‘Because I’ve just been looking through your new book! Ninheimer, are you mad? Have you gone insane?’

Ninheimer stiffened. ‘Is something – uh – wrong?’ he asked in alarm.

‘Wrong? I refer you to page 562. What in blazes do you mean by interpreting my work as you do? Where in the paper cited do I make the claim that the criminal personality is nonexistent and that it is the law-enforcement agencies that are the true criminals? Here, let me quote—’

‘Wait! Wait!’ cried Ninheimer, trying to find the page. ‘Let me see. Let me see . . . Good God!’

‘Well?’

‘Speidell, I don’t see how this could have happened. I never wrote this.’’

‘But that’s what’s printed! And that distortion isn’t the worst. You look at page 690 and imagine what Ipatiev is going to do to you when he sees the hash you’ve made of his findings! Look, Ninheimer, the book is riddled with this sort of thing. I don’t know what you were thinking of-but there’s nothing to do but get the book off the market. And you’d better be prepared for extensive apologies at the next Association meeting!’

‘Speidell, listen to me—’

But Speidell had flashed off with a force that had the ‘plate glowing with after-images for fifteen seconds.

It was then that Ninheimer went through the book and began marking off passages with red ink.

He kept his temper remarkably well when he faced Easy again, but his lips were pale. He passed the book to Easy and said, ‘Will you read the marked passages on pages 562, 631, 664 and 690?’

Easy did so in four glances. ‘Yes, Professor Ninheimer.’

‘This is not as I had it in the original galleys.’

‘No, sir. It is not.’

‘Did you change it to read as it now does?’

‘Yes, sir.’

‘Why?’

‘Sir, the passages as they read in your version were most uncomplimentary to certain groups of human beings. I felt it advisable to change the wording to avoid doing them harm.’

‘How dared you do such a thing?’

‘The First Law, Professor, does not let me, through any inaction, allow harm to come to human beings. Certainly, considering your reputation in the world of sociology and the wide circulation your book would receive among scholars, considerable harm would come to a number of the human beings you speak of.’

‘But do you realize the harm that will come to me now?’

‘It was necessary to choose the alternative with less harm.’

Professor Ninheimer, shaking with fury, staggered away. It was clear to him that U.S. Robots w6uld have to account to him for this.

There was some excitement at the defendants’ table, which increased as Prosecution drove the point home.

‘Then Robot EZ-27 informed you that the reason for its action was based on the First Law of Robotics?’

‘That is correct, sir.’

‘That, in effect, it had no choice?’

‘Yes, sir.’

‘It follows then that U.S. Robots designed a robot that would of necessity rewrite books to accord with its own conceptions of what was right. And yet they palmed it off as simple proofreader. Would you say that?’

Defense objected firmly at once, pointing out that the witness was being asked for a decision on a matter in which he had no competence. The judge admonished Prosecution in the usual terms, but there was no doubt that the exchange had sunk home – not least upon the Attorney for the Defense.

Defense asked for a short recess before beginning cross-examination, using a legal technicality for the purpose that got him five minutes.

He leaned over toward Susan Calvin. ‘Is it possible, Dr Calvin, that Professor Ninheimer is telling the truth and that Easy was motivated by the First Law?’

Calvin pressed her lips together, then said, ‘No. It isn’t possible. The last part of Ninheimer’s testimony is deliberate perjury. Easy is not designed to be able to judge matters at the stage of abstraction represented by an advanced textbook on sociology. It would never be able to tell that certain groups of humans would be harmed by a phrase in such a book. Its mind is simply not built for that.’

‘I suppose, though, that we can’t prove this to a layman,’ said Defense pessimistically.

‘No,’ admitted Calvin. ‘The proof would be highly complex. Our way out is still what it was. We must prove Ninheimer is lying, and nothing he has said need change our plan of attack.’

‘Very well, Dr Calvin,’ said Defense, ‘I must accept your word in this. We’ll go on as planned.’

In the courtroom, the judge’s gavel rose and fell and Dr Ninheimer took the stand once more. He smiled a little as one who feels his position to be impregnnble and rather enjoys the prospect of countering a useless attack.

Defense approached warily and began softly. ‘Dr Ninheimer, do you mean to say that you were completely unaware of these alleged changes in your manuscript until such time as Dr Speidell called you on the 16th of June?’

‘That is correct, sir.’

‘Did you never look at the galleys after Robot EZ-27 had proofread them?

‘At first I did, but it seemed to me a useless task. I relied on the claims of U.S. Robots. The absurd-uh-changes were made only in the last quarter of the book after the robot, I presume, had learned enough about sociology—’

‘Never mind your presumptions!’ said Defense. ‘I understood your colleague, Dr Baker, saw the later galleys on at least one occasion. Do you remember testifying to that effect?’

‘Yes, sir. As I said, he told me about seeing one page, and even there, the robot had changed a word.’

Again Defense broke in. ‘Don’t you find it strange, sir, that after over a year of implacable hostility to the robot, after having voted against it in the first place and having refused to put it to any use whatever, you suddenly decided to put your book, your magnum opus, into its hands?’

‘I don’t find that strange. I simply decided that I might as well use the machine.’

‘And you were so confident of Robot EZ-27 – all of a sudden – that you didn’t even bother to check your galleys?’

‘I told you I was – uh – persuaded by U.S. Robots’ propaganda.’

‘So persuaded that when your colleague, Dr Baker, attempted to check on the robot, you berated him soundly?’

‘I didn’t berate him. I merely did not wish to have him – uh – waste his time. At least, I thought then it was a waste of time, I did not see the significance of that change in the word at the—’

Defense said with heavy sarcasm, ‘I have no doubt you were instructed to bring up that point in order that the word change be entered in the record—’ He altered his line to forestall objection and said, ‘The point is that you were extremely angry with Dr Baker.’