J. David Jackson (January 19, 1925–May 20, 2016): A Biographical Memoir

John David (“Dave”) Jackson, a Canadian-born theoretical physicist, contributed significantly to particle, nuclear, and atomic physics. He is best known, however, for his text Classical Electrodynamics, which has been a fixture in physics graduate education around the world for more than 50 years. It is generally referred to simply as “Jackson.” This textbook, which has inspired fear and wonder alike in generations of students, clearly reflects the author's fascination with physical phenomena, his renowned mathematical dexterity, and his appreciation of the elegance of physical laws. Jackson's major contributions to research included the theory of muon-catalyzed fusion; the analysis, with Kurt Gottfried, of angular distributions in quasi-two-body elementary particle collisions; and the elucidation of charmonium-state decays. Jackson influenced the development of physics research throughout the United States as well as internationally—particularly through his work on the nascent Superconducting Super Collider. An active promoter of civil liberties and human rights, he was one of the leaders of the efforts to free Andrei Sakharov, Yuri Orlov, and Anatoly Shcharansky from Soviet imprisonment.

The Sakharov-Medvedev Debate on Détente and Human Rights

This article examines the debate between Soviet dissidents Andrei Sakharov and Roy Medvedev in the 1970s concerning the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and détente. Although both dissidents stood for East-West détente and democratization of the Soviet system and believed in the possibility of a dialogue with Soviet leaders until 1970, they later diverged in their views about methods of action. As Sakharov lost faith in the possibility of influencing the Soviet regime headed by Leonid Brezhnev, he shifted to a more radical position, adopting the language of human rights and turning to Western politicians and public opinion as an audience for his calls. Sakharov's public embrace of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment was in line with his advocacy of freedom of emigration and his belief that the West should extract concessions in the field of human rights before granting trade benefits to the Soviet Union. Medvedev, by contrast, argued that the amendment was counterproductive insofar as it risked alienating Soviet leaders and triggering adverse results. He considered that détente should be encouraged for its own sake, with the hope that over time it would spur democratization in the country. Medvedev's argument had much in common with the West German leader Willy Brandt's notion of “change through rapprochement,” a concept invoked as a rationale for Brandt's Ostpolitik. Although Sakharov's position earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, the Helsinki Accords showed how détente could serve the cause of human rights even with the Cold War under way.

Sidney David Drell (September 13, 1926–December 21, 2016): A Biographical Memoir

Sidney David Drell, professor emeritus at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, died shortly after his 90th birthday in Palo Alto, California. In a career spanning nearly 70 years, Sid—as he was universally known—achieved prominence as a theoretical physicist, public servant, and humanitarian. Sid contributed incisively to our understanding of the electromagnetic properties of matter. He created the theory group at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and led it through the most creative period in elementary particle physics. The Drell-Yan mechanism is the process through which many particles of the Standard Model, including the famous Higgs boson, were discovered. Sid advised Presidents and Cabinet Members on matters ranging from nuclear weapons to intelligence, speaking truth to power but with keen insight for offering politically effective advice. His special friendships with Wolfgang (Pief) Panofsky, Andrei Sakharov, and George Shultz highlighted his work at the interface between science and human affairs. He advocated widely for the intellectual freedom of scientists and in his later years campaigned tirelessly to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

Andrei Sakharov, a Failed Martyr

Some true martyrs fail to bring the social change they seek, because they are too far from ideal martyrdom, or because those called upon to follow in the martyr’s footsteps refuse to do so. Andrei Sakharov’s failure to affect Russia’s foreign and domestic policy can be traced to his story’s incongruence with the seven ideal conditions for martyrdom (ICMs), but also to his audience’s unwillingness to accept his sacrifice and follow his call. Propaganda and efforts to silence the martyr’s story can stifle a true martyrdom from reaching and moving followers. But even martyrs who fail to lead their contemporaries can succeed in another way. A martyr’s cause, associated with the martyr’s name, gains significance.

Science and Dissent

Reading C.P. Snow’s 1959 lecture, ‘Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution’ in 2017, I was struck by the ways in which the essay, written over half a century ago, addresses issues that I’ve been engaged with for most of my life. Snow defined a world of cultures split between: ‘Literary intellectuals at one pole, at the other scientists. Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension, sometimes hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding.’ I’ve encountered this lack of understanding in my own profession and in public life. But it was Snow’s closing argument that really grabbed my attention: he proposed to his Cambridge audience that they had ‘better look at education with a fresh eye’ and that there was a ‘good deal to learn from the Russians’. Not really. If, as Snow proposed, ‘Scientists have the future in their bones’, we’d all do better to respond to the cool reason of dissidents such as Andrei Sakharov and Anatol Sharansky and to recognize the ultimate power of free speech, which only exists in a free society.

Vernadskii, Vladimir Ivanovich (1863–1945)

Vladimir Vernadskii was an earth scientist with broad scientific and philosophical interests. He made important contributions to mineralogy and crystallography, distinguished himself as one of the founders of modern geochemistry, and pioneered the new science of biogeochemistry. His key concepts of ‘living matter’, the ‘biosphere’, and the ‘noosphere’ reflect his holistic search for a natural philosophy that would integrate life, including humanity and its culture, into a unified picture of earth and cosmos. Vernadskii was the first Russian scientist to appreciate the immense implications of the discovery of radioactivity. He helped mobilize his country’s efforts to acquire atomic energy, while urging full awareness (especially among scientists) of the dangers atomic power posed for mankind. Since the 1960s, his work has been an inspiration for the environmentalist movement and ecology in the Soviet Union and its successor states. Vernadskii was also an influential historian and philosopher of science. His liberal philosophy of science is an ardent defence of the principle of freedom of thought, based on a keen appreciation of the intricate connection among science, philosophy, religion, and other forms of human culture. In his broad scientific humanism, commitment to liberal democracy and faith in human perfectibility, Vernadskii has often been compared to Andrei Sakharov.