Sir

M. J. Hsu and G. Agoramoorthy in Correspondence (Nature 431, 627; 200410.1038/431627c) imply that anybody choosing a career in science or education should disenfranchise themselves, and that a Nobel prize in a field other than peace equals a ban on political campaigning.

I wonder how the two correspondents think the celebrated American chemist Linus Pauling won his second Nobel: the 1962 peace prize? Surely, after being awarded his first one, in chemistry (1954), he should have stayed in his laboratory, setting his mind on loftier, ‘scientific’ matters, rather than meddling with such mundane business as international relations and public affairs.

By campaigning to halt nuclear testing in the atmosphere, Pauling was both applying his technical expertise and following in the footsteps of others, including Albert Einstein (a pacifist who campaigned against nuclear weapons), who did not see their role in politics as limited by their Nobel prizes.

In the 1950s, Pauling paid the price for his peace campaigns, undergoing hours of interrogation and being refused the right to travel outside the United States. Although Einstein backed him, few other people dared to speak out during a period when an accusation of ‘un-American activities’ could cost them their livelihood or their freedom.

We do not have to repeat the lesson. Scientists should campaign in politics, and vigorously. I suspect Alfred Nobel, who instituted prizes not only in the sciences but also for peace, would approve.