YOU HAVE TO feel sorry for Public Health School doctor Bernard Lown. He's receiving the Nobel Peace Prize today in Sweden, and probably nothing so far in his distinguished life has given him so much unexpected grief. He's been called naive by Reagan Administration officials; his credibility has been challenged by West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and he's had to answer endless questions about how far in cahoots his Soviet counterpart, Dr. Evgueni I. Chazov, really is with the Kremlin bosses. And all along he's patiently repeated over and over again the leitmotif of his group, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)--that their sole purpose is to achieve peace through education on the horrors of nuclear war.

You would think that an American winning a Peace Prize would cause unanimous national congratulations, but such has not been the case. Why all the hubbub? Many conservatives have pointed out that Dr. Chazov, who will jointly receive the award with Lown, is a member of the Soviet Central Committee and one of the Kremlin leadership's personal physicians. Lack of knowledge of this fact can be excused, but now it's well-known. It seems even more pointless at this late date constantly to mention the obvious lack of influence the Soviet people have on formulation of their country's nuclear and foreign policy. Lown really does try to make us believe that education and news coverage will change both sides' nuclear policies, no matter how much evidence speaks to the contrary. So far it's been a useless exercise to ask Dr. Lown pointed questions and to criticize him. His faith appears unshakeable.

Western conservative critics are missing the point. Lown knows that Sakharov has been treated poorly. He knows (hopefully) that Soviet public opinion doesn't matter a damn. He's probably as well-informed (or better) on Soviet history and government than most Western political leaders. What Lown's detractors should concentrate on instead is the mental copout which Lown and millions like him in the West use every day to justify a dangerous misreading of the superpower rivalry.

FOR LACK OF A BETTER term let's call this mental copout "Issue Separation Disease" (ISD, since acronyms seem all the rage these days). A brief description of it might read something like "a tendency to reduce the U.S./Soviet rivalry to dozens of discrete issue areas amenable to separate discussion and resolution." ISD strikes Western liberals particularly hard. In fact, they appear to be the only affected group, and only when they discuss foreign policy. Here are just a few of the easily-diagnosed symptoms:

* Marked tendency to focus on nuclear weapons as the be-all and end-all (literally) of U.S.-Soviet bilateral relations. Dr. Lown is certainly a victim of this. It was also reflected in the priorities of the 3,000 (or was it 30,000?) journalists gathered at the recent summit in Geneva. Reports filed back home and questions asked at press conferences focused with remarkable consistency on nukes. An alien observer might conclude from IPPNW's work and Geneva that the U.S. and the Soviet Union are just conglomerations of defense firms playing some giant version of the boardgame "Billionaire."

* Constant variations on the theme of "cultural exchange." A ballet here, a consulate there--what better way to attack mutual enmity? Lown's linkage with Soviet doctors can be considered a subset of this. Such a Samantha Smith approach to international relations is particularly attractive because it looks innocuous. It takes a pretty tough cookie to bring up the nasty issue of millions dead in Afghanistan when Mikhail offers us his best dancers.

* Unshakeable faith in the ability of education, intelligence, and popular agitation to "transcend politics" and "end the scourge" of the nuclear arms race. This is a personal favorite; also the one shown most glaringly by Dr. Lown. A typical Lown statement, reported in The Crimson: "We agreed from the inception not to be involved in politics because we wanted to work jointly with the Soviets..."

It's this last sentiment which really epitomizes ISD. It was made in response to the Kohl objection, consigned by several other European conservative party leaders, to IPPNW's selection for the Prize. These politicians objected because Dr. Chazov signed a statement in the '70s denouncing Andrei Sakharov for "anti-Soviet" activities. Dr. Lown has steadfastly refused to answer questions directly about his counterpart's role in this matter and other political activities; instead he has given several variations on the theme of "that's beside the point."

Taken at face value ISD is a truly powerful response to Lown's critics. He has simultaneously avoided answering the sticky political questions ("Let's keep to the point, shall we?") and has clasped about himself a kind of supra-political magic medical coat. He tries to tell us that Soviet actions in hundreds of areas don't matter as far as the arms race is concerned. If only we could take the issue of nukes aside and apply some good old American medical reasoning to it, it would go away. This is ISD in its really terminal phase.

IPPNW statements which attempt to portray the group as an apolitical information body only do more to reveal its nature as a purely Western pressure group with little or no influence on Soviet policy. Witness a statement by Dr. John O. Pastore, the group's secretary: "We intend to use the receipt of the Nobel Prize to do more and actually affect both sides." This sounds great; but how to get the Soviets to listen? Lown himself experiences odd swings between proclaiming an apolitical stance ("above politics from the inception...") and admitting his desire to affect national policies. On the same day that he said the group was never intended to be political, Lown declared that he was disappointed with a lack of "success" at the summit on the subject of arms control and that this meant his group would have to work even harder. And this isn't politics?

LOWN'S MOST PERVASIVE, and persuasive, claim to credibility is exactly this kind of disingenous, "above politics for the betterment of all" attitude. If he and his like did not cultivate it assiduously, and apparently successfully, they would simply be dismissed as quacks or drowned in controversy like Jesse Jackson after his forays to Cuba and Syria on behalf of American prisoners.

Curiously enough, Lown claims that physicians have a larger role in American society than just medical care. In his last press conference before leaving for Stockholm he brought up the issue of child illness and mortality, noting that 3.5 million children are crippled or killed by disease in the U.S. every year. But he followed that up by saying that physicians have a "greater responsibility" to do something about nukes.

How many other areas of "greater responsibility" must Lown and his crowd collect before they shed their mask and own up to their blatantly political orientation? The clear intent of IPPNW--to discredit and change Western nuclear weapons policy--deserves a thorough exposition and labelling, if not by IPPNW itself, then by concerned observers throughout the West. Responsible discussion of what the West should do to prevent nuclear holocaust is not served by dissembling pseudo-experts like Dr. Bernard Lown.

If Dr. Lown keeps expanding his responsibilities maybe he'll end up intimately involved with his government, like Dr. Chazov. But heaven forbid he ever be forced to admit he's wallowing in the muck of politics.