine the scale.”
I have no idea who is responsible for the leashing of Lubos or what the reason for it is, but I figured this meant his blog would stop featuring the right-wing ideological political commentary he’s fond of. But today he has a posting about the Frist Center “filibustering” in which he says “I currently do not enjoy the freedom to tell you what I think about these things.” Actually he manages to make it pretty clear what he thinks about these things.
This leashing of Lubos is too bad, especially since I was finding myself more and more in agreement with his postings (not the ones about politics, but we seem to agree about the Landscape), and generally think the First amendment gives everyone the right to make a fool of themselves with crazed political rants if they feel like it. Lubos’s blog has also played another important role for me. Whenever people won’t believe me that string theorists can be smart and well-informed, but still crazed ideologues, all I’ve had to do is point them his way.
Hi JC,
Presumably physics theory groups worry about how whoever they hire will affect their grant, but this depends on the department’s situation, and I only have direct experience with math departments.
In my experience in hiring decisions the question of grants hasn’t come up. The general assumption is that the criteria being used to hire people is similar to the criteria used by grant agencies, so the kind of person we’re trying to hire is the kind of person who should do well in trying to get grants. In math departments like Columbia, few of the grad students are funded by grants, most are funded as teaching assistants by the university. So grants aren’t that important: they aren’t needed to fund labs and they aren’t really needed to fund graduate students. The university and the department do make money off grants, but the amounts are not large or crucial to the department.
Peter,
When it comes to a physics department hiring new faculty for assistant professor jobs, what is the exact criterion for hiring new theorists?
From stories I’ve heard over the years about experimentalists, I got the impression they’re mainly interested in folks who they think will have a good shot at maintaining consistent grant funding year after year. On the surface I can understand perhaps why this is the case for an experimentalist, considering they’re more or less out of business if their funding grants are not renewed. Kind of hard to pay for new lab equipment, facilities (ie. telescope time, accelerators, etc …), postdocs, etc … if one has no money. I remember several experimental particle guys mentioning they spend time writing a number of grant proposals every year or so.
I haven’t heard as much about what faculty search committees look for when they’re hiring a new theorist, other than the obvious criteria of looking for somebody they think will have a good shot at maintaining consistent grant funding and not losing it so easily.
Is this also true for math departments when they’re hiring new faculty?
Hi JC,
Actually I think some mixture of 3. and 4. is a perfectly rational reason why people take these jobs. You get to work with the most prominent people in the business, and if things go well you have a bit of an inside track at a permanent position at Harvard or Princeton. Even if you’re not going to get tenure there, you’re in an excellent position for getting a permanent job elsewhere.
Peter,
Why do some people take junior faculty jobs at places like Harvard, Princeton, etc … in the first place, when they know very well that their chances at tenure are slim to none?
Offhand, the few reasons I can think of are ones like:
(1) It was the only job they were offered.
(2) They are “overconfident” of their own abilities and/or they have a huge ego.
(3) They see it as a means to an end, where Harvard/Princeton is just a step up along the way to a permanent tenured job somewhere else.
(4) They produced a paper or two which got hundreds, if not thousands, of citations in a very short period of time, and that they’re willing to “roll the dice” at the tenure game at Harvard, Princeton, etc …
The only case which appears to have a half decent chance at getting tenure at Harvard, Princeton, etc … would perhaps be (4).
Peter, Quantoken
The folks I know of who went the community college route all mentioned that their teaching loads were so heavy that they had very little to no time to do their own original research. For a few of these folks their mentality towards research became “why bother?”, when publishing original research papers wasn’t going to help them much anymore in their careers.
I’ve noticed some tenured professors who became “burned out”, eventually took on the same “why bother?” mentality towards research. One day they eventually reach the point where they don’t even bother publishing research papers anymore, and gradually become “deadwood”.
On the surface I can perhaps understand why some folks gradually fall into the “why bother?” mindset after they get tenure. During a postdoc, there’s the goal of getting an assistant professor job. During an assistant professorship, there’s the goal of getting tenure. Folks who are after these goals usually keep their eye on the “8-ball”. Once somebody gets tenure, what becomes the “8-ball” besides higher professor ranks? Teaching the same sorts of courses year after year, seems to become less and less interesting each successive time, especially freshman undergraduate courses. Some folks may start to question whether their research is going to mean anything in the long term, considering a large number of published journal papers become largely forgotten with the passage of time. How many folks today still regularly read papers from 100 year old physics journals, besides science historians? If string theory ever falls out of favor, I would imagine many string papers over the last 20 years will become largely forgotten with the passage of time. These days how many people still regularly read papers on the bootstrap analytic S-Matrix theory stuff? I would imagine that for every one “superstar” like an Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Hilbert, etc … there must be easily thousands of researchers who were largely forgotten with the passage of time.
