are scientists responsible?

My title is deliberately ambiguous, even provocative.

It may be interpreted as asking whether scientists are responsible individuals or whether scientists are responsible for many problems which confront society today, most a consequence of the scientific revolutions of the twentieth century. I aim to discuss both these issues and, without answering either question, hope to throw some light on both of them. 

painting by Harvey Breverman

Academician Yuri Ovchinnikov, the former director of the Shemyakin Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the youngest person ever to be appointed Vice-President of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, died some years ago, at the age of 53, of leukemia. I had known him only slightly, and regret now that I did not know him better. I recently ran across an article of his entitled “Science and Morality,” which appeared a number of years ago in an English language newspaper published in Moscow. It contains the following passage: 

The penetration of science into the mysteries of matter has now reached a point where it is extremely dangerous for the whole planet to orient new discoveries towards military goals. The scientist must be well versed in the ideological problems of his age. Without this commitment, the definitions of what is true and what is false, what is ethical and what is not, lose all sense, all meaning. 

Although Ovchinnikov spoke only of the military implications of recent scientific advances, his remark clearly has more general validity on which I would like to elaborate. 

We should perhaps first distinguish between science and technology. Science is the discipline which attempts to describe the reality of the world around us, including the nature of living organisms, by rational means. Technology on the other hand attempts to exploit the fruits of science in order to attain human goals. In short, science is to be thought of as related to knowledge, while technology is concerned with the utilization of knowledge for, one hopes, the betterment of the human condition. 

Four hundred years ago no one could possibly have anticipated the enormous strides which science and technology were destined to make in the ensuing centuries. Even as recently as 100 years ago, who would have predicted the great revolutions in science and technology which the twentieth century held in store for us? Thus the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, the nature of the structure of matter, molecular biology and our understanding of life processes changed forever the way we look at the world around us and, at the same time, irrevocably established the rational mode of inquiry, the quintessential element of the scientific method, as preferred above all others. 

Technological applications, a mixed blessing at best, followed quickly on the heels of the more basic scientific discoveries; for example, progress in communications, transportation, space exploration, and electronics, the invention and rapid development of the digital computer, improved methods for the diagnosis and treatment of disease, the use of the atom as the source of limitless energy were among the more notable accomplishments. On the dark side, however, were the development and perfection of intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear warheads and atomic, chemical, and biological means of mass destruction. The population explosion and widespread famine, the greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer, and pollution of the environment were also a more or less direct consequence of these scientific and technological advances. 

Then too, the fruits of technology itself fed back into and facilitated the ever increasingly rapid advance of science so that today we are racing ahead at break-neck speed to a future filled with uncertainty. 

Thus it is clear that the spectacular advances of science and technology in this century and the current trends hold enormous promise for good and an equally great threat to our very survival. The promise is that the fruits of science will be used for the benefit and well-being of mankind, leading to the never ending improvement in the quality of life for everyone. The threat is that the fruits of science will be used for destructive purposes, leading to consequences ranging from the irreversible pollution of the environment to the destruction of human life as a result of a nuclear holocaust. 

The threat arises from the crisis produced by the lightning advances of science and technology on the one hand and the glacial pace of evolution of mental attitudes and modes of behavior, measured in periods of centuries, on the other. This conflict, between science and conscience, between technology and ethical behavior, has now reached the point where it threatens the destruction of humankind, if not of the planet itself, unless it is resolved on favorable terms, and resolved soon. 

It is, of course, in some measure the responsibility of all of us to insure that the fruits of science are used for good, not destructive, purposes. However, the scientist, technician, and engineer bear a special responsibility in this respect because, after all, it is a direct consequence of their work that we find ourselves in the predicament we face today. The problem is made more difficult by the fact that one and the same scientific discovery may find application in different ways, some beneficial and some destructive. Thus the energy of the atom may be used to generate useful power, to treat disease, or to destroy. What is the scientist to do? It seems to me that this is the challenge which Ovchinnikov is telling us the scientist must be prepared to accept, because not to do so is sure to invite the most disastrous consequences, even the destruction of humankind itself. He is telling us that this is a responsibility we must assume, that we can no longer be indifferent to the consequences of our work. 

I don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions, but believe instead that we are only now beginning to understand the need to accept this responsibility, the need to act and to take the first steps on the long road which mankind must travel in order to secure the great benefits to humankind which science and technology promise, if only their fruits are wisely used. I believe also, if Yuri Ovchinnikov were alive today, that he would agree. 

in print explore issue four