Report on the Barnhouse Effect (1950). Content and Description

Vonnegut’s first short story, “Report on the Barn- house Effect,” was published in Collier’s magazine on February 11, 1950, and later collected in Welcome to the Monkeyhouse (1968), around the time when Vonnegut resigned his position at General Electric to move to Cape Cod in order to write full time.

“Report on the Barnhouse Effect” describes the pressures applied to a scientist who courageously chooses to face real problems rather than to accept the comforting illusions that military men offer him. He dares to question the morality of using a humanitarian invention as a destructive military weapon. When Professor Barnhouse first discovers the power of dynamopsychism, he looks upon it as only a toy, as a way to amuse himself by causing dice to produce the combinations he requests.

Gradually the absent-minded psychology professor practices and perfects this power to the point where he can destroy individuals, houses, even mountains. While he would have preferred to use this power to run generators “where there isn’t any coal or waterpower” and to irrigate deserts, the U.S. Army feels that this priceless gift should be used as a weapon since “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” (165). Because this time-worn cliche is so much patriotic bilge as far as Vonnegut is concerned, it becomes clear that Barnhouse eventually must oppose the military establishment.

When Barnhouse turns to his graduate research assistant for advice, he repeatedly asks him such questions as “Think we should have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?” and “Think every new piece of scientific information is a good thing for humanity?” (161). This line of questioning echoes an episode in Vonnegut’s first novel, Player Piano, when Paul Proteus is asked to tell a lie during his trial so that his lie detector can be calibrated, replying “every new piece of scientific knowledge is a good thing for humanity” (297).

The turning point for Barn- house occurs when military officials request that he prove how powerful his gift is by destroying a number of missiles and ships during “Operation Barnhouse.” He reacts by declaring that he finds the idea “childish and insanely expensive” (164). While the military officials are exulting over Barnhouse’s successful destruction of the weapons, he quietly makes his escape.

The scientist, from his secluded sanctuary, spends the next few years destroying all military stockpiles despite the outraged cries of “stouthearted patriots” (168). Vonnegut concludes his story by revealing that the narrator, Barnhouse’s former research assistant, is planning to flee and assume his former mentor’s antiwar activities so that the elderly scientist’s death will not result in the resumption of hostilities.

“Report on the Barnhouse Effect” provides a rather unsatisfactory answer to the question of how humans are to control scientific and technological advances. Barnhouse is a godlike figure who, when asked by the military establishment to do what he feels is morally wrong, personally guarantees the safety of the world by destroying all weapons; such a scientist who values human life over research in pure science, does not appear either in Cat’s Cradle or in Player Piano to help Paul Proteus or John. If Vonnegut means to imply that the world is in such dire straits that no mere mortal, but only a man with superhuman power like Barnhouse, can solve its problems, then his cosmic view is a pessimistic one indeed. He seems to modify this view, however, in his short story “EPICAC” (1950).

For Discussion or Writing:
1. Professor Barnhouse and his assistant are scientists aware of the unintended destructive harm technological innovation can cause and take active measures to prevent the progress they have made from being inappropriately used. Compare Vonnegut’s portrayal of scientists in “Report on the Barnhouse Effect” with Dr. Felix Hoenikker in his novel Cat’s Cradle. Why does Vonnegut continue to use flat character types when he creates scientists? What significance do these flat scientist characters have in understanding Vonnegut’s worldview?

2. As “Report on the Barnhouse Effect” does, “EPICAC,” “Thanasphere,” and “The Euphio Question” form commentaries on science and technology. Here and throughout his works Vonnegut seems skeptical about technological progress. With these four stories in mind, write a well-developed essay on Vonnegut’s understanding of technology and the dangers Vonnegut sees in developing these tools of “progress.”