{"id":18584,"date":"2012-04-16T12:00:36","date_gmt":"2012-04-16T11:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=18584"},"modified":"2012-04-11T14:16:48","modified_gmt":"2012-04-11T13:16:48","slug":"science-ethics-and-social-responsibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2012\/04\/science-ethics-and-social-responsibility\/","title":{"rendered":"Science, Ethics and Social Responsibility"},"content":{"rendered":"

Speech at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France – March 14, 2012<\/em><\/p>\n

Pugwash Workshop – Science and Social Responsibility: Rising Problems, Wise Initiatives<\/em><\/p>\n

Good Afternoon,<\/p>\n

I want thank the co-convenors, Pugwash and UNESCO for the invitation to speak on the subject of Science, Ethics and Social Responsibility \u2013 an issue which has long been a concern of mine.<\/p>\n

First of all though, I would like to commend Gerard Toulouse for his major\u00a0 sponsorship of this meeting;\u00a0 and congratulate him, Jaques Borde and Pierre Lallemand for their organization of this event and their success in rejuvenating <\/em>Student Pugwash in France;\u00a0 thus\u00a0 breathing new life into Pugwash France.\u00a0 And too, I want to congratulate Nicolas Delerue for his fine organization of the student event.\u00a0 I also commend\u00a0 the convenors and\u00a0 the participants for this excellent meeting which will provide\u00a0 much valuable content for\u00a0 future work.<\/p>\n

My concerns have been the subject of many of the discussions and\u00a0 excellent ideas have emerged for addressing and ameliorating the crucial nature of\u00a0 the critical dangers facing humanity the 21st<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n

The promotion of social responsibility in science is one of the founding principles of Pugwash.\u00a0 This was re-affirmed in 2007, at the 57th<\/sup> Pugwash Conference in Bari, in both the Mission Statement and in the Principles.\u00a0 However, in this document Pugwash is viewed as a manifestation, an exemplar<\/em><\/strong> of this ideal.\u00a0 And though Pugwash will \u2013 and I quote – \u201cpromote debate and reflection on the ethical obligations of scientist in taking responsibility for their work\u201d \u2013 end of quote \u2013 the time has come to take a more activist<\/em><\/strong> position and work for mechanisms, guidelines \u2013 legal instruments in order to control and govern scientific research and experimentation.\u00a0 The convergence of Pugwash and UNESCO as co-convenors of this conference gives me hope that both will move forward \u2013 perhaps together \u2013 to address the development of necessary restraints.<\/p>\n

We are confronted with a situation in which the realistic destiny of civilization is nuclear genocide; the death of millions through accidental or malicious release of deathly biological agents;\u00a0 through ecological degradation; and climate change \u2013\u00a0 causing deaths of millions from famines on grand scales – unless <\/em><\/strong>we find the ways and means to divert the course established by science, technology and its rationale in the name of progress.<\/p>\n

The question, perhaps, could be asked whether or not science and technology have progressed to the extent where the dangers outweigh the benefits? \u00a0I do not know whether it is even possible at this stage \u2013 but I certainly remain hopeful – to alter the course of Science, the dictates established in the Enlightenment. During the 17th Century, scientific academies “decided that any discussion of political, religious or moral problems would not be permitted in their meetings, lest their pursuit of scientific truth be marred by dogma or human passions.”[i]<\/a><\/p>\n

This, perhaps, was the historical driver which has enabled scientists to ignore the human dimension, and to research and develop with no responsibility for the consequences of their inventions.\u00a0 This may have made sense during the Greek Age when science was merely the observation of natural phenomena; or before knowledge of how the energies of nature could be utilized – before science became “applied.”<\/p>\n

Since the Enlightenment – when the great humane ideals of freedom, justice and equality co-existed in harmony with scientific thought, the understanding of human progress – to paraphrase Albert Schweitzer – has dwelt more and more on the results of science<\/em><\/strong>; and less and less on reflection on the individual, society, humanity and civilization<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

We are so psychologically \u201cdetermined\u201d by our \u201ctechnological representation of reality\u201d that the solutions to this critical situation \u201ccall for \u2026 even greater mobilization[s] of our technology.\u201d[ii]<\/a><\/p>\n

When a technology becomes a threat another technological device is created to counter the threat.\u00a0 An example of this – and an issue of serious contention between Russia, and the US and NATO, and a threat to the nuclear disarmament process and world peace – is the response to the failure to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology.\u00a0 This has resulted in the development of the United States Missile Defense system and the possibility of weapons in space, jeopardizing even further, the future of civilization.<\/p>\n

