Desperate Games

O’Kearn had not finished his address when enthusiastic applause interrupted his words. For once all the Nobels were unanimous and prepared to take action. It only remained to clarify the steps that needed to be followed in order for the scholars to assume power. This was the aim of the discussions which were immediately organised, whether in small groups, or in plenary sessions and which lasted two weeks. After these deliberations, a letter was drafted, addressed to the heads of state of all nations, published the same day in the press all over the world, and broadcast on all wavelengths, creating everywhere a considerable sensation and feverish over-excitement in everybody’s minds. The draft of the letter was as follows:

Honoured Presidents,

Before coming to the essential point of this message, we would like to remind you of the following facts, known to all, and undeniable by any judge with a sense of objectivity:

The contemporary world, both the spiritual and the material world, has been shaped by Science. Without it there would be nothing but a jungle providing a habitat for animals. It has provided two essential elements, the radiant poles of all rational human beings:

1) Knowledge

2) Power

Concerning Knowledge: Everything that is known by mankind about the universe as it exists was discovered and taught by us, men of science, a lineage from which we will cite only a few of its especially brilliant stars: Leucippus, Pythagoras, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Pavlov, Einstein, and others who are still living whose modesty we protect. Thanks to them (and, we dare to assert, thanks to us as well who are their heirs and disciples, and who know at least how to understand and interpret their genius) the world today knows the following facts:

That matter consists of atoms.

That atoms themselves are composed of particles which behave in a strange way, but whose laws we are beginning to penetrate.

That the human body, our bodies, your bodies, Honoured Presidents, is composed of cells.

That blood circulates in the body under the influence of a muscle which acts like a pump. That this human heart can be repaired and even replaced when it is out of order.

That atoms sometimes combine to form molecules. That these molecules, by a process whose mystery we are beginning to perceive, bind together in their turn to form the cells of organic matter.

That the Earth revolves. That it is not the centre of everything but a minute grain of dust, like the billions of other planets which are satellites of the billions of stars, sisters of our own sun. That these stars are grouped in galaxies, themselves combined in groups of galaxies, forming a spatiotemporal universe, the dimensions of which some of us are beginning to calculate (while others among us maintain that this is not possible), to study its birth (which some deny), how it has aged and to foretell its demise (which others contest)…

Each phrase of this paragraph yielded subsequent discussions, as the scholars were not in complete agreement with certain assertions. When she became aware of the letter (the editing of it was conducted by the Nobels alone and it was kept secret until it was distributed), Betty bet the price of a dinner with Fawell that the phrases between parentheses had been added. The psychologist won her bet. As O’Kearn confirmed to her subsequently, they had been demanded by a minority which was fiercely opposed to the generally accepted theories about the nature of the universe.

The letter continued as follows:

That mankind is the result of a long evolution via various animal forms, the links between which we have almost reconstructed.

That the universe does not obey Euclidean geometry.

That the laws of statistics play a dominant role in the organisation of the material universe…

In this document composed by the most illustrious scholars in the world, and in which each expression had been weighed and analysed, it was quite remarkable that no logical order had been observed. This long list gave the impression of ideas jotted down on paper rather haphazardly, as they came into their minds.

It was nothing of the sort. This apparent disorder was the effect of meticulous calculation and a desperate attempt on the part of the peace Nobels to satisfy all the different specialists, who insisted that all the acquisitions of their specific scientific field should be mentioned before the others.

For, throughout the conference rivalries between the two big classes of scientific Nobels had manifested themselves, on the one hand the physicists and on the other the physiologists and the medical experts. The chemists aligned themselves under the banner of one group or the other, according to their tendencies. Besides their metaphysical differences, as O’Kearn, their acknowledged leader had so eloquently expressed it, the former group were interested in the universe while putting aside mankind and even life itself. The rest, on the other hand, considered the study of the miraculous life on Earth to be the only science worthy of the name. Sir Alex Keene, the famous bacteriologist, the standard-bearer of this group, smiled with derision every time the works of O’Kearn were

mentioned in his presence.

The physicists, who considered themselves the only valid scientific authorities, had started to draft the first articles in the letter mentioning only knowledge acquired in the field of inorganic matter. At first, a discussion had arisen at the heart of their own clan. One of them, a nuclear specialist, tended to give precedence to the microscopic world of the atom. Another, who only had a passion for huge coordinates, and was the author of an original theory of cosmology, persisted in giving priority to his macroscopic vision of the universe. The retorts became heated. Words like nucleon, meson, neutrino, antiparticle on the one side, and nebulae, spirals, galaxies and quasars on the other were exchanged like bullets, until Sir Alex Keene, indignant and exasperated by this gibberish, interrupted dramatically and hurled out the following remark in a furious tone:

‘And what, gentlemen, of physiology?’ without suspecting that he was thereby parodying a famous reply.

This outburst cast a chill over everyone, until one of the literary Nobels, remembering that he had read a similar phrase in his youth, conducted some research on it, discovered the analogy and informed his colleagues about it. So a good mood was restored for a moment among the scholars, but then it was the turn of the group of biologists, their energy rekindled, to demand priority in the list of humanity’s fundamental scientific advances.

Voices were raised. The discussion degenerated into a violent quarrel, during which some thought they heard the supreme insult, anthropocentrist, uttered with contempt by O’Kearn at Sir Alex Keene. The latter went pale with anger, and heaven knows what excesses they might have indulged in if the peace Nobels had not hurriedly intervened. In the face of their entreaties, the physicist swore that he had never uttered the word, and thanks to the peace Nobels, gradually everyone started thinking more calmly. Going from one group to another they strove to think of solutions which would be acceptable to both camps, and finished by obtaining their agreement to a version of this paragraph on fields of knowledge by presenting them with a very slightly modified draft. The result was an awful mishmash, which Fawell deplored and concerning which O’Kearn, always benevolent towards his colleagues, exercised his sarcastic eloquence.

What followed was much easier and won general consent straight away.

…These are, Honoured Presidents, very briefly summarised, the results obtained for the section on knowledge. They concern what the world knows thanks to us. Now it is important to emphasise one important observation: in this age-old mental labour, in this uninterrupted sequence of speculations, experiments, methodical reflections, irradited by a few flashes of genius, which constitute in our eyes humanity’s essential task, not one of you, Honoured Presidents, has ever played a part (with the possible exception of Thomas Jefferson).

You have not participated, any more than the swarm of collaborators who help you in the functions which you are pleased to call governmental, in the fervour which leads us to the conquest of truth, being, most of the time, more ignorant of the accomplishments listed here than the man in the street, who does read from time to time.

Let us add that you were often not only indifferent but also opposed to this development. You were observed impeding with all your might this movement, which is fortunately irresistible, and you refused to give our research laboratories the funds which you squandered on nonsense or on dangerous and criminal enterprises.