KOHN 265because he or she was in the wrong component of the laboratory. I was
in what formally was Kety’s “basic” jurisdiction and not in Cohen’s
“clinical” jurisdiction, but I always thought of these two men as work
ing together. What mattered more to me, as a first-level investigator
with only modest administrative responsibility, was that I knew that
both of them were interested in and supportive of my research.
The Place of Sociology and of Social Science in the
Intramural Research Program
It may have been happenstance that a social science laboratory was one
of the first two laboratories in the intramural research program, for
Clausen was already in the employ of the NIMH as an expert advisor,
and Robert H. Felix, the founding director of the institute, was extreme
ly good at spotting talent and gambling on talented people. But it was
certainly not happenstance that the director of the institute thought it
necessary to include social science among its core disciplines, nor that
the leaders of the intramural research program sustained that decision.
On the contrary, it was breadth of imagination, a non-reductionist be
lief on the part of some very wise men that the social sciences might
well have something important to contribute to our understanding of
human behavior, and should therefore be included in the program.
I want to add something about Seymour S. Kety’s and Robert A.
Cohen’s day-to-day treatment of sociology as a discipline and of sociolo
gists, me included, as members of their staffs. Kety is reputed to have said
that when he came to the NIMH he knew nothing about sociology and
even had some prejudices against the field, but that, if sociology were
to be part of his responsibilities, he would wipe that slate clean and
approach the field with an open mind. Even if this story is apocry
phal, Kety certainly demonstrated his open-mindedness at every turn.
He proved again and again that he supported good research in every
discipline, and sociology was most certainly included. For Cohen, there
are no comparable stories, not even apocryphal ones. It is not that every
psychoanalyst can be assumed to be favorable to social research, but
that Cohen was so evidently open-mindedness incarnate that no in
vestigator in any scientific discipline could ever doubt his interest in