Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The Responsibility of the Scientist

Sergei_Eisenstein - 28-10-2006 at 11:55

I sometimes have discussions with like-minded friends about how it is possible that only decades ago, garage chemistry was considered an art and a noble thing to do, while the same makes you a suspect drug cook or terrorist today. Reading through sciencemadness, I'm convinced that like-minded chemophiles all over the world have the same question. Also, I sometimes wonder when this all changed? Today I found an interesting article from 1978, which to me seemed to be some sort of alarm at an early stage.

The text is by Hans Mohr, Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 17, 670-672 (1978)




The tradition of mutual trust between science and the public appears to have been broken in recent years. It is necessary to define the boundaries of science and to reflect upon the responsibility of the scientist.

The goal of science is knowledge.

Just a few years ago most scientists were full of confidence, and science was an unquestionable component of our culture. Any increase of knowledge was considered almost synonymous with moral progress, with more humanitarianism, more freedom, more happiness. The scientist expected the public to respect his work and to trust him. In most cases, this trust was granted blindly.

All that has now changed. Science as an institution and the scientist as a person have been drawn into the general crisis of confidence which has pervaded society. Science and the technology to which it gave birth are now largely regarded as enemies of mankind. The critics maintain that science has disappointed, and in particular that it has failed morally.

Has science really failed?

At first glance it would not appear to be the case. On the contrary: modern science was, and still is, remarkably effective. Advances in knowledge continue, in some disciplines at an unprecedented rate. We all live from the fruits of science; and we live better, far better, than mankind has ever lived before. Anybody who denies this does not know (or does not want to know) how our ancestors lived and suffered. Of course, the point of no return has long been passed. There are simply 3 or 4 billion people too many for any return to the simple way of life, even if it were desirable. If we wish to continue to live we must therefore overcompensate the decay phenomena of our culture by scientific and technological progress. If distrust of Homo faber were to lead man to turn his back on science, this would be his farewell to civilization.

Nor would science appear to have failed morally. The ethos of science, that particular moral law which provides the basis for objective knowledge, has stood the test better than any other set of norms and values in the history of man. There is not the slightest indication that science has lost any of its rigor in the classical disciplines. On the contrary, the severity of sanctions imposed upon those deviating from this ethos has increased.

How, then, did the accusation arise that science has failed? I think it is because mankind expects more from science than it can afford according to its goal and structure. Serious scientists, experts in their respective fields, were also guilty in the 1960’s of cultivating the illusion that any problem is solvable if we really desire its solution; they promised not only knowledge and explanation, but also salvation. Science is now criticized as an institution because these promises cannot be fulfilled. It was partly the fantastic successes of those years, such as the first moon landing or the breaking of the genetic code, which deluded scientists into making such promises. The principal reason, however, lay (and still lies) in the inability of many scientists to distinguish between those problems which are directly accessible to a scientific or technological solution and those whose solution requires a change in the prevailing propensity structure or in the system of values of society. The latter problems cause the real difficulties because there are narrow limits set to the changes in values and the structure of natural tendencies.

It was a lack of insight into the nature and structure of problems which led to the overoptimistic view that a global attack by the elite of science could also solve the world’s greatest problems: overpopulation, need and poverty, exhaustion of reserves, destruction of the environment, chauvinism, collective envy, economic extortion, ideological fanaticism.

Given clearly defined and simple aims and constant scales of values in society, the capability of science is almost without limit. If the aim is vague and attainable only after modification of the prevailing scale of values or the prevailing propensity structure of human society, then science proves inadequate or, far worse, partial scientific solutions (such as the “green revolution” in the fight against hunger) only exacerbate the overall problem.

At this juncture I must delineate the term science to avoid any future misunderstanding. The aim of science is knowledge; knowledge of the kind which provides a reliable basis for dealing with the real world (including people) and for dealing with ideas. Knowledge is expressed in the form of propositions. General propositions are called laws, while singular propositions are termed facts. The distinguishing feature of science, as compared with all other activities of the mind, is the existence of strict methods to examine whether a proposition is true or false.

The “scientific ethos” is a coherent and surprisingly consistent code of rules and regulations embracing the following requirements: primacy of knowledge (knowledge is better than ignorance in all circumstances), intellectual honesty, mutual respect, objectivity, freedom of thought (and hence renunciation of any rejection of information), symmetrical argumentation, clarity of expression. It is of particular importance that scientific statements should be testable without restriction at all times. A statement is permissible only if its correctness can be checked by anybody who is mentally and technically equipped to do so.

This code is strictly applied by the scientific community. Anybody who employs inadequately defined concepts, who reports false data, who makes careless statements, who operates with theories that cannot be subjected to empirical scrutiny, or who purposely tries to discredit others will lose his trustworthiness and the respect of his colleagues, and will sooner or later leave the sphere of science.

