1 waited for the film which you wrote you were going to send. When it did not
come I examined microscopically the preparations you sent with your first report.
I have, indeed, found the lifelike movements which you describe. There is some-
thing surprising here, in view of the long time that has elapsed since the prepara-
tions were made.
I would like to suggest to the Academy a brief publication of your find-
ings, followed by a short note by myself confirming the facts and containing a
physico-chemical interpretation for which I alone would be responsible. Leaving
aside your electrical theory which has nothing to do with the experiment, would it
be agreeable for you to have your communication published simply in the form of
the enclosed extract, which, in fact, is a summary of the important part? It seems
to me that in this way your wish to see your findings published in our Bulletinwould
be satisfied^19.Reich characteristically refused consent to publication under the conditions pro-
posed by Lapicque. If he was willing to accept help for dubious motivations, he was unwill-
ing to take support wherever strings were attached. Although he badly needed even the par-
tial confirmation ofan august body like the French Academy, he would not make a bargain
that vitiated what he believed to be the most significant part of his findings.
Whatever professional support Reich received was as nothing compared to the ava-
lanche of attacks his experiments evoked publicly. The criticisms were precipitated by a pre-
liminary report on the bion experiments in Reich’s Journalin the summer of 1937. On
September 22, the Norwegian newspaper Aftenpostenpublished a brief summary of the arti-
cle, followed by comments from a Norwegian biologist, Klaus Hansen. Hansen took a cau-
tious, let’s-wait-for-the-full-report position, but offered the opinion that it was extremely
unlikely that Reich had succeeded in developing living substance. He further opined that
Reich had confused life signs with Brownian movement.
Hansen’s comment about Brownian movement was typical of the frustrating qual-
ity ofthe dialogue between Reich and his critics. Reich would present a finding with a given
interpretation (particles or bions with an inner pulsation), and the critics would then make
another interpretation (Brownian, place-to-place movement) rendering the initial finding
totally insignificant. Reich would reply along lines already discussed, but the critics would
ignore the answer or repeat the original criticism, attributing stupidity or grandiosity to Reich
for failing to have understood them the first time.
The newspaper criticism might have stopped with Hansen’s relatively cautious
remarks. However, right around that time Reich sought the assistance of Leiv Kreyberg,
Norway’s foremost cancer specialist, since Reich had come to believe that his bion research
might be relevant to the cancer problem. Kreyberg and Reich had met in 1936. They shared
an interest in photomicrographs; Kreyberg, who never had anything else good to say about
Reich, commented that Reich’s film equipment and technique were excellent^20.
Reich spent two hours in the fall of 1937 showing Kreyberg various bion demon-
17 : The Bions: 1936-1939 215