Hi JC,
At places like Harvard and Princeton, most junior faculty don’t get tenure, and the department gets most of its tenured people by hiring stars away from other places. I remember talking to someone I knew who had taken a junior job at Harvard, at the point when it was clear he couldn’t stay there and had started looking for jobs elsewhere. He told me he wasn’t sure whether it had been a good idea going to Harvard, because when he was just out of grad school, people may have thought he might be the next Witten, but after several years out, it was clear he wasn’t. So he thought he might have done better to go somewhere else where he would have been likely to get tenure. But things worked out for him, and he’s now a prominent member of the community tenured at a well-known place.
So, no matter how he behaves, I don’t think Lubos is a shoo-in to get tenure at Harvard, but he’s likely to be able to get a good permanent position elsewhere no matter what. Similarly for Sean Carroll: I was surprised to hear he didn’t get tenure at Chicago, but I’m sure he’ll have other offers elsewhere.
The people who are in trouble are the ones who don’t get tenure at less well-known places where one would normally expect tenure to be likely. They then have a much tougher time finding a permanent position, and may not be able to get one at a place where it is possible to do much research. Teaching a full load at a community college is hard work, and if you’re doing that it’s not easy to find the time and energy to do much original research. You also typically aren’t in a good environment in terms of colleagues, seminars, students etc. for research.
JC said:
“a few folks of the latter case I’m aware of did decide to go into teaching community college for a few years, but they didn’t really publish any research papers afterwards.”
Why so? Is that 1.They do not want to write papers any more, or 2. they are unable to write papers any more, or 3. their papers unable to be accepted for publication? (because their institution affiliation doesn’t seem impressive?)
A hundred years ago, a little 26 year old patent office clerk who also tutored high school kids half time for a living could publish papers on one of the best academy journals. Today, instituion affiliation is every thing.
I do NOT think Lubos will be denied tenure at Harvard. As smart as he is, I do not think he will sit and wait like Sean did till the day to be told that his tenure is denied, instead he will beat the clock and deny Harvard a tenureship and find another job first, before he could be turned into a sitting duck.
You have a much better chance if YOU take it to turn down a position at a prestigious institution to get a better job some where else, instead of you be turned down. Sean could have done that! There are plenty of good excuses to leave U of Chicago: It’s too cold a place to live, or U of Chicago is not good enough to keep me and I want to be in Harvard, I am not paid good enough, etc. etc. But as he sitted to wait for the UofC deny, his choices are now limited and he will have a hard time trying to explain why he would be fired, something his new boss must be curious to find out.
Fire the boss before the boss could fire you, Lubos :-)!
Quantoken
Peter,
When somebody is denied tenure at one university, what is the likelihood of them finding another academic job (with chances at tenure) at another university?
Over the years I’ve noticed some folks who didn’t get tenure at places like Harvard, Princeton, etc … seemed to have been able to find another academic job at another university. For folks who didn’t get tenure at a less prestigious university (ie. state universities, 4-year liberal arts colleges, etc …), few seemed to have found another “half decent” academic job. Without mentioning any names, a few folks of the latter case I’m aware of did decide to go into teaching community college for a few years, but they didn’t really publish any research papers afterwards.
One thing is for sure. Should Lubos ever gets denied tenure, there won’t be any huge outpouring of sympathy for him, unlike Sean Caroll.
Weather forecasts are done by simulations. Lattice QCD calculations are done by Monte Carlo simulations. etc.
I wonder what would happen if academic tenure ceases to exist in America by congress passing a new law, where only existing tenured professor jobs remain while no new tenured jobs are produced in the future. On the surface one can perhaps see this being done by the republican congress, as a way of striking back at the “liberal left” in academia.
“Shut up, or I’ll set Lubos on you.” – That would have stopped Hoppe’s persecutors in their tracks.
