course, what might be called the forum attitude that is lacking. Yet it will be freely recognized by all that fair and unhampered presentation of revolutionary ideas and discoveries is especially vital to the continued advancement of inquiry. The national interest itself obviously requires the active cultivation of unrestricted investigation. It seems likely that the well-known lag of American science (omitting technology) behind European contributions in the more fundamental researches of the last fifty years (for example, in psychology and physics) is due entirely to this one distinct difference, this greater inhospitality to novel and unconventional claims that prevails in the United States.
Through the anxious years coming up, man's fitness to survive what already hangs over his head may easily depend on how well and how fast his scientists can think. But who knows what this thinking is worth until it is known -- until it is made readily available in the forum, the symposium, and the periodical? It is time, and it is urgent, to borrow from the engineers their successful practice of reaching out for, instead of fending off, novel claims and unorthodox discoveries, of clarifying their status promptly and in general encouraging the creative turn of mind -- and to extend this practice to areas beyond that of gadgetry and invention, areas that have to do with the understanding of man and the guiding values of life.
In this last section I have been attempting to say that Price's article is perhaps more revealing with regard to the need in American science for a more tolerant attitude than it is of the status of the struggling young science of parapsychology on which it has made a curious, bludgeoning attack. Parapsychology can now take care of itself, I think, but what about American science?