strations. Kreyberg took a sample home, studied the specimen, and identified the forms as
simple bacteria resulting from air infection. Nonetheless, Reich and Havrevold continued to
seek further research materials from Kreyberg. According to Kreyberg, he met the two men
in the hospital where he worked in order to test Reich’s expertise to see if some kind of col-
laboration was possible. Again according to Kreyberg, Reich failed the test, being ignorant
of basic bacteriological and anatomical facts^21.
Reich’s version of the same meeting is that he refused to permit Kreyberg to test
him. Indeed, Reich claimed that when Kreyberg had visited his laboratory, the famous can-
cer specialist had not recognized live cancer cells under high magnification^22. Thus an
opportunity for a scientific exchange degenerated into mere name-calling.
A similar kind of encounter occurred between Reich and Professor Thjotta, a well-
known Norwegian biologist. Reich had sent a preparation to the Oslo Bacteriological
Institute where Thjotta worked, with a request for an identification of certain forms. Thjotta
used the occasion to issue a statement that he had controlled Reich’s experiments and that
Reich had again discovered nothing more than bacteria resulting from air infection^23.
The fact that Reich had turned to Kreyberg and Thjotta undoubtedly gave them—
along with their acknowledged scientific prestige—a kind of authority over his work in the
eyes of the press and the public. Their opinions were published in the Aftenpostenon April
19 and 21, 1938, some six months after the first criticism by Hansen. Kreyberg’s tone was
especially cutting, referring throughout to “Mr. Reich” and claiming that “Mr. Reich” knew
less anatomy and bacteriology than a first-year medical student. When Reich and his sup-
porters requested that detailed control studies be done, Kreyberg replied that Reich’s
research did not merit such expense. He had already seen enough to render a negative opin-
ion ofthe studies themselves and ofReich’s competence as a scientist.
In response to the reports ofKreyberg and Thjotta, Reich issued a statement on
April 27, contending that his opponents had not conducted “an extensive and accurate con-
trol ofmy experiments. It would be advantageous if there could be an end to the futile dis-
cussions, interpretations and comparisons which have appeared in the press lately.”^24
Reich suggested that independent experts should carry out control studies—stud-
ies that would require two to three hours of daily work for two to three weeks. Reich set two
further conditions: his set of instruments must be used, and “I myself must be in charge of
the experiments.”
Here Reich went to extremes as much as his critics. They had quickly explained
away his findings and refused to replicate his experimental procedures. He in turn was ask-
ing for a degree of control over replications of his work that was quite beyond any accept-
ed scientific procedure. Replications of original experiments have to follow the original pro-
tocol,no matter how laborious or complex that protocol may be. But the very idea of inde-
pendent verification ofa finding precludes the original experimenter’s being “in charge of”
the control studies. Reich’s proposal was never taken up. Essentially, his critics did not deem
his studies worth the effort of repeating.
Had Reich’s experiments been the only target of his opponents’ wrath, the news-
216 Myron SharafFury On Earth