Ward Lies and Consequences

1. Auflage 2015
ISBN: 978-1-4835-5959-9
Verlag: BookBaby
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 150 Seiten

An ambitious Senator lies to an idealistic weapons researcher, persuading him to fake his results. Quickly discovered, but before he flees, the scientist makes a discovery of great military significance. His young colleague is murdered for information that he does not have. The scientist can no longer trust the government and plans an action that exposes him to treason, but which he believes is right.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Ward, Nicholas

Leseproben

C H A P T E R 1
  Douglas Sarsen shook his head and smiled to himself. Dahlstrom was good, very good. His young colleague had volunteered to prepare the lab’s grant renewal proposal, saving Sarsen weeks of work¸ work that he never enjoyed. He had given Dahlstrom feedback on several early drafts, but today’s was so complete that he uploaded it to the government procurement website for review without making any changes. After leaving the lab early, thanks to Dahlstrom, he stopped on his way home to buy some groceries. Once home, he went through his usual routine of a shower, change of clothes, and a glass of wine. He was about to pour a second glass when there was a call on his cell phone from a number that he did not recognize. He usually never answered such calls, but tonight he was curious who had his private number. “Sarsen here,” he said. “Good evening, Dr. Sarsen,” said the caller in a confident tone of voice, as if he knew him. “This is Senator Andy Bowles. There’s something I need to talk to you about. Are you still at the lab?” “No, Senator. I’ve just arrived home,” Sarsen said, suddenly chilled. The warm, soothing voice was instantly recognizable from a recent series of interviews on national security issues. Although Bowles was the chair of the funding subcommittee for the Laser Defense Initiative, he’d never spoken with the Senator directly. There must be a problem with one of the earlier drafts, but what could it be? “Are you alone?” Bowles asked. “Yes.” “Good. Then let me get to the point. I’ve been briefed on an early draft of your proposal. It’s very good. What your lab has accomplished with limited resources is most impressive.” Sarsen relaxed. “Thank you, Senator.” “But there’s a problem going forward.” “Yes?” He had relaxed too soon. “As you know, the LDI program is critical to our future national security, but its funding is a tough sell in this year’s political climate. The mood of the country is changing. Many in Congress – even on my own subcommittee – appear willing to sacrifice national security for re-election. Even with your lab’s accomplishments, your proposal may not be approved. I need your help to secure the votes for renewal.” Sarsen began to pace the room. The lab had met every target of the last funding cycle and had proposed a set of goals for the next cycle which were well within reach. So why should the lab be in danger of losing funding, even if the mood of the country was changing? The country needed defense and defense had to be paid for. That seemed obvious. Still, he was flattered that Senator Bowles would call him and ask for ‘help’. What had he in mind? Rather than ask directly, better to let the conversation continue, so all he said was, “I’d be happy to help, Senator.” Bowles began to speak slowly, stretching out his words for emphasis. “As I said, your lab’s achievements over the last funding cycle are impressive.” He paused, and then continued, speaking more quickly. “But, unfortunately, they’re not enough. I need you to add some results beyond those already in the draft. They should represent a breakthrough that will ensure the continuation of the LDI program, even in this political climate.” What Bowles was asking for was unthinkable, but was it a real request or some kind of trap? Then Sarsen remembered what had happened to Alan Burton last year. Out of character, Burton had made false claims in his proposal for renewal and his North Carolina lab had been immediately shut down. As for himself, he had never knowingly made false claims and had no intention of starting now. He decided to try to deflect the Senator’s request. “The draft that I’ve shared with your office was a full description of the results of our last year’s work. I’m not aware of any additional ‘breakthroughs’ that we may have overlooked. It’s true that we’ve had some interesting results during the last six months, but these have not been repeatable. I don’t refer to them in the proposal since I don’t consider them reliable and any good peer reviewer would point this out immediately. So I’m sorry, Senator, but I don’t see how I can help you in this matter.” Bowles was not deflected. “Dr. Sarsen, last year I arranged for you to be appointed Chief Scientist for the LDI program as a whole and, as such, a senior advisor to our subcommittee. The briefings you’ve received in this role should have shown you that science is only part