Open Letter to the Director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

The Reasons for My Resignation from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

We have a moral obligation and duty to think, speak, and act first as citizens for a peaceful world, and next as scientists. The higher our education is, the higher our responsibilities are for a humane world. Should we talk about science before we even think about what our science is for? That is precisely what we are doing. And that is why I resigned from my position as a scientist in the nuclear weapons program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as of January 31, 2000.

Albert Einstein warned us about the unleashed power of the atom: "This basic force of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms." The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s logo is: Science in the National Interest. I believe that if Albert Einstein were alive today, not only would he not be working at LLNL, but he would also be strongly condemning its mission. And what is the logo of Los Alamos National Laboratory? Science Serving Society. Do the national labs believe that they are serving society by endangering its very existence?

My purpose in writing this letter is to make known the reason for my resignation from LLNL. It is simply that my conscience does not allow me to work for the development or maintenance of nuclear weapons. In direct relation to this, I would also like to make known my concern about the hiring practices of the Lab. When I was hired by LLNL, I was not adequately informed about the specifics of my job responsibilities. After being hired, I found myself expected to work on weapons maintenance in the Stockpile Stewardship Program. I believe that I am not alone in having this experience of not being directly informed.

I find it quite curious that informed consent is common practice in our society, yet prospective employees at the US nuclear weapons laboratories are not asked to provide written consent to their job responsibilities before being hired. This attitude of indirectness is demonstrated in US Department of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson’s own words on another topic during an interview with CNN on Jan. 29. "Yes, there were exposures, the workers weren't actively lied to, but they were not informed of potential exposures, so it's not a direct lie, but it could be they were not leveled with." And in the New York Times, which reported the story first, he said: "This is the first time the government is acknowledging that people got cancer from radiation exposure in the plants." …

I am asking DOE the same question: If many scientists knew that sooner or later they would find themselves entangled in nuclear weapons work, would they have joined the National Labs? I believe that we are dealing with unethical practices in not leveling with people and that serious questions are raised regarding the integrity of our leaders. The outcome, as in every similar case, is that no one individual by name is accountable, and eventually it is the taxpayers of the country who pay for all these wrong doings. Upon realizing on the one hand the obviously questionable practices in the workplace, and on the other hand, the real mission of the national scientific laboratories, I decided to withhold my scientific skills and resign. I cannot forget what my ancient Greek teachers taught me, which I now see being practiced worldwide: "Science without virtue is immoral science." — Plato

On November 5, 1999 in NewsLine, a LLNL newsletter, Edward Teller addressed Livermore’s citizens of the year 2100. He wrote, "This letter is written at a time of both great fortune and very real danger." He continued, "The United States has won the Cold War without any bloodshed. This victory was made possible by scientific advances and technical progress that sufficed to eliminate violent confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union." He expressed his confidence in the coming generations, saying that they will find a way to avoid the misuse of technology. He also mentioned brotherhood. Nevertheless, despite the hopes and confidence of the father of the hydrogen bomb for a safe future, many others know that the real world is headed towards new high-tech arms races and increasing dangers of global confrontations….

How can we continue to go back home after work every day and look in our children’s eyes and tell them that we are working for a safer world for them? Have our hearts become stones? Every person alive today, if we go deep enough into the contradiction between one’s conscience and one’s outward life, is in a state of despair. We, the scientists, have tried to justify our involvement in building and maintaining nuclear arsenals by claiming that we are doing it for peace. How can we have peace when, by our work on weapons, we are raising fear in the hearts of those who do not have the same technology for killing?…

True peace is based on mutual trust. The argument that I have heard so many times from weapons scientists is this: Since the last big war, we have not had another one, so the invention of terrible weapons of destruction has put an end to war because, they say, everyone knows how terrible it would be if they dared to start one. This is an error. Who has led them to this amazing delusion? Who has led them to lose themselves in the temporary daily demands of their scientific careers and to forget about eternal demands of their conscience?

