If we look at science as a human enterprise as we look at art, religion, or politics, we notice two facts which seem difficult to re concile with each other. On the one hand, science is a doctrine which is based on experience about sense observations. It can be applied to technology, and becomes in this way the basis of all advances in industry and warfare. If a doctrine of science is successful in these respects, we say that it is 'Valid"; in the opposite case we call it ''false". In this way and only in this way science can distinguish between right and wrong. But, on the other hand, the history of old and new times has shown that authorities, organized or unorgan ized, have tried to direct the way in which the results of science have been formulated, taught in schools, or presented in print. As the results of science can be checked by their technical failure or success, it is difficult to understand how any authority can modify or influence these results. We shall not speak in this paper about the influence of power ful groups upon the financial or moral support which is given to scientific research from public and private funds. It is obvious that he who holds the purse strings can favor some fields of research and prevent research in other fields. This can be done, not only by government and industry, but also by public opinion. Some field of research is fashionable in some country in some period, while some research may even be ostracized. But all these social powers can only divert research work from one field to another one, they cannot have an influence upon the results of a given type of research. We may call the results of science that can be checked by sense, observation, and technical application the "technical results" of science. It is obvious that no authority can alter these technical results. When the Roman Church condemned the Copernican system, the computation of the position of planets on the sphere was not