SfP Bulletin Spring/Summer 1983
Full text version of all articles from PDF edition is also available.
President – Eric Fawcett (416) 978-5217
Secretary – Brydon Gombay (416) 978-6928
Treasurer – Derek Manchester (416) 978-2978
Education Director – Terry Gardner (416) 978-6926
Research Director – Derek Paul (416) 978-2971
Publicity Director – Metta Spencer (416) 828-5316
Liaison Director – Rose Sheinin (416) 978-2754
Bulletin Editor – Edward Barbeau (416) 978-8601
Room A102, University College
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Chairmen Of Chapters
British Columbia – George Spiegelman (604) 228-2036
Waterloo Region – John Hepburn (519) 885-1211 ×3785/3845
New Brunswick – Israel Unger (506) 453-4783
S4P thanks Doreen Morton for typing this Bulletin.
Notice: Articles, reports and book reviews are invited for a special section of this Bulletin. They will be subject to refereeing.
83.28. Treasurer’s Notes And Requests
- We have engaged Clarkson Gordon, Chartered Accountants, to assist us in perfecting our registration as a charitable organization. This ought to be completed by the fall of this year, and we are requesting that it be back-dated. If and when registration is completed receipts for income tax purposes will be issued accordingly. Audited financial statements, now in preparation for the year ended March 31, 1983, will be published in the next bulletin. There has been no significant variation from the year ended March 31, 1983. Revenues and expenses increased from the area of $7,000.- $8,000. to $10,000.-$11,000. due mainly tc.an increase in the grant received from the federal government to assist in funding the seminar series.
- In order to expand our education programme, get our research programme off the ground, and start a scholarship fund we are devoting considerable attention to methods of fund raising. A budget incorporation same is under review, and will also be included in the next issue of this bulletin. Beyond increasing our memberships and making application for specific education and research grants, we are considering the establishment of a related business and other fund raising events. A combined survey, request for suggestions and order form is included in this mailing. Please complete the areas of interest to you and return it, in order that our planning and activities may reflect your interests and needs.
The mounting evidence that any nuclear exchange would constitute an unparalled disaster upon humanity has hardly begun to reduce the momentum of the arms race. Many citizens, who recall events of the thirties and forties, are legitimately concerned with national security and the preservation of our democratic sotiety. Consequently, the disarmament campaign cannot ignore the needs of defence, but rather must address them in an imaginative way.
Has the nuclear option foreclosed other more modest but effective military and non-military means of demonstrating our resolve to maintain our autonomy and institutions? Does the threat of total annihilation serve to guarantee to an aggressive power that it will have the unqualified support of its population who will have nowhere else to turn? Does the sheer cost of nuclear armaments distort social and economic priorities to the detriment of those institutions they purport to protect? To those of any nation who wish only to live out their lives in peace we should offer not terror but reassurance that we seek neither to control them nor destroy them. The challenge for scientists is to suggest ways of implementing a defence policy which combines the Min properties of resolve and reassurance.
This has been a good year for Science for Peace. We have grown in numbers, but more significantly we have developed into a truly national society. Three Chapters have been formed. The first in British Columbia, has been followed by those of Waterloo Region and New Brunswick. Reports from these Chapters are given elsewhere in the Bulletin, sections 83.24/25/26.
Your Executive Committee has recently drafted guidelines for the operation of Science for Peace. These define the relation between the Chapters and the national centre, at present in Toronto, within a structure which provides for financial accountability. The guidelines call for restructuring the Board of Directors and forming an Advisory Council. We shall be seeking approval of the members for these changes in the operation of Science for Peace at the next annual general meeting. The emphasis in developing the guidelines has been to facilitate achievement of the main objective of Science for Peace: “to conduct and encourage educational and research activities relating to the dangers of war waged with weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons”.
Our educational activities have included those reported by the regional Chapters as well as a weekly seminar series at Toronto. These seminars include talks by members of Science for Peace, by outside speakers from institutes of strategic studies and from other groups, and by academics from various departments of the university. A speakers bureau based on this seminar series is being developed, which will provide expert speakers for radio and TV as well as schools, riding associations and peace and disarmament groups, among others.