Of course, unintentionally false measurement, reasoning, and argumentation represent an unavoidable and ever-present danger threatening the advancement of knowledge. It is therefore all the more important that we do not have to consider intentionally false measurement, reasoning, and argumentation.

The scientific ethos is shown by its success to be an extremely powerful principle. However, and this limitation is of crucial importance, it is a partial ethos which imposes ethical standards on us solely with regard to a given end. This end is knowledge. As long as a person’s actions have the aim of furthering scientific knowledge, he subjects himself to the scientific ethos. In the fields of human relationships, economics, or politics no binding maxims are forthcoming from the scientific ethos. It is a partial ethos which, moreover, only partially rules the life of the scientist. In their personal lives, and sometimes in their personal dealings with one another, scientists are neither particularly “noble”, nor particularly “helpful”, nor particularly “good”. Why should they be? Their qualification and their status as scientists are independent thereof.

On the other hand, the international unity of science stabilized by the scientific ethos is a truly impressive phenomenon. Scientists from different cultures and social systems can readily engage in scientific communication. As long as they remain within the framework of science there will be no fundamental obstacles to mutual understanding.

The scientist can, of course, step out of this forum by expressing a political opinion or by talking about science but he must clearly reveal when he wishes to persuade (politically) and when he can offer proof (scientifically).

We thus face the question of how scientific knowledge influences social decision-making processes. The answer is not difficult to find. The contribution of science to the mastery of problems relating to human existence is always expressible in the form of “if-then’’ statements: given the constellation of factors x, then the consequences y will result; or, in order to achieve the consequences y then the constellation x must be brought about; or, if the consequences y are to be avoided then the constellation x must be avoided. Whether it is desirable or justifiable to achieve or avoid y is not implied by these propositions. Such a value judgment cannot be reached scientifically. Any application of scientific knowledge is therefore necessarily ambivalent. This is obvious from any piece of technology, whether a kitchen knife or penicillin, whether a herbicide or an atomic reactor. The moral responsibility of the scientist in his capacity as a scientist concerns only the reliability of the “if-then’’ propositions. However, this responsibility can hardly be overestimated because errors can cause immeasurable damage. Reliable knowledge is a prerequisite for a right course of action. Whether and in what situations a person applies “if-then’’ propositions to the solution of his problems nevertheless depends upon decisions lying outside the realm of science. Such decisions involve more than the addition of scientific “if-then” propositions. They also include the propensities, conventions, norms, motivations, and priorities which mold the actions of a state or society.

At this point we must consider that much-discussed question whether a scientist can contribute towards a more humane world by withholding knowledge. There have always been demands for a scientist’s oath comparable with the Hippocratic Oath of medicine. Proposals for such an oath to be taken by the scientist are all based on the idea of committing oneself to work only on projects whose declared aim is compatible with particular value concepts-more humane value concepts. Descartes already had such an oath in view when he wrote, at the close of his “Discours”: “I could not work on projects that are useful to some only by being harmful to others.”

A contemporary proposal is due to Dullart: “Being admitted to the practice of the natural sciences 1 pledge to put my knowledge completely at the service of mankind. I shall prosecute my profession conscientiously and with dignity. I shall never collaborate in research aimed at the unjustified extermination of living organisms or the disturbance of the biological equilibrium which is harmful to mankind, neither shall I support such research in any way. Guide of my scientific work will be the promotion of the common welfare of mankind and in this context I shall not kill organisms nor shall I allow the killing of organisms for inferior, short-sighted, opportunistic reasons. I accept responsibility for unforeseen, harmful results directly originating from my work; I shall undo these results as far as lies in my power. This I vow voluntarily and on my word of honor.”

The obstacles standing in the way of the introduction and implementation of such a commitment are obvious. How can a consensus be reached, and who will decide whether a given scientific project can be regarded as of service to mankind? Who would consider himself competent to make such a judgment? Take the Hippocratic Oath! The commitment to preserve human life under all circumstances and by all means has contributed essentially to the present situation in which the population explosion in many areas of the world represents a lethal threat to mankind, and the richness of genetic evolution, the variety and beauty of creation, have fallen victim to the exponential growth of man.

Any demand that the scientist should predict the possible consequences of his work and assume moral responsibility for them in advance is unrealistic. Of course, personal refusal is a course open to everyone in a free society. Apart from very prominent heroic exceptions, however, it is ineffective because hardly anybody is indispensible in science.

