Symposium on unidentified flying objects: hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, second session, July 29, 1968.

111
the task. We must also 'be concerned with the risks of panic resulting in people
hurting one another, even if the assumed extraterrestrial visitors mean no harm.
This risk could be markedly reduced by preparing the public for the eventu-
ality—by treating it as a serious possibility that must be discussed. The greatest
risk of panic would come from a dramatic confrontation between the assumed
"visitors" and a collection of humans who were unprepared and had been told
that their leaders did not 'believe such visitors existed. Another risk is that we
might misinterpret such devices as weapons of another country and thereby
accidentally trigger nuclear war. If these are extraterrestrial devices, we have,
of course, a great opportunity to learn from their technology, which would
appear to be very advanced in certain respects by our terrestrial standards.
Second, let us suppose that this is a novel natural phenomenon which we do
not understand. Under this assumption we still run the risk of panic if a crowd
of people are confronted with a case of the phenomenon without any prepara-
tion. We still run the risk of misinterpreting an occurrence as a hostile weapon
system. Also, it is a reasonable assumption that we might reap scientific and
technological benefit from understanding such 'a puzzling thing that appears
to involve some kind of concentration of energy.
Third, let us suppose that the whole persistent 'business of UFO reports
over the years is strictly a social psychological phenomenon—a new and extreme
case of mass hysteria and hysterical contagion. In this event the underlying
anxiety must indeed be massive and the risk of panic 'accordingly very great
unless we can introduce trusted information and reduce the ambiguity and
anxiety. Under this assumption—if atmospheric and astronomical observations
can be so badly misinterpreted and so badly reported by many people of good
reputation and good education—then I would judge that we run great risk of
misinterpreting those same phenomena as hostile weapons, and we must pre-
pare for this risk. Most important, if this whole business is a social psychological
phenomenon, then this is prima facie evidence of the urgent need to improve
our understanding of the processes of mass hysteria, belief formation, and means
of controlling the kinds of anxiety that generate such 'a problem. In this event
the UFO reports present an unsurpassed natural laboratory for research on
mass hysteria, human response to ambiguity, standards for assessment of human
testimony, and other related matters.
CONCLUSIONS
1. No matter which explanation is correct, we have a rare opportunity for
gaining useful knowledge by a thorough, detached study of UFO reports and
a more systematic gathering of new evidence.
2. Hysteria and contagion of belief can account for some of the reports of
UFOs, but the weight of evidence suggests strongly that there must be some
kind of physical phenomenon which underlies a portion of the reports.
3. Because of the lack of trustworthy information about UFO reports, systems
of conflicting belief have 'been built up to account for this 'ambiguous set of
circumstances, and each position is sometimes defended beyond the point of
rationality.
4. Whether or not there is a physical phenomenon underlying a portion of the
reports, we now have, in addition to any other problem, a social psychological
problem of subduing irrational defense of beliefs, lowering anxiety about the
reports, and reducing ambiguity about the causes of the reports.
5. Our lack of understanding of UFO reports forces us to run unnecessary
risks of panic and of accidental triggering of nuclear war.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The most important and urgent matter is to promote the fullest possible cir-
culation of all available information about UFOs and to encourage systematic
gathering of new evidence. This should help to reduce the risks of panic and
other dangerous irrational actions. This should also help to weaken the irrational
elements incorporated into opposing systems of belief. Indifference or disinterest
on the part of national leaders can retard our learning about the phenomenon at
hand; open interest and encouragement can help. The whole matter needs to be
treated as something'deserving serious study.
2. At least three lines of serious research should be undertaken: ('a) For the
100 to 200 cases per year that are reliably reported and well documented, we need
to study carefully reports of recurring patterns of 'behavior by the phenomenon,