Progress is being made towards funding the Chair of Peace Studies at the University of Toronto. A Board of Reference for the Chair has been assembled: forty outstanding Canadians including academics, writers, religious leaders and political leaders, who have lent their names in support of the endeavour. As an interim measure, the University College Lectures in Peace Studies have been launched with a stellar roster of speakers in 1982-83 (see section 83.27 of this Bulletin).
The theme of the Convocation of November 11, 1982, was: Solutions to the Nuclear Arms Race. The organization, United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War, arranged to provide educational material to campuses across North America for this occasion. At Toronto Science for Peace collaborated with several student groups in arranging slide shows and displays around the campus, as well as the keynote address by Bernard Wood, Director of the North-South Institute.
Science for Peace chose the theme: Jobs with Peace, for its main activity at Toronto during United Nations Disarmament Week, the last week in October.
We attempted, with little success, to engage trade union participation in the events. Speakers included Mel Watkins (Science for Peace), Hon Walter Gordon, Paula Rayman (Brandon University), Paul Murphy (Council for Economic Priorities), Tom Joyce (Cruise Missile Conversion Project) and Ernie Regehr (Project Ploughshares).
The B.C. Chapter of Science for Peace embarked from the start on an ambitious programme of research activities. They have formed several working groups to research various topics, one of which achieved spectacular success by producing an excellent report: The Cruise Missile — a Canadian Perspective. This was released in February in Vancouver City Hall, with the Mayor and members of City Council in attendance. The report has been widely distributed and we believe in particular that it has had significant impact on the decision-makers in Ottawa.
Research activities at Toronto are being directed towards “peace technologies”. These include the techniques of detection and analysis necessary to develop monitoring capabilities required for verification of treaties restricting nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Surveillance and communications provided, for example, by an International Satellite Monitoring Agency, are also important peace technologies.
This direction of research was stimulated by the preparation of a research proposal entitled: Towards International Security — a study linking peace-building needs to available technologies. This proposal was submitted in May by several members of Science for Peace through the University of Toronto to the Ford Foundation, which had announced a series of grants to encourage research by universities and independent research institutions on international security and arms control issues.
Your president used the opportunity provided by the meeting of the Consultative Group on Disarmament and Arms Control, held in Toronto March 15-16, to announce the development by Science for Peace of a research programme in peace technologies. The new Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr. Alan Beesley, presided at this meeting.
Members of Science for Peace at the University of British Columbia responded to the Ford announcement with a research proposal entitled: A study of the facility of an International Arms Monitoring Agency. Whether or not these proposals are funded, their preparation has given focus to the research activities of Science for Peace.
The Director of Education (Terry Gardner) and the Director of Research (Derek Paul) each reported the formation of a Committee at the Board of Directors meeting on June 15, 1983, the last before the summer break. We anticipate that these two new Committees, working with the Funding Committee (galvanised into activity when at long last Science for Peace achieves charitable status), will develop greatly in the coming year our educational and research activities. (EF)
83.24. Report From The British Columbia Chapter
The B.C. Chapter of Science for Peace has been engaged in three areas of activities since the March Symposium on “The Prevention of Nuclear War” which was held jointly with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Much of our public efforts have been directed at informing interested parties about the cruise missile. An information booth was set up at the rally for the April 23rd Walk for Peace in Vancouver in which over 70,000 participated. The booth was used to distribute the cruise missile reports (now available in French too!) as
well as a two page summary of the report and other literature. We have provided fact sheets on the cruise missile for several groups including the B.C. Liberal Woman’s Caucus and End the Arms Race, and members of the Chapter have given public talks around Vancouver. The second focus of the group’s activities has been writing and submission of a proposal to the Ford Foundation entitled “A Study of the Feasibility of an International Arms Monitoring Agency”.
Finally the Chapter is continuing to work towards writing more reports along the line of the cruise missile report. There are study groups set up investigating the following topics: 1) computer simulation of nuclear attacks on Canada; 2) the Candu Reaction and its implications for erns control; 3) chemical and biological warfare current developments; 4) analysis of the current and previous strategies of deterrence; 5) aftermath effects of nuclear wars: in particular the effect on ozone; 6) current technology in antisubmarine warfare.
George Spiegelman (microbiologist), Chairman.