As a variant of the Hippocratic Oath it is also argued that the expert scientist bears a particular responsibility for the common good. For example, one of the articles of the German Physical Society reads: “The Society commits itself and its members to take up the cause of freedom, veracity, and dignity in science, and to be conscious of the fact that those engaged in science bear a particularly high degree of responsibility for the shaping of the whole of human life”. I consider the second part of this article to be an ill-considered empty phrase. Particular responsibility without particular legislative or executive power is, in a democracy, an unrealistic and morally dangerous postulate. A particular responsibility of the scientist would be feasible only if the scientist were to be assigned a privileged place in the legislative and executive. This is something I would oppose. Any swing towards technocracy and expertocracy affects the foundations of democracy and also overtaxes the scientist. Experience clearly refutes the idea that scientists are exceptionally qualified to formulate goals and to justify them ethically in areas lying outside their discipline. It is a flattering but false conclusion that scientific competence implies a high degree of normative reason. Most scientists have to learn sociopolitical thinking and action the hard way. It is certainly depressing to have to see how opportunism and shortsightedness gain ground among politicians. It is unnerving to see how the important decisions of our age overtax most people, and how the fear of progress and fear of risk also affects those who are not prepared to renounce progress. However, the alternative of wresting real power from the people, of a despotism bearing the trappings of moral respectability and appearing in the guise of a technocracy or expertocracy, is not acceptable. Science cannot provide an individual or a collective with a moral code, goals, or criteria which have the character and the validity of scientific propositions. Science has nothing to say about “the meaning of the world, about the “meaning of existence”, or about the “aims of society”. This is where the boundaries of science lie. We ought to respect them.

How can science overcome the crisis of confidence in which it is presently involved? I believe that there is only one answer. We must tell our fellow citizens in clear terms just what we can do and what we cannot. But first of all the scientist, himself must clearly appreciate where scientific competence ends and presumptiousness starts. May I present an example.

Early in 1977, 650 scientists-physicists, chemists, biologists, physicians, engineers-from universities and research institutes all over West Germany declared the utilization of nuclear power to be both necessary and justifiable in an open letter addressed to the members of the German parliament. This source of energy represents the only short-to-medium-term way of adequately and inexpensively satisfying energy requirements even if all possible methods of saving energy are fully implemented and full use is made of domestic coal supplies. The 650 scientists were of the opinion “that the dangers of nuclear power are sufficiently under control and that this will also apply in the case of further expansion of nuclear power generation in view of the intense research work being performed on questions of safety”. “The remaining residual risks” continues the letter “are taken seriously by us. However, they appear justifiable when set against the overall risk to civilization, and smaller than some other risks accepted as the price to pay for slighter advantages.” Shortly afterwards, numerous other scientists-as they were called-signed a declaration demanding a drastic reduction and slow-down of existing nuclear power plant planning. The reasons given were, inter alia, that the safety problems accompanying the large scale exploitation of nuclear power can by no means be regarded as solved. The consequences of plutonium production were cited. Police-state methods would be required to prevent the theft and misuse of plutonium. Moreover, the export of nuclear power plants by the Federal Republic of Germany creates further possibilities of misuse. Most of the signatories of this declaration were not scientists or technologists competent in the issues at stake, but sociologists, theologians, and publicists. And yet reports about the declaration appeared in the press and on television under the headline “one thousand scientists issue warning”. Parliamentarians at Bonn faced two opposing declarations, both claiming to speak in the name of science. Since the mass media in the Federal Republic gave wide coverage with accompanying commentary only to the “Declaration of the sixteen-hundred, the public, already uneasy about nuclear energy, gained the impression that science almost entirely rejects the expansion of nuclear power generation capacity.

We cannot go on in this way. For the sake of science we must counter the hubris that scientists are the moral watchdogs of society and arbitrators in matters of political conscience. In making this claim of “critical science” the university has overstepped its limits. Science cannot tell people what is “good” and what is “beautiful”, or where human life and the human race are going. Questions about “sense” and “purpose” cannot be definitively answered in the framework of science. Knowledge is a prerequisite, but is not a sufficient reason, for right action or for the right conduct of our lives.

Has science failed?-No, with regard to its effectiveness and its ethos. Yes, inasmuch as it has failed and continues to fail to give account of its limitations.

Polverone - 28-10-2006 at 12:59

Quote:
It was a lack of insight into the nature and structure of problems which led to the overoptimistic view that a global attack by the elite of science could also solve the world’s greatest problems: overpopulation, need and poverty, exhaustion of reserves, destruction of the environment, chauvinism, collective envy, economic extortion, ideological fanaticism.

...

Has science failed?-No, with regard to its effectiveness and its ethos. Yes, inasmuch as it has failed and continues to fail to give account of its limitations.