Have science and technology have become a force of destruction rather than creation?\u00a0 The numbers in the 1980 <\/em><\/strong>Brandt Report suggest that this is so, with its information that more than 50% of the world’s scientists were devoted to weapons technology and the manufacture of armaments, while less than 1% was devoted to researching the needs of the developing world.\u00a0 These statistics may have changed since the Earth Summit at Rio.\u00a0 However, it is highly likely that the ratio is close to the same number given that the United States military budget \u2013 which stands at more than half the combined military budgets of the rest of the world\u00a0 – is higher than during the Cold War.\u00a0 Moreover, the United States nuclear weapons budget is twenty per cent higher than in the 1980s.<\/p>\n

We may be closer to extinction than we imagine!\u00a0 British astronomer, John D. Barrow warns of the “prospect that scientific cultures like our own inevitably contain within themselves the seeds of their own destruction [and] will be the end of us \u2026. Our instinctive desire for progress and discovery,<\/em><\/strong>“<\/em> he believes,\u00a0 “will stop us from reversing the tides in our affairs.\u00a0 Our democratic leanings<\/em><\/strong> will prevent us from regulating the activities of organizations.\u00a0 Our bias towards short-term advantage<\/em><\/strong>, rather than ultra-long planning, will prevent us from staving off disasters.\u201d[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n

In projecting “a future of increasing technological progress”, he continues, “we may face a future that is increasingly hazardous and susceptible to irreversible disaster.”[iv]<\/a>\u00a0 He believes that\u00a0 “as the world becomes an increasingly sophisticated system, it is increasingly at risk from the consequences of its own headlong rush for development,” and “our existence is precarious.”[v]<\/a><\/p>\n

The products of technology are not benign, not neutral, and are not outside morality<\/em><\/strong>. They are created, developed and used by moral beings<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Their invention and applications require a reordering of society and culture in all its aspects, and are, as well, taken into account in the creation of new devices.\u00a0 An example of this is the atomic bomb.\u00a0 The populations and sizes of cities, were factored into the calculation of the impact of the bomb.\u00a0 To have the largest psychological impact on \u2013 for example – the Soviet Union, you need a certain number of deaths \u2013 ten million was Sir Michael Quinlan\u2019s number. You need a sizeable city to drop a sizeable weapon and so on. These factors must surely have been in the conscious awareness of the scientists as they conducted their experiments, and made their calculations when developing and constructing the bomb.<\/p>\n

However, “Our age, says Albert Schweitzer, has discovered how to divorce knowledge from thought with the result that we have, indeed, a science which is free, but hardly any science which reflects\u201d and this is of great danger to humanity.\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cWe have talked for decades with ever increasing light-mindedness about war and conquest, as if these were merely operations on a chess-board.\u201d[vi]<\/a><\/p>\n

As long as a dispassionate and unreflective science reigns supreme, and the scientific model of nature is mathematical and devoid of the human and ethical considerations, we are endangered.<\/p>\n

Are there limits to scientific enquiry and experiment? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Oppenheimer\u2019s in<\/span>famous<\/em><\/strong> response to this question was\u00a0 \u201cWhen you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it.”\u00a0 Australian physicist, Sir Mark Oliphant, also with the Manhattan Project, too had no illusions about limits to scientific enquiry and experiment.\u00a0 He commented that he “learned during the war that if you pay people well and the work’s exciting they’ll work on anything.”\u00a0 He went on to say, that there is “no difficulty getting doctors to work on chemical warfare and physicists to work on nuclear warfare.”[vii]<\/a><\/p>\n

The limits to scientific enquiry in Barrow’s view are financial; and the limits “imposed by the nature of humanity.\u201d But this is not an ethical position – it is technical.\u00a0 \u201cThe human brain,\u201d he says, was not evolved with science in mind.” [viii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Does one as a physicist have the moral right to work on the practical exploitation of atomic energy?<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 – This is the question posed by Michael Frayn in his play, Copenhagen.<\/p>\n

We all know of Josef Rotblat\u2019s experience:\u00a0 If there is the danger of a madman, like Hitler, attempting to develop an atomic bomb, the answer then is probably yes<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 When in 1942, it was discovered that the Germans had dropped their atom bomb project; and Rotblat learned that the Manhattan Project would continue the bomb’s development in order to drop it on Japan as a demonstration to the Russians, Rotblat found it morally indefensible<\/em><\/strong> and left the Manhattan project, – the only one to do so.<\/p>\n