83.25. Report From The New Brunswick Chapter
The New Brunswich Chapter of Science for Peace was established in March 1983 and has grown to over 30 members. It is a truly province-wide chapter with memberships in the faculty of Mt. Allison University, Universite de Moncton, St. Thomas University and the University of New Brunswick. We enjoy a broad range of support from many Faculties including Science, Arts and Business Administration as well as the general public. One of our more prominent members is Dr. James Downey, the President of U.N.B.
We see our primary goal as the education of as many people as possible about the imminent chance of nuclear war and its consequences. To this end, we-have established a practice of disseminating relevant articles, newsletters and the like to all our members with instructions to read and pass on to a friend. Another accomplishment which we feel has been particularly effective is the endorsement and adoption by UNB’s Science Council & Faculty Senate of the Declaration on the Prevention of Nuclear War of the Pontifical Academy of Science. We are fortunate to have on our faculty Dr. Karel Wiesner, the only Canadian academic who is a member of the Academy. With his blessing and support and the effort of several chapter members, virtually 100% of the Science Faculty endorsed it and the U.N.B. Faculty Senate then adopted it unanimously. Dr. D. Brewer, Dean of Science and Dr. Downey have communicated our actions to their counterparts in other Canadian Universities and invited them to consider similar action.
David H. Coombs (biologist), Secretary.
83.26. Report From The Waterloo Chapter
The Waterloo Chapter of Science for Peace was established in January 1983. Our membership is fairly small at present (about 30 paid members with 70-100 more delinquents) as we have not yet had any sort of recruitment campaign on campus. We plan to be more vigorous in the coming fall term when it comes to collecting membership fees.
Science for Peace is not the only disarmament group on campus. Project Plowshares, a national organization as well, is based on the University of Waterloo campus, where, the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies (IPACS) is also located.
In the community, Science for Peace is a member of the Waterloo Region Peace Network, a coalition of about 15 local groups working together towards disarmament. The Peace Network is growing rapidly, and currently has about 1000 members. Science for Peace participates in the activities of the Peace Network by providing information on disarmament issues and helping with educational activities in the community.
As well as getting organized, Science for Peace has initiated several educational activities. The important task of educating politicians has begun by meeting with all the local MP’s (8 in all) on an informal basis, and offering them assistance and information on disarmament issues. These meetings have been low-key and cordial, and in some cases quite productive.
We ran a weekly series of meetings on campus during the spring term, with lectures and films in equal mix. Planning is underway to organize a similar series for the coming academic year. John Hepburn and Ernie Regehr are coordinating the educational activities on campus for Project Plowshares, IPACS and S4P, which will result in campus events being sponsored by all three groups.
A speakers bureau is being organized, and the Peace Network will arrange public lectures using this list. We are planning a (more or less) regular newsletter, to begin in the fall term when the graduate student who has agreed to edit the newsletter returns to campus.
On the research side, we plan to draw up a questionnaire to find out what the local MP’s feel about various disarmament issues. This study is to determine where there is a need for more information, and to assist MP’s in defining what their positions are on these issues. The Waterloo Chapter is taking great care not to offend the sensibilities of Revenue Canada, and is simply playing the role of information gathering in this research. Recognizing that we have a mandate for research and education, we shall leave political action to other groups.
As well, we are currently investigating university policies on Investment and defense related research. We hope to get the university to take a stand against secret research, a position it currently does not take.
Finally, although the local chapter has tremendous support amongst the science faculty members in chemistry and chemical engineering, as well as good support in other departments like political science, environmental studies, history etc., we recognize the need for expanding our support into such departments as computer science, electrical engineering and earth sciences where we presently have only a few members. We plan to work hard on this in the coming year, and hope to greatly expand our base of support.
John Hepburn (chemist), Chairman.
83.27. Peace Lectures On FM Radio
Tapes of the following University College Peace Studies lectures, aired on the Open College Series of CJRT-FM (Toronto), can be obtained from the S4P office.
- William Epstein, Consultant on disarmament for the Canadian government. “What to do about the Nuclear Threat”
- Kosta Tsipis, Professor, Science and Technology for International Security, M.I.T. “Directed energy weapons: war or peace in outer space?”
