26 / CHRONICLESnevaluating survey research, but, to repeat, it is important tonrecognize that no one is more aware of these issues, or hasndone more to deal with them, than professional surveynresearchers. After all, usually no one has a greater interestnin getting it right. Caution is appropriate in dealing withnsurvey data, but it should be an informed caution, notnknee-jerk obscurantism. The results of survey research,ninterpreted with that informed caution, can tell us at leastnone kind of truth—a truth, moreover, as often comfortingnas alarming these days. Whether for Bishop Butler’s reasonnor for motives less serenely disinterested, why then shouldnwe desire to be deceived? ccn* Anyone who wants to be better informed ought to looknat a very readable textbook by Earle Babbie, called ThenPractice of Social Research. (Ignore the dedication tonWerner Erhard. Babbie’s Social Research for Consumers isnequally good, and his Survey Research Methods is evennbetter. All are published by Wadsworth.) An exception tonthe rule that college textbooks are watered-down pabulum.nPractice has been so successful that it is almost certainlynused at a college near you. Since Babbie has now retired onnhis royalties and spends full time bringing out new editionsnto kill the sales of older ones, cheap used copies are widelynavailable.nTHE DOCTORS AND THE BOMBnby Irving Louis HorowitznThe furor caused by the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize to thenInternational Physicians for the Prevention of NuclearnWar, represented by its two leading sponsors and leaders.nDr. Bernard Lown of the United States and Dr. YevgenynChazov of the Soviet Union, provides a fine opportunity tonreview the revival of the politics of nuclear weapons in thenmid-1980’s. The impulse to public service on the part ofnprofessional servants runs deep, despite the fact that respectability,nor better, professional legitimacy, afforded by goodnwork in one area does not readily translate into othernareas. This is a constant source of irritation to people whonrise high and are mighty in their own fields, but who arennot able to translate such elite status into generalizednrecognition.nThis is not to suggest that the more than 100,000nphysicians said to be members of the IPPNW are selfservingnor ambitious. Rather, it is to remember that talent,neven scientific expertise, in one area, does not guarantee anvalid political perspective in another. The most obviousnlacuna in the debate over nuclear weapons is the absence ofnany significant body of public opinion. East or West, whichnargues the case for the use of nuclear arms. Despitenoccasional bluster, in most real crisis situations, both sidesnin the Cold War are extremely careful to limit the scope of angiven conflict to a nonnuclear range of options. Howevernheated the rhetoric about Nicaragua, Angola, or Afghanistan,nthere is widespread acceptance that nuclear optionsnare unrealistic. Indeed, nothing so took the wind out of thensails of the Solidarity Movement in Poland as the creepingnwidespread recognition that nuclear retaliation in supportnfor the workers’ movement was simply out of the question.nThe award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPPNW andnthe two cardiologists who serve as its cochairmen—Dr.nLown of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr.nChazov, Soviet Deputy Health Minister responsible for thenhealth care of Kremlin leaders—has nonetheless created anIrving Louis Horowitz is Hannah Arendt DistinguishednProfessor of Sociology and Political Science at RutgersnUniversity and author of Beyond Empire and Revoluhon:nMilitarization and Consolidation in the Third Worldn(Oxford University Press).nnnfuror. The reason for the concern is a letter dated Septembern26, 1973, denouncing, in typical Stalinist terms, thenpeace efforts of Andrei Sakharov, a previous Nobel Laureate.nIn a tragicomedy played out in front of Westernnreporters, Dr. Chazov responded to an inquiry about hisnsigning the letter by saying: “I did not expect questionsnaddressed to me to start with this topic.” Immediatelynthereafter, a Soviet reporter. Lev Novikov, suffered a heartnattack (from which he is recovering). The two physiciansnrushed to his aid (Dr. Lown in tears), and the pressnconference came to a merciful end. Doubdess it was the lastnsuch occasion that would embarrass the great Soviet courtnphysician and champion of peace.nThe strange taint to the award stems from Chazov’snassault on Sakharov, authorized if not written by hisnKremlin masters. Protest against Chazov’s 1973 letternprovided the high drama for last year’s peculiar award, onensupposed to be noncontroversial because “no one can attacknan organization like they can a person.” But quite apartnfrom the merciless attack on a previous recipient of thenNobel Peace Prize, there remains the question of just whatnthe IPPNW stands for.nTo begin with, the name of the organization was chosennwith extreme care. The group aims to mobilize the socialnconscience of medical doctors. The use of a preventativenrather than curative language strikes a deep chord withnmany doctors the world over. On principle most doctorsnbelieve that the best medicine is prevention rather thanncure. But the operative word is prevention of nuclearnwar—not just war in general. Otherwise, the reality ofneveryday nonnuclear war would intrude in this organizationnof social conscience, and the good doctors might becomeninvolved in the dirty politics of dirty little wars, likenthose being waged in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia,nNicaragua, and in other parts of the Third World. Morento the point, hard questions might be raised about Sovietnbehavior.nIndeed, some of these questions have been frankly raisednand answered by Sergei Batovrin, a founding member of thenMoscow Trust Group, former inmate of Soviet psychiatricnhospitals, who was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1984.nHe summarizes Chazov’s pro forma peace efforts succinctly:n