Linus Pauling Still Teaches Courage

CORVALLIS, Oregon -- Linus Pauling was one of the greatest scientists and most renowned peace activists of the 20th century: the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel Prizes (for chemistry in 1954, and peace in 1963). 

Normally his life and mine would not cross paths, especially because I still have not overcome the deep emotional trauma and psychological self-esteem scars I suffered in high school due to my total inability to comprehend anything that happened in classes of chemistry or physics, his fields of renown. But a few months ago, I was honored with an invitation to deliver the 25th annual "Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Memorial Lecture on World Peace," at Oregon State University. 

This gave me the opportunity to learn more about his extraordinary life, which I write about today because it remains relevant for two reasons: first, that men and women of letters, science, business and the arts should courageously enter the world of politics and bring their knowledge and influence to bear on the policies of their governments; and, second, for pointing out the several ways in which the policies of global powers intersect with the affairs of smaller countries around the world.

While preparing for my talk, I visited the complete collection of the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers at the university's Valley Library, where I experienced the thrill of leafing through letters between Pauling and world figures like Martin Luther King, Bertrand Russell, and John F. Kennedy.

I came away feeling that Linus Pauling's most impressive and enduring legacy -- which reflected the profound influence of his wife Ava Helen -- was to combine his scholarly genius with a moral commitment to work for world peace and nuclear disarmament. His pursuit of a world without war was inspired mainly by his scientific awareness of the destructive capacity of the thermonuclear weapons that were being developed in the late 1940s and 1950s. He felt that powerful bombs and sophisticated new missile-based delivery systems would forever change "the nature of war," in a manner that would result in mass suffering from the direct destruction of war, along with the lingering impact of radiation and disease and the parallel threat of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

He also pointed out that the big powers often had a negative impact on local conditions around the world. He foresaw the problem of "small wars" comprising local insurrections and guerrilla movements, often triggered by "economic exploitation and oppression by dictatorial governments which retain power through force of arms."

Those dictatorial powers often remained in office because they were supported by the world's superpowers, he noted. He advocated some sort of regular referendum throughout the world to ascertain "the will of the people with respect to their national government."

I sensed that his political thinking was heavily influenced by his scientific work. He wrote once that, "One way in which scientists work is by observing the world, making note of phenomena, and analyzing them."

In my own research and preparation for my lecture, I tried to find a link between Pauling's approach to life, work and public policy, and any relevance to the situation of the United States in the Middle East today. I concluded simply that political leaders in the West today would do well to follow Pauling's advice on how to work, whether in science or politics. The starting point must be a close, dispassionate observation of realities on the ground: what people feel, say and do, and why they do what they do.

Anybody who applies this method today to the Middle East would see effervescence, turbulence and activism throughout the region, expressed in a wide variety of ways: orderly political action, public religiosity, communal and tribal mobilization for political ends, and some criminal and terroristic acts. A majority of Arabs and Muslims are expressing discontent with their life conditions, political systems, or socio-economic prospects.

Any scientist -- even political scientists and politicians -- should be able to hear and understand the cries for a more orderly, safe and just society that emanate from throughout the Middle East. Many of the preconceived ideas or simplistic impressions about Middle Eastern Arabs and Muslims that prevail in the United States and other Western countries are not derived from careful observation of facts.

Pauling proved to be correct in being concerned about the synthesis of big powers support for local dictators, the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, and the eruption of "small wars" among populations who were degraded by economic exploitation and political oppression. Those several dangerous phenomena seem increasingly to mesh into a single dynamic in some parts of the world. The Ava Helen and Linus Paulings of our day would do well to stand up now and make their voices heard, just as this courageous couple did half a century ago.