- Anatol Rapoport, Director, Institute for Advanced Study, Vienna. “Problems and pitfalls in peace research”
- Seymour Melman, Professor of Industrial Engineering at Columbia University, Co-president of SANE. “A strategy for disarmament”
83.30. Nuclear War And Public Health
Science for Peace has recently acquired a collection of papers from the Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 74, No. 1, 1983, reprinted under a single cover for the Physicians for Social Responsibility. The papers focus on not only the horrendous range of casualties from a nuclear war, but also on the current economic and psychological effects of maintaining the arms race. The articles included are: “The nature of nuclear attack”, Ian Carr; “The arms race: cancer in the global village”, Donald G. Bates; “Casualties in a
nuclear war”, Brian F. Habbick; “Nuclear war and public health”, V.I. Matthews; “Psychological aspects of the nuclear arms race” and “On the medical and psychological effects of nuclear war”, Frank G. Sommers.
83.35. Books — Special Offer By S4P
- This Is the Way the World Will End This Is the Way You Will End Unless…
by Harold Freeman
preface by Bernard T. Feld
forward and postscript by James Stark
1983 Hurtig Publishers
Special price $4.95
- How Effective Are Peace Movements?
by Bob Overy
1982 Harvest House
Special price $2.95
- Canada and the Nuclear Arms Race
edited by Ernie Regehr and Simon Rosenblum
forward by Margaret Laurence
1983 James Lorimer
This is the first book to offer concerned Canadians the background to Canada’s role in the nuclear arms race, and to show how Canada is contributing to it.
Special price $12.95
Write: Science for Peace (attention Peter Shepherd) University College, University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Please include something for postage. We are selling these books at list. If it proves useful to the membership, we can arrange on a regular basis to order selected books in bulk. Order now — order several copies of the Harold Freeman book for your friends who are still in a psychological state of nuclear denial!
83.36. The CND Bookclub
The British are producing some extraordinarily good “books for a nuclear age”, and the CND Bookclub makes them available quickly at about 25% below the published price. The prices are given in pounds sterling, but a money order is readily available at an exchange rate currently about two dollars to the pound. The brochure giving the current selections, etc., is enclosed. The address of the Club is 11 Goodwin Street, London, England N4 3HQ.
83.27. Peace Studies At The University Of Bradford
During May, the Toronto chapter was visited by Bob Overy, author of the book “How effective are peace movements?” (Harvest House) and member of the University of Bradford School of Peace Studies. This school produces a series of Peace Studies papers related to nuclear weapons and disarmament, the four most recent being:
6. “Non-nuclear military options for Britain” by Dan Smith
7. “Civil defence in Britain” by George Crossley
8. “Defence without offence – non-nuclear defence for Europe” by Frank Barnaby and Egbert Boeker
9. “Guide to nuclear weapons 1982-83” by Paul Rogers.
The first paper costs 80p plus an optional 17p for postage; the last three, .1,1..50 plus an optional 22p. Write to the School of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, England BD7 1DP
(June, 1983; Toronto)
A group of Science for Peace members has developed a research proposal for a two-year study under the heading: Towards International Security — a study linking peace-building needs to available technologies. The undersigned will be the Principal Investigators. Several members of Science for Peace along with other professionals have agreed to serve, if the project is funded, on a Project Advisory Committee, on a Consultative Committee, or on a Panel of Research and Resource Personnel. A half-time Research Coordinator, Dr. Tom Clark, would be in charge of internal administration as well as external relations and communication.
The proposed study is two-track in nature, with cross-linking from the outset and an eventual synthesis of conclusions from both approaches. One track would review various international agencies and organizations and assess their experience in confidence building and conflict resolution. The second track would review the state-of-the-art in selected technologies and assess their utility in meeting needs identified in track one. The selected technologies are primarily involved in physical analysis (e.g., ultra sensitive air sampling and mass spectrometry), satellite and other surveillance technologies, and a wide range of communication technologies. The symbiotic relationship would be explored between perceived needs and technical support; the awareness of the existence of a refined technology can be itself a creative force in the development of strategies for conflict identification and resolution. A basic premise in the research is that security now is a global as much as a national problem, and that confidence building requires institutions and cognitive outlooks in support of the global public interest in an improved security for people and for human rights everywhere. Our research plan is supplemented by plans for dissemination of our findings in several kinds of media; our Consultative Committee includes several highly reputed media specialists.