My fellow scientists and engineers, the national labs must change from labs of war to labs of peace if there is to be a chance to avoid the extinction of all life on earth. Environmental work is not the same as work on weapons, and environmental work is not environmental work when it creates space for more weapons. Does nonproliferation work advance the goal of nonproliferation when, at the same time, we are building more weapons? Who are we trying to fool? Many scientists are hired at the national labs to do environmental or other work, seemingly not directly related to weapons work. But because of budgetary considerations these scientists sooner or later find themselves being expected to work on the making or maintenance of nuclear weapons. I propose therefore the use of an informed consent document during these hires so such unwelcome surprises can be avoided.

Those who work on environmental projects or nonproliferation projects at the nuclear weapons labs have not realized that such a thing is an illusion. What environmental work? What nonproliferation work? Last October 13 the US Senate voted down the 40-years-in-the-making Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Now, through the deceptively-named "Stockpile Stewardship" program, not only are weapons expected to be tested, but new weapons are also to be made. In simple words: we are burying the waste so we can make more, and building more weapons so that other nations will follow our example.

It is apparent that DOE is also luring civilian establishments to participate in the development of a new generation nuclear arsenal and is seeking to incorporate the nation’s leading universities into an effort to attract and train yet another generation of nuclear weapons designers. But I consider the most inexcusable DOE practice to be the luring of high school students into the world of weapons. Innocent and naive young people are invited every summer into the national nuclear weapons laboratories. They are taught the myth of keeping the world safe by building and maintaining thousands of constantly improved nuclear warheads. But their teachers fail to tell them that the fate of these weapons will ultimately be determined by the mood of a future dictator, and that it will be too late then for anyone to stop the great violence to be committed against humanity….

I know without any doubt in my heart that the people who work on nuclear weapons are as good as people who work anywhere else. I have met some people with such beautiful souls that I find it impossible to explain why they would work on weapons. The only way I can explain it to myself is that they are in a state of hypnosis. They are working on science in a detached way, not thinking about what will happen as a result outside of the laboratory.

Let’s not comfort ourselves that someone else, man or God, is watching out for humanity. The train is now on the bridge and is going very fast. The first compartment is full of scientists and educated people who profess that they know what they are doing. The middle compartments are full of people, nearly six billion people! The last compartment is loaded with ammunition, violence and death. The compartments are being held together very tightly. I am appealing to all who read these words to come out of the train now. You will hear this appeal again and again, every time you look in the mirror of your soul, every time you look in the eyes of your children and in the eyes of the people you love, and yes every time you look at a flower and at a bird. Come out….

Thus I appeal to you for introspection and serious consideration of your actions. If humanity has need for science, it is not for immoral science. How many scientists are necessary to change immoral science to moral science? A crime into a virtue? One man putting together some chemicals in a garage to make a bomb is breaking the law even though he may not kill anyone. If he does kill a fellow creature, he is tried as a murderer. If two men do so, they too, are called murderers. But a weapons laboratory, a government, or a nation can make thousands of nuclear bombs, threatening to kill as many people as it chooses, and that will not be called murder, but a great and noble action….

DOE is funding the projects, providing millions of dollars and access to the supercomputers housed at the US’s three weapons labs. DOE apparently is using academic intellectual resources to do work on nuclear weapons. Here we see how civilian research and military research are losing their identity and becoming one. Universities even contribute leveraging funds for these experiments.

We urgently need an international campaign to help scientists and engineers see that they must withhold their skills from war-science. I hope that my letter of appeal will start this campaign and that individuals from every nation will offer their support for the idea. My letter is a wake up call to all those who can hear the call of their conscience….

Having contemplated on these matters, and having recognized the real and misrepresented mission of the US National Laboratories, I have decided to resign. I cannot live my life in a way that goes against my conscience.

These are some of the issues that concerned scientists and engineers should immediately start working on worldwide:

1. Establish informed consent hiring practices at national weapons laboratories and all other scientific/military establishments.
2. Stop bringing high school and college students into the weapons labs.
3. Encourage and help scientists to withhold their skills from weapons work.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008