I wasn't alive in the 1970s to witness, but: had a majority or even significant minority of scientists believed in the preceding couple of decades that science could solve envy, fanaticism, and economic problems? Or was this -- like so much reported about "science" today -- mostly the hype and hope of technophiles and the popular media?

It seems that most people I know (admittedly a self-selected sample) know that you can't derive an "ought" from an "is," and that science only helps you to discover what "is" in the material world. Science does not make normative judgements, although it can undermine normative judgements based on empircally false premises. For example, "homosexual behavior should not be tolerated because it's unnatural" is falsifiable by widely documented examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. However, science can't touch "homosexual behavior should not be tolerated because it's an affront to God."

There's probably some relation between public attitudes toward science as an institution and the regulatory or social attitudes toward scientific hobbyists, but I don't think it's a strong one. For example, this report says that "In recent surveys, 84% of Americans, compared with 52% of Europeans and 40% of Japanese, agreed that the benefits of scientific research outweigh any harmful results." Of course they didn't break down "European" by nationality, but that is still a significant lead in enthusiasm about institutional science. Yet big US chemical suppliers are quite unfriendly to amateurs and we appear to have more control of chemicals that are related even peripherally to drugs. I think the correlation would be much stronger with news reporting. When amateur labs show up in the news only in the context of explosions, fire, drug dealers, and terrorism, it's no wonder that people develop a fear of amateurs and their activities.

Elawr - 28-10-2006 at 13:49

God gave us our big brains and opposable thumbs for a reason. To always keep questioning, exploring, learning and applying. This is our nature.

chromium - 28-10-2006 at 15:05

After reading what Polverone sayd it seems to me that maybe attitude to science has not changed much but gap between institutional and non-institutional science (or institutional/noninstitutional human activity in general) is constantly increasing.

About hundred years ago it was completely normal to be self-taught or at least to be taught by home teachers. Now anything like that is considered very much inferior of any kind of institutional education.

Unfortunately this is not only about the education. Anything thats done outside well estabilished social structures is usually considered as untrustworthy, inferior and potentially dangerous.

[Edited on 28-10-2006 by chromium]

Sergei_Eisenstein - 29-10-2006 at 02:25

Quote:
Unfortunately this is not only about the education. Anything thats done outside well estabilished social structures is usually considered as untrustworthy, inferior and potentially dangerous.


Now that is something, sadly enough, I have to agree with. Year by year, I see an increase in the "categorization" of society, with every category being subjected to the temperaments of a well-established - but completely anarchic functioning - bureaucracy, with a paper for every action planned. This equals to eliminating authenticity and creativity, leading to the creation of a generation of super-specialists who don't know what to do once a sheet of paper goes missing.

That is one of my major concerns: we are molding juveniles so they can enter the social workforce, but the only thing they have learnt is how to push the buttons. When the machine stops working, call the company to fix the problem - certainly don't fix it yourself! Just pay the outrageously overcharged prices the companies ask and don't mind that it just may have been a small cable that gave a bad connection. Also, companies like Sigma wouldn't sell IPA and HOAc in 25 or 100 mL quantities if there wouldn't be a clientele for it - and the prices are just higher than high! That's just pure mental masturbation.

I guess it wasn't like that in the 1950s or 1960s, at least that's not the impression I've got when talking to people that lived and worked during that time. There were some regulations but nobody cared, and if equipment broke down, it was fixed by the people who worked with the machinery to begin with. There was a certain laissez faire mentality because most people knew what they were doing and a happy ending of the problem was not unlikely.

I like what one of my favourite movie directors Bruno Mattei once said about shooting films in the USA: they've got money and specialists for everything. They have people responsible for the lightning, workers to build the set, others who make the coffee and bake the biscuits. Movie credits are full of people and everything is perfectly arranged into the smallest detail, because someone is hired and made responsible for every detail that may possible exist. They have simply everything, except one thing: imagination. They make grand movies, cinematographic gems, but the story is as dead as one of Bruno's zombies.

Obviously, this is not just true for the film world, and Bruno was talking about his experience in the 1980s. In the meanwhile, the superspecialist zombie has become a reality in Europe as well.

quicksilver - 30-10-2006 at 07:25

“The Society commits itself and its members to take up the cause of freedom, veracity, and dignity in science, and to be conscious of the fact that those engaged in science bear a particularly high degree of responsibility for the shaping of the whole of human life”.


Is this a element of responsibility of the scientist or the "marketing" of the end result of the specific research?

An aspect of research taken out of context from the original intent OR the use of same for unintended applications can make many well intended projects a detriment to humanity. As well as the specific application utilized ONLY for destructive purposes points the finger at the inventor but ANY tool or material can be misued in the context of society. Certainly that's not the scientist's fault....(?)