The research proposal was developed in response to a new Ford Foundation programme of research support and/or support for training programmes in the field of international peace, security and arms control. Approximately 90 universities have been approached by the Ford Foundation, including the University of Toronto, and up to 20 research grants in all are contemplated. Our proposal, and two others from the University, were evaluated by a Review Committee, and then transmitted to the Ford Foundation by Vice-Provost Saywell on May 16. Site visits by Ford Foundation officials will take place some time this fall if the proposal makes a “short list”.
Dept. of Political Science
Depts. of Physics and Medicine
(March 1, 1983)
Is our Government telling us the truth about the cruise missile tests?
Our Department of External Affairs has released on February 10, 1982, a “Communique” and “Background Notes” on the testing of defence systems in Canada. A careful study of these documents raises serious questions. The communique states that the system to be tested could include “guidance systems for unarmed cruise missiles”. In fact the sole purpose of these systems is to guide armed missiles to their targets (which may be the populations of large cities). The fact that for purposes of flight testing bombs are replaced by dummies is completely irrelevant.
On Page 2 the communique states: “NATO members have been deeply concerned about the Soviet Union’s SS-20’s, which pose a very serious treat to many of the European states”. It is of course true that the Soviet Union could completely destroy Western Europe by launching these missiles. But it could do the same by launching its SS-4’s and SS-5’s, or by launching 3% of its 7000 “strategic” warheads on these same targets. It will not do this for two reasons; first, Western Europe is its most valued trade partner with whom it desperately seeks increased co-operation; second, it knows perfectly well that a nuclear war would mean the complete destruction of its own country, as well as those of its enemies. Neither reason is in any way modified by the presence or absence of SS-20’s, nor is the danger to Europe. This danger can be eliminated only by detente and disarmament.
The background notes provide no background to the development of “intermediate range” missiles. Land-based missiles of this range, called “Jupiter”, were first stationed in Europe by the U.S. in the 1950’s. The Soviets replied by developing the SS-4’s and SS-5’s. In the 1960’s the Pentagon decided that land-based missiles close to enemy territory were too vulnerable and replaced them by missiles launched from submarines stationed in European waters; some 400 of these are there today.
The Soviets, not controlling European waters, did not have this option and had to rely on their equally vulnerable SS-4’s and SS-5’s; only in the last few years had they begun to replace them by SS-20’s, which are mobile and therefore less vulnerable. They consider them as a “balance” to the U.S. Intermediate sea-and air-based missiles as well as to the British and French ones. However, they have now agreed to discount the former and to accept parity with the British-French partners of NATO. This would mean a reduction from the present level of 1250 warheads to 486. It is misleading for the background notes to call this “some” reduction; a reduction of over 60% must be called substantial.
The Soviets have meanwhile gone farther in proposing the abolition of all “tactical” nuclear weapons: a true “zero” solution. This would leave both sides with only their “strategic” intercontinental missiles which, as both sides have always claimed, are intended never to be used, but to “deter” the other side from using theirs in a “first Strike”. A first strike makes sense only if it can knock out the other side so far that it can not answer with a totally devastating second strike. This is a pipe dream; the Soviets know this and have unilaterally renounced any first strike. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration has so completely lost touch with reality that it believes it can “prevail” in a nuclear war by striking first. It is for this that the Cruise is being developed, to be launched from the air as well as from sea and land. The tests at Cold Lake are to be made from the air. This incidentally shows that they have nothing to do with the alleged need of “balancing” the SS-20’s in Europe; this is merely a smokescreen.
The background notes deny that the cruise is a first-strike weapon because it “would take two to three hours to reach its target”. This is true, but irrelevant: the critical time is not from launching but from detection to arrival at the target. The sole purpose of the elaborate guidance system is to avoid detection by radar. If the Pentagon believed that the cruise missile could be detected by other means, there would be no point in having a missile that hugs the ground. Nor can the cruise be detected before it is launched; it is so small that it can be hidden in a truck. It is a sneak weapon for a sneak attack. It must be stopped if we are to survive.
Will our government tell us the truth? or does it believe that it can fool all of the people all of the time?
Toronto, 1 March, 1983. Hans Blumenfeld, O.C.
