Jump to content
Science Forums

How far does the responsibility of a scientific go?


sanctus

Recommended Posts

There are some philosophies which state that science is only for the sake of science, the applications are politics, that means the scientist is not responsible of the consequences of his discoveries.

On the other side there are philosophies which state that everyone is responsible for his actions, therefore as well the scientists.

What do you think? How far does our responsibility go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely think that scientists have a moral obligation to apply whatever skills they have for the betterment of humanity. Now, what that implies is difficult to say.

 

There are some moral dilemmas here. Just before, and during, World War II, a lot of German scientists escaped to the US to avoid prosecution in Germany, or because they disagreed with the politics of the Hitler regime. Still, some of those scientists worked on the US nuclear program which made the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Did they consider that a lesser evil?

 

If I make a discovery - let's say I find a way to make really thin carbon fibre which does not break and does not leave fragments when used. I invent it because it is marvellous to use in hot air balloons (say). But it turns out that a serial killer finds that it is a great tool for his trade because he can kill fast with an untraceable weapon. Am I then responsible for the death of his victims?

 

Such issues are difficult to resolve (most are not as obvious as that one, of course). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discovery of the fire meant several possible applications, such as cooking, keeping wild animals away, or for warming whatever dwelling. It could also be used for destruction. Just as the knowledge about the atom: It can be used for energy production, or for atomic bombs. The mere knowledge about the inner workings of the atom is not dangerous, only the ways in which we use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can be an extremely difficult issue to deal with. As SG1 points out, fire, as a scientific discovery, was and is used for both positive and negative. No matter the morals of one scientist, another could take the technology and use it for harm.

 

Another issue is research. Not just application. Where do we draw the line in research. And not just things like animal testing. Even simple things like is it ethical to have a contol group to find out efficacy of a treatment. If there is a drug that stops heart desease, do we withhold it to find how many more die than the treated group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, we also have to consider how science is done. We must develop new and improved medical treatments, for example, so animal testing is something I don't have a problem with really. It's much more problematic when it comes to testing drugs on humans. Still, unless we can simulate it, something needs to be done in other ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discovery of the fire meant several possible applications, such as cooking, keeping wild animals away, or for warming whatever dwelling. It could also be used for destruction. Just as the knowledge about the atom: It can be used for energy production, or for atomic bombs. The mere knowledge about the inner workings of the atom is not dangerous, only the ways in which we use it.

 

 

Well, that's exactly my point, is scientist responsible for the way "politics" uses his discovery? If I find a way to travel to the stars, I know I revolution the earth. But there can be good or bad applications of my discovery, I'm I responsible for all of those applications? Shoul I ponder if the possible applications are more posistive or more negative and decide on that base what to do? Should I not publish my discovery at all, because I don't want the bad applications (but then if I found it sooner or later somebody else will find it as well....)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a scientist is responsible for the applications of his discovery if he or she was aware of any negative implications and did nothing to help stop them, or if he or she was attempting to create something to be used in a negative manner. If someone is genuinely unaware of negative implications, then they cannot be held responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to be so ignorant as to be "genuinely unaware of negative implications"? I'm sure with any creative thought about the scientist's discovery, the scientist in question could devise at least one negative use. And if they were aware of the negative implications, where is the line between doing nothing and just enough drawn? Do they have to site every possible outcome, regardless of the vastness of how their discovery can be aplied. Or can they be held accountable for future misuses of their discovery not forseable in the present situation? Also, the interpretation of negative changes from person to person. A weapon that we produce to fight terrorism might seem beneficial to some, but to others, a horrible branch of science. As I see it, Scientists cannot be held responsible in the least for their discoveries, unless they themselves are utilizing the discovery in an unlawful manner in their current place of residence. Ultimately, I believe that it isn't the individual's place to take responsibility for their personal discoveries. To detour scientists with threats of responsibility is to discourage learning and exploration of any kind. If serendipity yields a harmful product, why should the scientist be blamed for his unexpected result?

If a scientist is however held responsible, what would be the result? would a case develope similar to a criminal case in which the scientist would be, at worst, sentenced to death? Does the issue of responsibility reflect a legislative realm or a personal one (I've been assuming legislative)? consider an exploring infant; He sees a flame and reaches out to touch it. Do we create a law saying it's illegal to explore potentially dangerous situations, and by breaking the law, the infant is prosecuted for his lack of responsibility (yah, i know it's a stretch, but i think it makes the point), or, are we discussing a personal responsibility, as in the infant is responsible for his hand and the risks he introduces, and if he gets burnt, thats the result of him having no choice but to accept responsibility (it is his hand that hurts)? I assume a legislative responsibility since you can't really change the personal aspect, or is there a different possibility I over looked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed personal responsibility, not legislative, simply because legislation can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, while personal responsibility is a universal idea. I think that a scientist needs to understand what the implications of their discovery could be. If they know that this discovery can be used either to make grass seem a few shades greener, or wipe out an entire nation's population, then the scientist should do their best to not allow it to be used in a harmful manner. But in most cases, it is merely their responsibility to make others aware of the expected use of their discoveries, and, if possible, to try to prevent misuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also thought about personal responsibility. This because when one discovers something he/she can only see the negative applications if he/she thinks it is a negative application. As you said finding a new arm to fight terrorism might be judged as a positive application by somebody, therefore he might publish his discovery. But maybe he sees as well that terrorists would be able to use it as well, therefore in his point of view a negative application, so he probabably wouldn't publish his discovery if he has something like a concept of personal responsibility.

 

So we still didn't answer how far someone is responsible of the applications of his/hers discovery? I do not believe that a scientist can do everything just in the sake of science, just to the explore, one has as well to think about the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem that the "implications" and "consequences" can not often be known until a much higher level of understanding is accomplished. e.g. superstrings. Someone has an idea pop into their heads about a potential TOE. At that initial thought, perhaps not a single negative consequence would pop up. They would be too busy trying to comprehend the approach to work on ancillary issues like all ultimate usages of the theory. And at this point who knows what ultimate results there may be? Some new weapon which at this point we can not even ruminate on yet? Can not even conceive of yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...