Let There Be Justice (pt. I)
Zlatko Dembic, 2001
(The judge, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, and the accused enter and take their
seats).
The judge (waves his enormous hammer and hits the pad on the table with a big smile to
the public in attendance): Silence, please! The Court of Scientific Justice is now in
session. Can you please all stand up? OK, thank you. Be seated! Would the lawyers
approach the bench? (To lawyers after they approach) Any extra-court agreements?
Both lawyers: No, your honor!
The judge: Very well, then. Please, take your seats! (While the lawyers move towards
their respective seats, the judge continues): Hereby, I declare that the Court will now hear
the case “People vs. Munthe”, and decide whether the case should be tried in front of the
Court and the jury in the future. May the prosecutor take his place, and the word! (The
judge smashes his hammer once again, to his sheer enjoyment, ignoring the abhorrence
on the faces of some people in the audience).
Prosecutor: Your honor, thank you. I would like to accuse here seated Harry (Ludvig
Andre) Munthe on the charges of asocial behavior to the detriment of our scientific
community! I will convince you that the accused is guilty of all charges that I will
present, and that a jury of well respected scientist will find him guilty, and sentence to
well-deserved punishment, that, in a short while I will come to mention.
First of all, let me start with the charges and the evidence (He opens the MS
PowerPoint presentation and starts with slide No 1). Harry (LA) Munthe works at the
Institute for Immunology, National Institute of Health, Bjørnveien 1, University of
Lillestrøm, Norway. He has studied medicine and achieved his M.D., after a stanching
effort of 15 years that allowed him to learn much, much more than any of the candidates
in the foreign universities, which, by the way, finish in ridiculously short period of time,
with dubious knowledge, I presume. After his doctorate, he started to work in the
Department for Immunology, because his previous work was in the same field. However,
he suddenly, started to show signs of inappropriate, unbefitting and unacceptable
characteristics - the very signs I am about to let you know, and which started to
2
undermine, not only him, but the whole essence of our society! In spite of good previous
references, the accused started to seclude himself in one part of a laboratory, as though he
owns it. Not only, he showed such behavior in the lab, but also in private life. He, for
example, bought a car, and now tends to individualize himself by driving to his job!
Undoubtedly, our government makes quite clear that this is not a sin. However, a clever
policy teaches our society to adhere to benefits of law and obedience. This is done by
narrowing all newly built roads, parking lots and increasing taxes for car owners across
the line. This has an important reason! Indeed, how many of you were made lucky and
can enjoy the benefit of communication, the warmth of society, and the precision of
human endeavor in trams and trains while driving to work, may I ask you?
Well, let me get back to the accused. In the lab, he also claimed some instruments
and fine chemicals for his, as though he owns them too, and did not want to share his
opinion and results with the neighboring persons! I must admit, most of them were
disinterested, but this was because they did not understand what he was doing. And, that
is precisely the point! The individuality of the accused led the others to misunderstanding
and disinterest. He should have been more transparent and there would be no danger that
he and his work would transgress in the fields of misunderstandings! The discussion with
the others would inevitably prevent him from doing that work that was incomprehensible
to most. And, it would prevent the waste of our community funds that we have so eagerly
collected by just taxes (He hits the hyperlink to slide No 2). Therefore, the first charge is
(he reads) "Individuality of H(LA) Munthe in research supported by governmental or
other public resources." Now, this is a serious charge. Let me elaborate on this. Here is
the (he reads) example: "Inability to successfully cooperate and collaborate with others."
Let me show you the evidence (he clicks on the button for the next, slide No 3). It is clear
that H(LA) Munthe is in conflict with the rest of the scientific community! (He points the
accused on the slide), because he can be easily spotted on the ground!
Now, talking about the ground, that brings me to the second charge of the prosecution.
(He clicks the next slide No 4).
We accuse him of "destructive originality in executing research", and let me
present the evidence in an example where he shows "Inability to conform with approved
methodologies." (He clicks on the hyperlink to the slide No 5).
3
Namely, isn't it natural, normal, and adequate that a scientist should stand on the firm
grounds in his or her research? Well, honorable judge and revered audience, of course it
is, and to my delight, you see (he points to accused on the slide) the obvious exaggeration
impersonated by the HLA - M! (He points on a button that brings back the slide No 4).
Furthermore, there is another explanation for the originality of that kind! It is a "sheer
negligence" and utter disrespect "in handling things." (He clicks on the hyperlink to the
slide No 6).
Luckily, this picture was taken in a simulator. However, it shows the attitude of the
accused that can only be described as negligent, impetuous, and imperturbable!
Prosecutor (to the accused): Do you recall this event? Have you ever been in the
experimental simulator?
Accused: Yes.
Prosecutor: Isn’t it factual that you were experimenting with the controls?
Accused: I was supposed to do…
Prosecutor: Please, answer the question with yes or no!