(April 6, 1983)
Dr. Don G. Bates, Professor of History of Medicine, Chairman of the McGill Study Group for Peace and Disarmament and a director of Physicians for Social Responsibility (Canada) conducted a seminar on “After the Cruise — where next?” at the annual general meeting of Science for Peace in Toronto on April 6, 1983.
Dr. Bates felt that the issue of testing the cruise missile in Canada would soon be settled, one way or the other, and that we should look ahead to other issues. He pointed to a Financial Post article which referred to pressure on Canada from the United States ro refurbish the DEW-line and improve air defenses. As Canada’s role in NORAD is subject to change, we must adhere to a policy based on principle rather than opportunism. Currently, it appears that we will do without nuclear weapons on our soil since this saves us money, but we are still willing to sell uranium and to participate in high technology.
Public pressure will undoubtedly be necessary to bring about arms reductions, as it led to the comprehensive test ban treaty. The responsibility of scientists is to show the pub,ic how technology can serve peace as well as war, and how the needs of defense ,nd verification can be served. They should maintain a skepticism towards claims of military superiority and stress how fallible our systems can be. Science for Peace must put down deep roots, particularly in our educational institutions.
Recommendation from the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT)
In the summer of 1982 the Solicitor General reported the possibility of pressure by the United States on its NATO allies to restrict transfer of strategically useful technological developments to the Soviet Union and its allies. The following technologies are deemed by U.S. government officials to be among those vulnerable to restrictions:
- advanced computing techLology including magnetic bubble memories and other memory technology, super-fast circuitry, machine architecture; pattern-recognition devices, all advanced interactive devices;
- high energy lasers;
- rocketry and satellite guidance systems;
- radar and other detection and tracking systems;
- all advanced systems of radio and telecommunication including the TELIDON system;
- high performance aircraft design and engineering;
- advanced ground or marine weapons and defences including tanks, remote sensing devices, deep diving submersibles and vehicles for cold-weather operation;
- cryptology and other related forms of mathematical research;
- research on viral diseases, funguses and other biologic means of attacking and defending against attacks (anthrax and mycotoxins in Southeast Asia);
- Chemical means of disabling opponents and of destroying their agriculture and forests (Agent Orange in Vietnam);
- devices and methodologies for forecasting agricultural crops;
- human physiological research on ways of limiting radiation effects;
- a number of unspecified manufacturing processes, presumably bio-technologyrelated processes and such devices as turbine blades for high-capacity pumps.
The Council of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) was asked by the Solicitor General to consider the implications of such restrictions on university research. At the May 12, 1983, meeting of the Council the following recommendation was made:
The Government of Canada should wait until the tightened American restrictions on the flow of scientific and technological information to Eastern Block countries are in place. We should observe if these restrictions are successful both in restricting information while maintaining a vigorous and innovative scientific and technological activity in the U.S. When it is clear that both goals can be attained simultaneously and that a major conduit for the flow of “strategically useful technological developments” to the Eastern Block countries is Canada, then and only then should Canada consider falling into step with the U.S. restrictions. For Canada to initiate restrictions before then would, in the opinion of the CAUT, imperil the relatively small and fragile Canadian science and technology establishment.
83.32. Resolution Of The Canadian Association Of University Teachers (CAUT)
The CAUT Council, made up the presidents of all faculty associations (64 in number) at universities across Canada passed the following resolution (with no negative votes and 12 abstentions) at its annual meeting May 13 in Ottawa:
“That the Canadian Association of University Teachers urge the Government of Canada to take all possible steps to curtail the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and in particular to refuse to participate in the development and testing of any such weapons or their delivery systems including the cruise missile.”
83.34. Inter-University Workshop On Peace Education
Science for Peace and the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies at Conrad Grebel College Waterloo are arranging this Workshop for university teachers and students.
Place: York University, Downsview, Ontario.
Dates: Saturday November 19, Sunday November 20, 1983.
There will be three half-day sessions:
- Alternative Defence Strategies
- Peace Studies Courses and Programmes
- Linking Your Field to Issues of War and Peace
Let us know if you might be interested in attending. We shall provide in September information about speakers, format, accommodation and possibly assistance with travel expenses for some participants.
Please write now to: Prof. L.T. Gardner
Science for Peace, University College
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. M5S 1A1