Academic freedom in the US is mostly an illusion.
“My Battle with the Thought Police – Hoppe”
http://www.mises.org/story/1792
The irony is that the academic left demands that same type of cultural conformaty as the religious right when it comes to their own set of beliefs.
A plague on both their houses.
As for global warming, it’s become an quasi-religious meme that cannot be questioned to far too many people rather than a hypothesis. The fact that it’s based on simulations should be the first warning flag.
D R Lunsford May 2, 2005 05:53 PM said:
We should stick to physics here. LM isn’t exactly a fascinating topic.
and again D R Lunsford May 4, 2005 09:46 AM
Interesting penta-quark news
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050502203532.htm
but the topic here is LM. the lead post is “Lubos leashed”.
I think there is something to be learned from watching Lubos, as a sensitive compass needle.
Now (immediately after the leash episode) he points to Albert Einstein Institute at MPI-Potsdam where the director of string research is Hermann Nicolai.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/e10-billiards-and-m-theory.html
LM has some chips because of his visibility. IMO he won’t come out a victim, nor be easily repressed: too agile.
Suppose one were to ask what is the top center for string research which is immune to the Landscape disease. If Harvard should be infected, to such an extent that one cannot criticize what LM calls the “haystack”, where would a bright person want to go?
Interesting penta-quark news
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050502203532.htm
-drl
“Sean Carroll was…just told that his tenureship was denied at UofC
Wow, that’s horrible news. I wish him the best of luck in his upcoming search.
Sean Carroll was leashed, too. He just told that his tenureship was denied at UofC. That shocked many people. And I wish him the best in finding another job.
Peter would you not want to comment on that a bit? Here is a guy who wrote books and published a lot of papers, and he is still not good enough to earn his tenureship 12 years after his Ph.D. What’s the odd for some one like Lubos on the expectation of tenureship? I guess this really gets a lot of none-tenured people worried.
Does it have to do with politics? Sean is an openly Atheist. Could that has something to do with it? No body knows how tough it is if you are one refusing to believe in God in this country.
Quantoken
Why are you mistaking a superstring department for a physics department? Lubos realized his mistake and attended a real physics talk for the first time in his life.
Lubos, if you are out there reading this, can you tell us what exactly is going on? I’d hardly expect this sort of thing in a PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
Peter said:
… Whatever it was, it doesn’t seem to have slowed him down much since he is still posting political commentary not especially distinguishable from before. He does seem to have stopped criticizing the Landscape, maybe that’s what all this is about.
If so it is bad news. there are surprisingly few voices openly defending traditional scientific standards against attack from within
Blank 10:26AM said:
Isn’t it strange that Lubos is being so secretive and tantalizing as to how he was “leashed” and by whom? And isn’t it strange that he still posts his usual political views despite being “leashed”?
I take that as an indication that the pressure came from someone in his own department.
And why did he remove his “leashed” signature and other cryptic sentences like “I don’t enjoy the freedom to tell you what I think”?…
the quote about “don’t enjoy the freedom” was at the end of some rather muted comment on a recent paper by Vafa et al called “Baby Universes in String Theory”
the next poster sounds convinced by a smoke screen—a false explanation rumored by “Well-informed sources” in the department
In response to Peter’s
“He does seem to have stopped criticizing the Landscape, maybe that’s what all this is about.”
Blank 10:33AM said:
Well-informed sources 🙂 🙂 tell me that it was his climate stuff that finally went too far. Earlier versions of his latest post on that theme “raised ethical questions about the funding of climate research” — and what I’ve written is an extremely sanitized version….that was changed, with LM complaining that he was not allowed to say those things …. and now he’s not allowed even to say that! I really doubt that his landscape stuff would result in any problems. People in this line are used to trashing each other’s papers, no big deal. Though Eva Silverstein did blow a fuse, that’s very exceptional. But raising questions about where money is going — well, that’s *really* playing with fire.
I see, the real reason was his mentioning money (in the case of some climate research). It is normal to trash each other’s papers. Eva did blow a fuse but that’s very exceptional. Ha ha. Yes, it was really about funding in climate research.
At least one subsequent poster seems to have bought the screen. The conversation turned to issues like ivy league liberals, Sean Carroll’s views of women in science, and the superior analytical acumen of physicists.
