Ideas need to be tested, and not merely by argument and debate. When some question arises in the medical field concerning cancer, for instance, we do not turn to free and open discussion as in a political campaign. We have recourse to the scientifically trained specialist in the laboratory. The merits of the Salk anti polio vaccine were not established on the forensic platform or in newspaper editorials, but in the laboratory and by tests in the field on thousands of children.

Our presidential campaigns provide much debate and argument. But is the result new barnsful of tested knowledge on the basis of which we can with confidence solve our domestic and international problems? Man, we are told, is endowed with reason and is capable of distinguishing good from bad. But what a super Herculean task it is to winnow anything of value from the mud beplastered arguments used so freely, particularly since such common use is made of cliches and stereotypes, in themselves declarations of intellectual bankruptcy.

We are reminded, however, that freedom of thought and discussion, the unfettered exchange of ideas, is basic under our form of government.

Assuredly in our political campaigns there is freedom to think, to examine any and all issues, and to speak without restraint. No holds are barred. But have the results been heartening? May we state with confidence that in such an exhibition a republic will find its greatest security?