of a much larger picture. I know that you’re concerned about your integrity as a scientist – that would only be natural – but I’m asking you to consider my request not as a scientist but as a patriot.” “I’ve never been asked to make that choice before,” Sarsen said. Not only had he never been asked to make the choice before, but he had never imagined a situation in which allegiance to science and his country could be in conflict. Bowles continued in a conspiratorial tone of voice. “I’m not asking this of you lightly, Dr. Sarsen. Let me share something of what is at stake. Recent classified assessments of Russian missile capabilities are very disturbing. They have not been widely circulated, but it’s clear that if we take them seriously – and I do – your lab’s technology is essential to our national security. I repeat, essential. Many on my subcommittee are skeptical of these assessments and are looking for excuses to cancel funding for the entire LDI program. If you do not report significant breakthroughs, the lab may well lose funding – at great cost to the country’s security interests as well as to you personally. I want you to think about this bigger picture. I am sure that you will see a way to do what is right.” Sarsen tried another tack. “I have already approved our final proposal draft and sent it for review. Your office should receive it shortly. You will see that it will be difficult to integrate any additional material into it at this late date.” This was not strictly true but he could not go along with the Senator’s request. Bowles had anticipated this and continued briskly. “I understand completely. At this late date you’ll have no time for the usual documentation, so I’ll arrange for you to present this breakthrough as an addendum to your live presentation at the renewal hearing.” Sarsen did not reply. What could he say? Bowles’s words were unambiguous – the Senator wanted him to lie in his proposal and was offering cover for the lie. He simply could not do it. After all, he had given a public lecture only last week on Andrei Sakharov and the moral role of a scientist in the face of political pressure. Sakharov would certainly never have agreed to such a request. “Are you still there, Dr. Sarsen?” Bowles asked. “Yes, Senator. I’m just taking in what you’ve told me.” “Good,” Bowles said. “Take your time. Just make sure that a copy of your addendum gets to my office with the final version of your presentation. I don’t want to be surprised at the renewal hearing, you do understand?” “I do understand, Senator,” Sarsen said. He didn’t but there was no point in saying so. Bowles had apparently got what he wanted out of his call. “If you have any questions about our conversation, Dr. Sarsen, please call my office. I look forward to seeing you at the hearing.” Sarsen put the phone down and made a few notes to capture the main points of the conversation. The call had made him nervous and his writing was erratic. He experienced a spasm of urgency to come to a conclusion about Bowles’s request and had to force himself to slow down. Anyway, it was time to eat – perhaps that would break the spell of urgency. Putting a frozen pizza in the oven, he went outside onto the deck. In the distance, the Seattle city skyline was lighting up above Lake Union. In the foreground a police launch made its nightly tour. After a series of deep, deliberate breaths he felt relaxed enough to dismiss Bowles for the time being and went back inside. Turning on the television he watched a nature program on the Amazon jungle, anything to postpone a decision on Bowles’s request. Finally, he could stand it no more. He turned the television off and went to his office. As he took his seat he glanced at the photograph of Irina and Maria on the right of his desk. Taken on a camping trip, it was one of their last times together before the accident. He looked away quickly and was jolted into the unsettled awareness that he did not want to face them right now. Why not? Did he feel guilty over what he was about to do? But he didn’t know what he was about to do. Or – and this was more unsettling – had he already made up his mind? He picked up the photograph, held it in his hand for a moment, kissed it lightly, and put it back in its place. Above, on the wall and to the right of the photograph was the icon – an early fifteen century Annunciation – that Irina had carried with her everywhere. She had had it with her in Geneva, where they had met while working at CERN. When she first showed it to him he could make no sense of it, but she explained that it was not important in itself. It was a visual gateway to a spiritual world that was deeply real and meaningful to her – a believer, unlike him. After the accident which had killed her and Maria eight years ago, he found himself increasingly drawn to it –as a gateway through memory to Irina herself and what she had held dear. Dear Irina. Even as a young post doc in Geneva she had known all about the tension between scientists and their government....