Behavior Whatever Happened to UFO's?

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

MARGARET MEAD

admirals had purchased from an inventor a wholly worthless invention which it was claimed could detect submerged submarines by a radar-like reflection of electromagnetic waves. This could not possibly work because of the conductivity of sea water, and it did not work when expensively tested. A test had to be made to satisfy the admirals and certain congressmen. A Russian spy in the same Navy laboratory got hold of the invention and our test results and sent them to Russia. The Russians did more work on the invention. Although they understood at once that it must be foolish, they thought they might be wrong because the Americans had spent so much time and money studying this crackpot invention. We know about this because an American spy in their laboratory sent to us the story of their work.

These and many other examples that could be given show that we have failed rather miserably to give even to so-called educated people some feeling for the way in which science investigates a subject, and the way in which scientists subject their observational material to critical evaluation before reaching conclusions. The thing that most people are least able to do is to refrain from drawing conclusions when there is not enough evidence at hand to warrant drawing conclusions.

In ancient times, the future was foretold in many ways that have gone out of favor, such as by examining the entrails of sacrificed animals, or basing omens on the study of the flight of flocks of birds. (Cicero practiced this latter method.) Before you smile, bear in mind that these views have never really had as much scientific study as have the UFO reports. Perhaps we need a National Magic Agency to make a large and expensive study of all these matters, including the future scientific study of UFOs, if any.

Where corruption of children's minds is at stake, I do not believe in freedom of the press or freedom of speech. In my view, publishers who publish or teachers who teach any of the pseudo-sciences as established truth should, on being found guilty, be publicly horsewhipped, and forever banned from further activity in these usually honorable professions. Truth and children's minds are too precious for us to allow them to be abused by charlatans.

# Public Policy and Behavioral Science

I am testifying out of long experience in the application of anthropology to contemporary national and international problems. During World War II, I worked within the context of the National Research Council on problems of nutrition, national morale, civilian defense, and cross national communication with Great Britain. I was one of the group that developed anthropological work on cultures at a distance—notably Germany and Japan and after World War II, I participated in and directed a series of studies on behalf of the Office of Naval Research, Rand and MIT, including studies on the Soviet Union, China and France. These were interdisciplinary team activities (summarized in "The Anthropology of Human Conflict," Mead and Metraux in "The Nature of Human Conflict," edited by Elton B. McNeil, Prentice Hall, Inc. 1965). Since 1952 I have devoted myself to the study of technical assistance and political implications of culture change, education, cross national and international order and control of warfare, population control, environmental control, urbanization, cross ideological communication, and recently to the world wide implications of the generation gap.

I am here to discuss the possible contributions that the behavioral sciences together, and anthropology in particular, can contribute to national and international affairs.

During World War II we made a fine start in the utilization of this group of young sciences on a whole series of problems ranging from obtaining a better understanding of the national cultures of our opponents, our allies and ourselves, to the determination of specific policies within the armed forces and within the nation, from the prediction of how Japan would respond to our treatment of the Emperor, to a clarification of relationships between the United States and our principal allies, to an illumination of the ambiguities in the responses of the various occupied countries to problems of civilian morale, to the maintenance of the health of the nation, to an unprecedented mobilization of our industrial resources, and to a deployment of resources in post war rehabilitation of a badly wounded world. These successes were accomplished under a set of conditions which can be clearly specified: a state of preparedness, mobilization and post war activity made possible by almost total commitment to a war which could be seen as a moral effort against almost overwhelming power and risk; a willingness of the community of behavioral scientists to give unstintingly of time and effort, within and without government,

Physical scientists have been vocal and highly influential in Washington in the shaping of public policy on a number of fronts since the end of World War II. But what has become of the influence of behavioral scientists in Congress and on Capitol Hill? Margaret Mead discusses the question in this excerpt from her testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee June 20, 1969 in a hearing on the psychological aspects of public policy. Dr. Mead is Curator of Ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University.