Accused: I was just going to explain…
Prosecutor: It doesn't matter what you wanted to explain! The court is interested in just
one simple thing … yeeees, or NO!
Defense lawyer (in French): Objection! The prosecution is harassing the defendant!
The judge: Objection overruled. (To the accused) Please, answer the question.
Accused: But… I..., yes.
Prosecutor (satisfactorily): Yeah, he experimented, and… yes... to the detriment of the
whole project! His negligence is deftly documented here and furthermore stresses the
dangers of choosing the wrong partners for collaboration.
(The prosecutor continues his talk).
Prosecutor (reading the next slide No 7): The third charge is "Unfocused execution of
approved projects." Let me illustrate this charge with some examples: The accused was
doing (points on the slide) "Prolonged experiments, (that were) disputed by the leader of
the project". (He clicks on the hyperlink in the presentation that brings now the slide No
8). On his trip to India, it was obvious that his prolonged experimental behavior provoked
4
havoc among peaceful passers-by and irritated governmental policy of having everything
standing up right and NOT upside down!
Prosecutor (to the accused): Have you been to India?
Accused: Yes.
Prosecutor: That’s it! He admits!
Defense lawyer (in French): Objection!
The judge: Overruled!
Prosecutor: Thank you, your honor.
(Prosecutor now faces the audience and clicks the hyperlink back to the slide 7).
Another example of dangers of the bleary execution is the (reads slide) "Focusing on
beside-the-point research that was not approved!"
(He clicks on hyperlink to slide No 9). As can be plainly seen on his recent visit to South
Africa, a month ago he was caught in another destructive, insensitive and irresponsible
act! The accused used his own weight in experimenting with the delicate balance of
social justice and equality! No wonder that the road towards achieving these goals seems
bent on difficulties as illustrated in this picture, by the way, this picture was taken by our
brave spy - I mean, correspondent - and immortalized!
Prosecutor (to the accused): Have you been to South Africa in February - March this
year?
Accused: Yes.
Prosecutor: Ha! He admits to making this horrible deed!
Defense lawyer: Objection!
The judge: Overruled.
Prosecutor: Thank you, your honor. No further questions.
The judge: All right, continue with your plea!
Prosecutor: Your honor, (reads the Slide No 10) the people ask the honorable judge
Frodeus Vartdalius to try H(LA) Munthe in the Court of SCIENTIFIC Justice for asocial
behavior that hurts our environment!
(He clicks on the next slide button, bringing slide No 11). We ask the Court to find the
accused guilty on all charges. The Court should sentence him to 1) Deprivation of all
5
funds, and 2) Lab work in the custody of a supergroup leader (on the slide, the text
continues in brackets with a very small script: "indirectly, of course", but the prosecutor
does not read it).
(The prosecutor ends his plea by clicking the next slide button wishing to finish, but a
"joke" advertisement pops-up, he feigns confusion, excuses himself and brings the black
slide as the end of his presentation).
The judge: Thank you. We have heard the prosecution. How does the accused plea?
Accused: Not guilty.
The judge: All right. What evidence do you have in your defense? Can the defense take
the word?
Defense lawyer (in French): Honorable Court, honorable Judge, and my fellow
countrymen. My defendant has been wrongly accused! His virtues are ingenuity,
unconformity, and creativity. He is a prototype of a scientist: imaginative, resourceful,
and inventive, and, of course, these characteristics must bring the difference that is
observed, and now even accused! Now, what is the benefit, usefulness, or purpose of
being different in the human society? This question is philosophical, and let me not dwell
on it here. It suffices to say that the progress in a society is correlated with the ingenuity
of its constituents! For example, if all humans would have similar personality
characteristics that would appear like cornfields or grain, yes, it could be advantageous
for our society to think the more uniformed, the better, because the more grain, the more
food. However, if we talk about the STANDARD of living, health, or community, then
the less uniformed we are, the more prone to resist uncertainties of nature! Let me remind
you that a valley looks nicer the more distinct flowers one finds there! So, is this hearing
6
based, in general terms, on the question of Survival, or Standard? If the deeds of my
defendant were a threat to our existence, I would understand, but they are not! I assure
you honorable Judge, my dear friends, and fellows that this matter is just a question of
FASHION! Sadly, but true, and whether we want it or not - fashions change. So, I ask all
of you, do we have to kill a scientist because of change of a fashion, and make him a
plain uniformed being, who is deprived of the very essence of a scientific personality?
No! Please, do not KILL that very essence in order to propagate better science! It will be
killed if you constrain his ingenuity, originality, and passion to excel! Therefore, I ask
this Court to ignore the prosecution and reject the case against him!
The judge (not understanding anything): I simply do not understand what you wanted to
say. Therefore, the Court rules that there will be a trial vs. H(LA) Munthe on May the
3rd, same time - same place. The court is adjourned! (The judge smashes his enormous
hammer on to the pad of his desk and smiles).
- The End (of pt. I) -