Naturally I (Theo Theocharis) have lots of comments to
make in response to the discussion between Ivor Catt and
Stephen Miles Sacks, but I guess that I must start from this:

Stephen Miles Sacks (
"Insofar as Theo Theocaris and the Scipolicy Journal are
concerned, he has never sent a manuscript or a proposal
for an article. Categorically, we have never heard from him
about submitting an article. Thus, this letter concludes our
discussions with third parties about Theo Theocaris and
the Scipolicy Journal."

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001
communicated a message to both <<Scipolicy->> and <<>>
(and maybe to others) on the Subject: [Scipolicy-L]
INTEGRITY (COST OF SCIENTIFIC)]. This was duly posted
as Message No 375 on the archive of postings (http:// Moreover, to this
Stephen Miles Sacks contributed a comment (Message No

SIGNIFICANTLY, my Message No 375 begun with these
two lines:

<<To the Editor of SCIPOLICYT-The Journal of Science
and Health PolicyT
(For publication)>>

Evidently, Stephen Miles Sacks overlooked these two lines.
This can happen to all of us and it is forgivable.
Nevertheless, I still think that the "COST OF SCIENTIFIC
INTEGRITY" is eminently suitable for publication in The
Journal of Science and Health Policy, and now I duly re-
submit it:

To the Editor of SCIPOLICYT-The Journal of Science and
Health PolicyT
(For publication)


I note with keen interest the "Integrity, Responsibility, and
Democracy in Science" article by David H. Guston in the
"Science, Medicine, and The Science Wars" Volume 1,
Number 2, Spring/Summer 2001, pp.167-368 special
issue of SCIPOLICYT-The Journal of Science and Health

All interested organisations and individuals, but especially
every young person contemplating a career in science or
medicine need to be informed of the following plain facts
concerning the critical subject "Integrity, Responsibility, and
Democracy in Science":

B. Adams in "Comment on JCS 7 (8-9): Pseudonymous
publishing" (
112 (2000)) daringly asked the disturbing question: "Is
there something rotten in academe?" Commendably, the
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, No. 1, 2001, pp. 3-8,
Editorial article "Another Front in the Science Wars?" took
up this serious issue and indeed concluded that
"something is very wrong with today's intellectual climate".
This essay supplies more material that is very pertinent to
both the "Science Wars" and to the "rottenness in
academe". Moreover, this essay goes some way towards
demonstrating the need for yet "Another Front in the
Science Wars".

I have been arguing since the 1970s that, as 'truth'
epistemically is the most basic of all concepts, it needs to
be carefully and rigorously defined in every discipline, but
especially the scientific disciplines. For without 'truth'
everything loses meaning and thus "Anything Goes". I was
pleasantly surprised to find a stark vindication of my
endeavour in the truly remarkable Letter under the heading
"Irving and 'Interpretation'" by history teacher Steven Mastin
in Teaching History No. 99 (May 2000, p.4):

"Surely in our post-modern age [David Irving] is expressing
an historical opinion based on the evidence he has
selected. Is that not what we teach our children about Key
Element 3 and 'Interpretation' [UK History National
Curriculum]? Is his work [that denies the holocaust] not
simply an example of interpretation? However, Irving's
'interpretation' is no interpretation at all. He is WRONG.
TRUE truth does matter, despite what post-modernists
suggest. Historians argue and produce endless footnotes
for the very reason that truth matters! That is what history is
all about." (emphasis in original)

Another notable article, "All quiet on the postmodern front"
by history professor Arthur Marwick, was published in the
Times Literary Supplement of 23 February 2001, pp. 13-14.
Marwick correctly stated:

"The Great War (also referred to as "the culture wars", "the
history wars", or "the science wars") . was, in the 1980s,
marked by phenomenal victories on the part of the
postmodernists. . [But] the postmodernist tide [is] now
definitely ebbing."

When was the UK National Curriculum created? In the
late 1980s, i.e. at the zenith of post-modernist power.
(Evidently, it has never been adequately corrected.) But
what did everyone do in Arthur Marwick's 'Great War'? How
many fought on the side of Steven Mastin's 'TRUE truth'
during the benighted 1980s, when doing so was a really
dangerous heresy and a truly risky undertaking?

Until the 1990s any public discussion of the holocaust
was essentially taboo. So while the opportunity for me to
link the indispensability of 'truth' with the holocaust did not
arise then, in a Letter co-authored with N. Bedding and M.
Psimopoulos, entitled "Science versus fiction" and
published in the 27 February 1986 issue of The Listener, I
showed that, by means of the post-modernist rejection or
subversion of 'truth', "one can literally get away with

By 1988 (the very year when the UK National Curriculum
was being finalised), to the standard post-modernist
objection that "truth, if it exists, is elusive and never
attainable", I had devised this rebuttal:

"How can one be certain that one knows the truth? This is
often difficult to answer. But we suggest that this is the very
question that every professional (not only scientists and
philosophers but also HISTORIANS, physicians,
journalists, police officers and so on) ought to be trying to
answer, instead of denying the very existence of truth. If
one does not do so, this conduct must be seen for what it
really is: a breach of professional duty." ("Where Science
Has Gone WRONG", Nature Vol. 333, 2 June 1988, p. 389)

So how has my earnest endeavour to combat the
pernicious concepts "interpretation" and "paradigm" and to
uphold the indispensability of 'truth' fared? As a direct
result of my highly critical, dissenting, and whistleblowing
publications in the widely-read Nature in 1987-88, it has
proved impossible for me to obtain any employment since
then. (Clearly, "TRUE truth matters"! But to whom?)

Naturally, I have continued to generate research material of
the same type of controversial scholarship but
uncompromised integrity ever since. My most recent
(easily accessible on the internet) publications are:

"What's WRONG with science", Issues in Science and
Technology Vol. XVII, No. 1, Fall 2000, pp. 24-25; online: (last forum item)

"The meaning of 'science' and 'truth'", Episteme, N. 4 - 21,
September 2001; online:

Painstakingly, I have established a long record of
intellectual integrity on the critical issue 'truth'. (Can
anyone anywhere match either my record or my expertise?)
By contrast, Governments have never been known to be
paragons of integrity. But the UK New Labour Government
have raised the practice of hypocrisy to astronomical
heights. Scarcely a day passes without a new instance
being highlighted in the press. New Labour of course
proclaim themselves "ethical" and "progressive". But as
Michael Diboll showed in "UNITE AGAINST THE CENTRE"
(The Spectator, 27th November 1999) in reality New Labour
are "the extremists of the authoritarian centre" who pose "a
fascist threat to freedom and democracy". Not surprisingly,
the UK authorities stopped in March 2001 my state benefits
(my only source of income since 1987), and still no
prospect of any job.

Four centuries ago European society burned its heretics at
the stake. Today European society claims to be
enlightened and tolerant. Is it?

Theo Theocharis

200A Merton Road
London SW18 5SW

e mail:
Telephone: 020 8870 6191