Most of the Manhattan Project atomic scientists suffered from guilt and remorse. However, the guilt and remorse was not<\/em><\/strong> in connection with research and development.\u00a0 It was not<\/em><\/strong> on working \u201con the practical exploitation of atomic power,” but rather, on the end result – the mass killing of civilians, particularly the killing of women and children.\u00a0 When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, their first reaction was excitement, pleasure, congratulation and the urge for celebration. However, as the day wore on, Oppenheimer and his fellow scientists experienced feelings of depression, guilt, outright horror, and in one, physical illness.\u00a0 Finally<\/em><\/strong>, some were concerned about their “moral position”; and also, the\u00a0 fear that the weapon would be used again.<\/p>\n

Three days later, the plutonium bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and the scientists, those who felt there was no justification for using this second bomb, were overwhelmed with feelings of sickness or nausea.[ix]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yet Hans Bethe – though he believed that the hydrogen bomb was evil, and hoped that it would not work – continued with other Manhattan Project scientists to work on the hydrogen bomb.\u00a0 This ultimately led to the increased killing power of a thermonuclear weapon one thousand times greater<\/em><\/strong> than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<\/p>\n

When Robert Oppenheimer was asked about the responsibility of the scientist<\/em><\/strong> to the community<\/em><\/strong>, he struggled for many years with the question and the only answer he could come up with was \u201cto remain dedicated<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 He talked about the virtue of correcting error and a “commitment to the value of learning” and \u201ctherefore\u201d he said, \u201cthe problem of finding an ethic for today is resolved.\u201d[x]<\/a><\/p>\n

There is no doubt that, though some of the scientists defended their work and felt proud of their part in the bomb’s development, they were haunted forever by feelings of guilt for the evil perpetrated through their accomplishment.\u00a0 And, as Pugwashians know, several of the Manhattan Project scientists – Josef Rotblat, Hans Bethe\u00a0 among them – turned their energies to work for international control of atomic energy and the abolition of nuclear weapons; with Josef Rotblat, Albert Einstein\u00a0 and others calling for an oath for scientists and engineers similar to that of the physicians\u2019 Hippocratic Oath and \u201c\u2019Whistle-blowing\u2019 – to quote Rotblat – should become part of the scientist\u2019s ethos.\u201d[xi]<\/a><\/p>\n

What we have learned, from this history, is that after the fact \u2013 Hindsight, Reconsideration, Retrospection – it is too late!<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 Once the demon has been unleashed, it is virtually impossible to control the outcome.\u00a0 We have seen in the last few years, the nuclear weapons states – legally committed to elimination of their weapons – upgrading <\/em><\/strong>their arsenals; their weapons still dangerously poised on high-alert status; the proliferation of nuclear weapons; the lack of transparency and verification measures in the Biological weapons convention; dangerous technologies developed in defence laboratories and in corporate laboratories; Internet hackers and cyber warfare, dangerous information easily available via the Internet to suicide and other terrorists,\u00a0 or to crazed individuals.<\/p>\n

As long as there are no limits to scientific enquiry and technological development, we are endangered.<\/p>\n

There is no doubt, that there is much concern, and some steps are being taken.\u00a0 For example, recently, members of the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Bio-security managed to halt the publication in the journals, Science <\/em>and Nature, <\/em>of avian flu experiments that have \u201cyielded versions of the virus more contagious among humans\u201d \u2013 information that would be of interest to terrorists.\u00a0 The experiments have been likened to 1940s work on the atomic bomb; and to the first attempts at genetic engineering in the 1970s.\u201d[xii]<\/a>\u00a0 Dismayingly, the Chair of the Bio-Defense panel acknowledges, the scientific data will be leaked.<\/p>\n

The US government Science Policy Office at the National Institute of Health is now developing a draft policy of a \u201ccomprehensive framework for oversight of dual-use research.\u201d [xiii]<\/a><\/p>\n

This issue is controversial among scientists; with some arguing that it will restrict the future of research; and others agreeing of the need for stronger rules and pre-authorization.<\/p>\n

There has been a call for an Asilomar-like process on the lines of the 1975 Conference which established safety guidelines for DNA research to enable scientists \u201cto pursue genetic engineering under a system of self-governance.\u201d However, this conference has, for the most part, been discredited.[xiv]<\/a> There was a refusal to address ethical and social issues; and as well, the agenda was restricted by the organizers to exclude \u201cquestions of biological warfare and human genetic engineering.\u201d There was no representation from public-interest organizations, no social scientists, no ethicists.[xv]<\/a> Five years later, the guidelines and controls they established were dismantled.<\/p>\n

The World Health Organization, last month, convened a meeting to discuss the publication of scientific research \u2013 specifically with regard to the decision not to publish the Avian Flu research.\u00a0 Their conclusion was that the research should be published in full.\u00a0 However, as with the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Genetic Engineering, the participants all had vested interests in the dissemination of the research.\u00a0 So the National Institutes of Health, who financed the research, has asked the Bio-Security Board to reconsider its earlier decision to remove sensitive information before publication.<\/p>\n

