1800 pages: such is the quantity of information amassed by the FBI on Albert Einstein's "subversive activities." It is due to this dossier – obtained thanks to the Freedom of Information Act – that science journalist Fred Jerome was able to pen his book, The Einstein File.

Considering the McCarthyism which permeated the era, it is none to surprising that many of Albert Einstein's subversive activities noted by the FBI involved his sympathies towards various socialist movements. At the same time, many will be surprised to learn some of the activities the FBI labelled "communist" Einstein's involvement with pacifist groups and anti-segregation movements. However, one might also wonder – as the author does – why it is that Einstein's political involvement continues to be little known, even as a great physicist of the twentieth century, he remains part of the stereotype of the scientist focused on his theoretical work, divorced from the workings of the everyday world.

The stereotype has become so entrenched in popular culture that more and more physicists have virtually adopted it as a principle. Arguments to ignore politics can be strong: Some may dislike its gray qualities, other might see it as too irrational.

One might ask if there is anything wrong with this attitude. There are. One issue is that the belief is derived from the erroneous postulate that it is possible to play the "role" of a scientist in society without being affected by said society's political aspects and trends.

Scientific research in universities and elsewhere is nearly fully financed by private-sector and governmental organizations (see our article on page 13). Scientists are often called upon to share their expertise and discuss issues by both media and public bodies. It can thus be unequivocally stated that not only is the researcher influenced, he can be influential.

Regardless, little training is given to future physicists on the ethical issues they will encounter in their profession. For example, the University of Ottawa's physics program devotes but one lecture in the entire undergraduate curriculum to entertain the subject. The entirety of the content could be reduced to the need for peer review, and a warning against plagiarism.

Due to the more esoteric and abstract reputation of physics, its research rarely receives nearly as much public attention as the life sciences. With few historical exceptions (most containing the word "nuclear"), physics research creates little controversy. It is perhaps for these reasons that there is little public debate as to who profits from these research efforts.

According to the American government's Bureau of Labor Statistics, the American federal government directly employs 29% of the 14 000 physicists and astronomers working in the USA, with the bulk at the Department of Defense (DoD). Should one look at indirect employment, one would no doubt the true figures are much higher. In the year 2000 alone, the DoD invested over 900 million American dollars in university research (Physics Today).

In Disciplined Minds, American physicist Jeff Schmidt provides several examples of the ideological gulf dividing professors' perceptions of their subsidized research, believing it to be pure theoretical work, and that of the department of defense, which often perceives a strong potential for military applications.

(Personally, I happen to believe that even the purest theoretical work could lead to specific applications. Consider a new astrophysical theory, a proper test might require the launch of a satellite by NASA, which would in turn lead to lucrative contracts for private industry.)

Last year, the Canadian Association of Physicists publically came out to warn the government of then Prime Minister Paul Martin's government of some of the scientific failings of the American Missile Defense (BMD) Shield. It followed a report on the subject by the American Physical Society.

Unfortunately, the Canadian media barely flirted with the scientific aspects of BMD in their discussion of the subject. At the end of the day, it is arguable that the (official) refusal of the Martin government to participate in BMD is primarily due to political opportunism rather than the result of a sound policy debate. Perhaps this episode may lead to scientists to realize that their expert opinions are now only taken to heart when they can be made to fit a political agenda.

On that note, it is my wish for more physics student to better understand political structures, thereby clarifying their vision of which interests they will one day serve and giving them the means to have their voice better heard in their public arena both as private citizens and as physicists. I hope that our special theme on the interplay between physics and politics may contribute to that end.

Philippe Marchand
Editor-in-chief