I think Lubos was getting out an important message about the Landscape school of pseudo-physics, that his language in his “Kennedy Landscape” piece was too effective, and that departmental authority, conceivably in the shape of Cumrun Vafa or someone equally august, stepped in. I think that we can expect anti-global-warming blogs as usual from Lubos, but nothing further that equals his “Kennedy Landscape” piece. I do not think the turn of events is humdrum (some have suggested it is boring to discuss these Motl matters) but, on the contrary, appalling.
There is nothing particularly “humanistic” or “scientific” in pointing out a logical fallacy. It also seems orthogonal to “aptitude for interpersonal relationships, social graces, understanding”.
Perhaps ksh95 should follow his/her own advice and not confuse “superior analytical acumen, for superior acumen in other more humanistic topics” (incidentally, physicists’ superior analytical acumen is a bit of myth as well).
“…I shouldn’t speak for Sean Carroll, but what he has said is that the differences between men and women are not explanatory for the specific observed phenomena of the gender ratios in science…”
Either way. My point isn’t about Lubos or Sean. My point is, as physicists we should not mistake our superior analytical acumen, for superior acumen in other more humanistic topics.
I shouldn’t speak for Sean Carroll, but what he has said is that the differences between men and women are not explanatory for the specific observed phenomena of the gender ratios in science.
We should stick to physics here. LM isn’t exactly a fascinating topic.
-drl
ksh95 is very correct. It’s sad, but true.
Didn’t your mom ever tell you…
” As brilliant as you are, you have no common sense”
Translation: An aptitude for Field theory is a very different thing than an aptitude for interpersonal relationships, social graces, understanding society…etc.
My mom clearly understands that free speech does not mean you have the right to challenge orthodox political or scientific views. Go to San Fransisco, scream I believe marriage is between a man and a women, and then try to open a corner store. Go to West Virginia, scream there is no god, and then try to find some fishing buddies.
Lubos was leashed…big surprise there!!!
As an assistant professor, in a physics department, in a flamingly liberal school, one can not expect to PUBLICLY attack liberal philosophy while simultaneously PUBLICLY declaring that the ayatollahs new theories are nonsense, and avoid consequences.
Brilliant, young, theoritician, completly lost when it comes to understanding people.
And just so you don’t think I’m anti Lubos.
How did Sean Carroll convince himself that 4 billion years of evolution have resulted in a perfect equivilance between men and women (except for a few obvious differences).
A brilliant, theoritician, completly lost when it comes to understanding people.
It seems to me. At best social or interpersonal intelligence is completly uncorrelated to analytical intelligence. At worst social or interpersonal intelligence is negatively correlated to analytical intelligence.
I have nothing against LM and wish him well.
I also strongly feel he should be allowed to express his views freely on physics and politics regardless of whether I agree with them or not.
Jumping between this blog and LMs there has been a lot interesting stuff debated and argued this past year. Nevertheless, I am getting really tired with all the conversation and attention that focuses upon him. Last week it was a debate about his publications for example. And I even am talking about him right now! But I think this is part of what is going on: the “leashing” has probably something to do with the fact that he has a very high profile among the online physics community and has now somehow become (inadvertantly) the voice and representation of Harvard’s physics department. (If other Harvard physicists had blogs I guess this would balance things out though.) They probably want him to tone it down quite a bit.
Having been at an Ivy League school myself for a while I do know that you are there and are hired for the greater glory and image of the school more than you are to serve yourself and your own needs and views. LM is also probably realising that the US is not the land of the free and free speech it claims to be (at least not any more). I know young faculty can have a very hard time and are under a lot of pressure so I do wish him well and hope he gets through things ok if he is having a bad time. In the end though you have to be true to yourself and what you believe in and be in an environment where you are comfortable doing that and free to do that.
This is getting fanatically rediculous and ideological bias should be outlawed from science altogether.
Imagine how left-wing extremists would react to finding out that humans have a real practical function in nature that results from the growing “higher-level” physical “need” of our expanding universe.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990
Imagine how right-wing fundie creationists would react to finding out that their “higher-power” is actually the second law of thermodynamics.
Science and humanity is doomed if it comes down to right-winged fanaticism vs. leftist liberalism
Is the previous anonymous none other than Lubos himself? It certainly seems like it. If he really is Lubos, the whole “leashing” thing sounds extremely suspicious to me. If there is anything fishy going on with the funding of climate research, it’s most likely to be coming from the side of global warming skepticism, but Lubos is on their side…
It certainly seems out of place for global warming researchers to “leash” a blogger with little credibility.
