In an address given at the Boston Museum of Science in May 1977, William Tiller,
chairman of the Department of Material Physics at Stanford University, argued for the exis-
tence of an as yet unknown energy, which he asserted “may be the same as, for example,
what Reich called orgone.”^7
However, a few swallows do not a summer make. The weight of scientific opinion
still considers Reich’s experimental work unworthy of serious investigation. The FDA still
cites the banning of the accumulator as one of the prize feathers in its enforcement cap.
Persons studying or working in academic institutions who do orgonomic research on their
own often feel they must use a pseudonym when they publish their findings in the Journal of
Orgonomy; they fear their interest in Reich will be held against them by their superiors.
Needless to say, such an atmosphere has a chilling effect on orgonomic inquiry. It also serves
as a self-fulfilling prophecy, for a long-held argument against the validity of orgonomy is that
so little research has been conducted since Reich’s death twenty-five years ago.
Many of the people who knew Reich well and who have figured prominently in
these pages are now dead; for example, Ottilie Reich Heifetz, Annie Reich, Grete Bibring,
Lia Laszky, Otto Fenichel, Berta Bornstein, A. S. Neill, Ola Raknes, Theodore Wolfe, and
Walter Hoppe. Some, like Arthur Koestler, are still alive but have never, to my knowledge,
been closely interviewed about their relationship with and opinion of Reich. Many of these
persons are quite aged and an important part of history may slip past us unless their recol-
lections are soon recorded.
Others who were significant moved on to nonorgonomic undertakings. Ilse
Ollendorff taught high-school French and German until her retirement in the late 1970s.
Peter Reich works as a public health professional, influenced by but by no means highly
committed to his father’s investigations. (Of the family members, only Eva Reich actively
works in orgonomy, reaching a large number of people through her worldwide lectures and
workshops.) Dr. James Willie and Dr. A. Allan Cott (who worked closely with Reich in the
late 1940s) have left the field of orgonomy entirely. Dr. Cott is now prominent in nutrition-
al therapy.
This biography began by raising such questions as how Reich became what he was
and how much of what he did was true. Although I may not have answered these questions
fully,my work will hopefully serve as one of the beginnings. In pursuing Reich and his work,
I have tried to keep in mind George Steiner’s words quoted in the Introduction: “The inner
lives ofShakespeare and Michelangelo are our heritage; we feed our smaller sensibilities on
their donations and excess. There can be no other thanks than extreme precision, than the
patient, provisional, always inadequate attempt to get each case right, to map its command-
ing wealth.”
Let me conclude by repeating Reich’s conviction, and my own, that the main prob-
lem in evaluating Reich’s work and person lies not with him but with ourselves—above all,
in our tendency to “run” from what he studied.
446 Myron SharafFury On Earth