The World Health Organization has, subsequently, committed to convene further meetings with experts who are not stakeholders, experts with interests and concerns broader than the world of pure scientific research and its narrow benefits.<\/p>\n

Given the dangers inherent in twenty-first century technologies, it is essential to have \u201cgreater public participation and oversight in decisions on the development and use of science.\u00a0 It is essential to establish organizations with a mandate for ethical and social responsibility; with a mandate to develop a code of conduct with mechanisms for enforcement; and with memberships comprising of a broad representation from public interest groups, and exclusion of representation from the political and industrial realms.\u00a0\u00a0 It is essential that these organizations are established, both at the national and international levels, so that scientists do not migrate to states with little or no restriction on the pursuit of science.<\/p>\n

A code of conduct embracing the sanctity of the human is essential.\u00a0 A new model for science is necessary in which the human is viewed as a speaking subject; rather than an object for study and manipulation; in other words \u2013 to paraphrase the Einstein-Russell Manifesto – where humanness, humanity is remembered.<\/p>\n

There needs to be more discussion of what I would call the \u201cdoctors\u2019 dilemma\u201d \u2013 how far do scientists, in their research,\u00a0 proceed in attempts to defeat disease and prolong the life of the human species.\u00a0 The zeal for new cures, new discoveries must not blind researchers to humanity and its survival.<\/p>\n

It should be compulsory for all high school and university\u00a0 students of science – every year –\u00a0 to take a course in science, ethics and social responsibility – an integral component of their studies in science.<\/p>\n

We cannot continue to attempt to cope with unleashed demons, whether they are nuclear weapons or bird flu virus.\u00a0 It is essential that preventative measures are established and enforced.<\/p>\n

Josef Rotblat in his Nobel Prize speech makes the point that\u00a0 \u201cPugwash and other bodies, \u2026 devote[.] much of their time and ingenuity to averting<\/strong> the dangers created by science and technology<\/em>.\u201d[xvi]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00a0The dangers of the twenty-first century are of such magnitude that it is in the interests of humankind that Pugwash consider a pro-active<\/em><\/strong> set of Principles and Mission Statement in order to\u00a0 prevent<\/em><\/strong> rather than to\u00a0 avert <\/em><\/strong>\u2013 ex post facto \u2013 <\/strong><\/em>the dangers created by science and technology the – dangers to life faced by humankind\u00a0 today.<\/p>\n

I call on Pugwash to take up this challenge.\u00a0 Do we work for a radical redevelopment in the course of science? Or do we continue like lemmings on our suicidal path?<\/p>\n

Thank you very much!<\/p>\n

NOTES:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[i]<\/a> Sehdev Kumar, “A Snake in the Garden of Eden<\/em>,” The Globe and Mail, Aug.7\/00<\/p>\n

\n

[ii]<\/a> George Grant, Technology & Justice, <\/em>Concord, 1986,16<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[iii]<\/a> Barrow, Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits, Oxford 1998,112. Emphasis added.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[iv]<\/a> Barrow, -ibid – 150<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[v]<\/a> Barrow, -ibid<\/em>,\u00a0 74<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[vi]<\/a> Schweitzer, 44<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[vii]<\/a> www.economist.com\/node\/7033<\/a>. July 20\/2000<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[viii]<\/a> Barrow, viii<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[ix]<\/a> \u00a0See Robert Jay Lifton, & Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America<\/em>, N.Y., 1995,31-2<\/p>\n

[x]<\/a> Schweber, 180<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xi]<\/a> www.nobelprize.org\/nobel_prizes\/peace\/laureates\/1995\/rotblat-lecture<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xii]<\/a> Global Security Newswire, Jan 31\/12<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xiii]<\/a> Global Security Newswire, Jan 12\/12; Jan 17\/12<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xiv]<\/a> Susan Wright (University of Michigan), Charles Wiener (MIT),Janet Weinberg, (Science News),<\/em> Sheldon Krimsky (Tufts),James Watson (DNA co-discoverer) et al<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xv]<\/a> Susan Wright, Legitimating Genetic Engineering, <\/em>www.dissentmagazine.org\/article\/?article+1051<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[xvi]<\/a> emphasis added<\/p>\n

___________________________________<\/p>\n

Jennifer Allen Simons, CM, Ph.D., LL.D. is president of The Simons Foundation.<\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n


\n<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We are confronted with a situation in which the realistic destiny of civilization is nuclear genocide; the death of millions through accidental or malicious release of deathly biological agents; through ecological degradation; and climate change \u2013 causing deaths of millions from famines on grand scales – unless we find the ways and means to divert the course established by science, technology and its rationale in the name of progress. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[145],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}