I don’t think it’s no big deal to trash each others ideas. It may be the cultural norm in physics, but it can still be very hurtful, which is even the more so if the trasher is wrong.
And I don’t think Silverstein blew a fuse. It seems more like she was defending herself from unfair attacks.
“He does seem to have stopped criticizing the Landscape, maybe that’s what all this is about.”
Well-informed sources 🙂 🙂 tell me that it was his climate stuff that finally went too far. Earlier versions of his latest post on that theme “raised ethical questions about the funding of climate research” — and what I’ve written is an extremely sanitized version….that was changed, with LM complaining that he was not allowed to say those things …. and now he’s not allowed even to say that! I really doubt that his landscape stuff would result in any problems. People in this line are used to trashing each other’s papers, no big deal. Though Eva Silverstein did blow a fuse, that’s very exceptional. But raising questions about where money is going — well, that’s *really* playing with fire.
Isn’t it strange that Lubos is being so secretive and tantalizing as to how he was “leashed” and by whom? And isn’t it strange that he still posts his usual political views despite being “leashed”?
And why did he remove his “leashed” signature and other cryptic sentences like “I don’t enjoy the freedom to tell you what I think”? Isn’t this a free country?
Which is scarier – that someone told him to cool it on his political beliefs or academic thoughts?
I think it’s possible that someone advised him that his instantaneous trashing of papers and talks as soon as they came out within the small world of string theory physics is not how the game should be played.
I think he should behave as he sees fit, with an understanding that there are consequences to free speech as well – especially in closed communities like academia.
I certainly support Lubos’s right to say whatever he wants, but before protesting too loudly his “leashing” I’d like to know exactly what happened. Did someone tell him he should stop expressing right-wing political viewpoints? Or did they just tell him he was often making a fool of himself? Whatever it was, it doesn’t seem to have slowed him down much since he is still posting political commentary not especially distinguishable from before. He does seem to have stopped criticizing the Landscape, maybe that’s what all this is about.
I agree with Anonymous at May 2, 2005 06:53 AM that if Lubos is being leashed, his would be a case to defend strongly.
Well, I can’t understand why Motl feels “leashed” (putting aside his psychological motivations for putting this show). And I think if people really believed in freedom of speech etc., if indeed he is serious in his being “leashed”, his would be the case to defend vigorously. And that’s precisely because his views are so obnoxious (he’s basically the equivalent of a party hack here; old habits die hard).
So, if he indeed is feeling constrained in any way, I think this would be the situation to strongly defend his rights (however repugnant his stances). Especially relevant for Peter to do that – would be nice for Peter (he mentioned it briefly in this post though) to have a post staunchly supporting Motl’s right to say whatever he has to say, plainly and unequivocally.
Offtopic, but about today’s (May 2, 2005) appearance of one new hep-th preprint. This sure seems odd for the otherwise normally “busy” hep-th board. Has there been any other days in the past which only had one, or even zero, new hep-th preprints?
(I don’t believe this is a sign of reckoning).
[i] But who would feel so threatened by a lone ravings of a scientist with no political clout?[/i]
If Lubos has been subjected to pressure or warnings about the content of his blog, I would guess it is not because of his reactionary politics but rather because of this:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000184.html
that is, “leashing” if it has really occurred, was more likely prompted by his outspoken and effective criticism of string theory Landscape research.
His “Kennedy Landscape” posting of 22 April, which Peter quoted and gave a link to, would have been the last straw.
Everything else Lubos does on his blog is a “petty misdemeanor” by comparison and the authorities would be petty themselves, were they to discipline him for it.
lubos does not seem to be the type of person who can be silenced easily. The “leashing” probably involves his tenure or something. If that’s the case, I must say that’s an awful abuse of the tenure system. But who would feel so threatened by a lone ravings of a scientist with no political clout?
I got it! “Politically Correct” (I was trying “Communist Party” in a first guess)
I missed something. I thought that PC was standing for “Parity times Charge”.
Hmmm…..I guess loony political beliefs are those you disagree with?
Is it loony to megaphone nonsense in the campus courtyard? (cf Witten and Co.). I guess not if it conforms to the PC orthodoxy.
Pretty weak-minded stuff from smart people, but it’s predictable from those who never made it off campus.
Over the years I’ve heard of a few cases of untenured folks either saying all kinds of loony things, and/or burning all their bridges behind. In these particular cases, the untenured person in question knew they were never going to get tenure at their university nor at any other research university for that matter. With this realization their mindset is basically in a “lame duck” phase where nothing “academic” matters to them anymore, and they’re already sending out their resume looking for another job outside of academia. During this “lame duck” stage these folks took on an attitude of goofing off and being an annoyance, before they get the eventual boot.
In what way has Lubos Motl’s right to speak been curtailed? Has there been any formal sanctions? Or has been informal, some faculty member or official hinting at something?
My doubt being that if we interpret graphs of world ocean temperature, or the scientific value of string theory differently, then do we know that we would interpret whatever lead to being “leashed” in the same way? Without more facts, there is no objective way of judging the matter.
-Arun
Fred,
When was Feynman “chastized on many occasions”?
I’m sorry if Lubos got into trouble. I thought Harvard was “The Crazy Academic’s Last Stand”, so to speak.
It is possible that Motl has been restrained because of this politics, but far more likely – in my opinion, at least – is that Harvard took a dim view of his generally behaving like a mad dog. If so, I will miss him. A least he put his head above the parapet, for example, in posting here – something that few other string theorists have been prepared to do, and certainly not to the degree that he did.
Fortunately scientists are somewhat immune to the politics of tenure/academic thought police with regards to someones particular idealogy.
This is not always the case, women had a great deal of difficulty in the past, as have notable conservatives (Edward Teller and Feynman both were chastised on many occassions). The same holds for liberals (the Colorado proffessor with the loony views on the WtC for instance).
However when you make enough of a buzz about yourself (say in lectures or on a blog) invariably you will end up with a backlash. Being a string theorist or most any high profile scientist kinda gives an intellectual edge to any conversation that might be seen as threatening to the average public or academic figure. I mean it wasn’t long ago that scientists were sorta seen as high priests/priestesses of Ishtar when the nuclear age was dawning on us.
Still, its shocking that there is this ‘leashing’ taking place. I’ve seen it happen to other people too to a lesser degree (morally speaking).
Peter, you say “… There certainly were plenty of people who had trouble in academia because of their political beliefs during the fifties. When I said I wasn’t aware of any cases I meant during the last 25 years or so …”.
Could that mean that a pendulum has swung over a 50-year period so that we are now entering a new era of politicized academia, in which the role of the McCarthy bad guys of the 1950s is now being played by the PC bad guys of today in the 2000s ?
(I admit that “bad guys” is a subjective term, but it is how I view them.)
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
Hi Tony,
There certainly were plenty of people who had trouble in academia because of their political beliefs during the fifties. When I said I wasn’t aware of any cases I meant during the last 25 years or so that I’ve been around universities.
Peter, you say that you have “… never heard of any case in math or physics where this … political beliefs … was in any way an issue in a tenure decision. …”.
What about David Bohm’s expulsion from Princeton?
According to the Bohm biography Infinite Potential, by F. David Peat (Addison-Wesley 1997) at pages 101, 104, and 133:
“… when his [Bohm’s] … Princeton University … teaching … contract came up for renewal, in June [1951], it was terminated. … Renewal of his contract should have been a foregone conclusion … Clearly the university’s decison was made on political and not on academic grounds … Einstein was … interested in having Bohm work as his assistant at the Institute for Advanced Study … Oppenheimer, however, overruled Einstein on the grounds that Bohm’s appointment would embarrass him [Oppenheimer] as director of the institute. … Max Dresden … read Bohm’s papers. He had assumed that there was an error in its agruments, but errors proved difficult to detect. … Dresden visited Oppenheimer … Oppenheimer replied … “We consider it juvenile deviationism …” … no one had actually read the paper … “We don’t waste our time.” … Oppenheimer proposed that Dresden present Bohm’s work in a seminar to the Princeton Institute, which Dresden did. … Reactions … were based less on scientific grounds than on accusations that Bohm was a fellow traveler, a Trotskyite, and a traitor. … the overall reaction was that the scientific community should “pay no attention to Bohm’s work.” … Oppenheimer went so far as to suggest that “if we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him.” …”.
Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/