• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The ethical scientist?

rats

Muse
R
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
608
Did anyone else catch the Martin Rees article, Dark Materials in The Guardian (10th June 2006)?

The article concentrates on the fascinating life and accomplishments of Joseph Rotblat, highlighting the moral responsibility of scientists. However, not sure I agree with the following paragraph:

Scientists surely have a special responsibility. It is their ideas that form the basis of new technology. They should not be indifferent to the fruits of their ideas. They should forgo experiments that are risky or unethical. More than that, they should foster benign spin-offs, but resist dangerous or threatening applications. They should raise public consciousness of hazards to environment or health.
Click to expand...
Given the opportunity I would not apply to work for a company that produces weapons, but am also aware some projects I work on will be exploited by the military and used in threatening applications. I don’t think that’s justification to stop fostering the ‘benign spin-offs’ we are working on.
 
Didn't catch the article.

I'm still undecided on the "making weapons" type issues, though.

On the one hand, I understand your sentiment. I'd hate to know my research was responsible for something that could kill thousands, and I'm against violence in principle (although for it in specifics, such as defense, or on a national scale for certain other issues).

However, there's another side to that. If the technology can be weaponized, it will be. Someone, somewhere, is going to develop it. It comes down, I think, to a choice of how much you trust your government and its leaders. If your country can develop the weapon first, for example, it provides a possible deterent against other nations making war, as well as possibly being a deciding factor in combat (resulting in shorter wars and a lowered overall cost in lives). Also, early development means earlier and more effective research into countermeasures.

So, I can see both sides of the argument. Not really sure where I'd stand...I'd suspect I'd have to think carefully about it on a case-by-case basis.
 
"I'm sure the guy who invented the ski mask had nothing but the best of intentions."
 
Huntsman said:
Didn't catch the article.

I'm still undecided on the "making weapons" type issues, though.

On the one hand, I understand your sentiment. I'd hate to know my research was responsible for something that could kill thousands, and I'm against violence in principle (although for it in specifics, such as defense, or on a national scale for certain other issues).

However, there's another side to that. If the technology can be weaponized, it will be. Someone, somewhere, is going to develop it. It comes down, I think, to a choice of how much you trust your government and its leaders. If your country can develop the weapon first, for example, it provides a possible deterent against other nations making war, as well as possibly being a deciding factor in combat (resulting in shorter wars and a lowered overall cost in lives). Also, early development means earlier and more effective research into countermeasures.

So, I can see both sides of the argument. Not really sure where I'd stand...I'd suspect I'd have to think carefully about it on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...
I had an argument this just this weekend, my basic point is.

Technology is science. Science has no bias, it is simply information.

Use of technology as weapons is politics, not science.

If science is to blame for the atomic bomb, then so is the individuals who pump the oil that gives power to the scientists, and the people transporting it. And the people mining the metal neededd for the transportation and the equipment needed to extract the oil.

Now, if THEY are to be blamed, then we have to give it up, since using oil is a an evil byproduct of science. So we have to abandon that, and then where do we draw the line?

I mean, how far back should we go. Yes the atombomb can be an evil use of science. But so can the arrow and bow. So, if science is evil, and/or if science is to blame for what POLITICALLY is done with the products of science, then are arrows and bows evil? and if they aren't, why is the atombomb?

If the difference is that the atombomb is used solely for war, and the arrow and bow can be used for hunting game, then we are talking applying the science is different, and we come back to it being politics, and not the science that defines if it is good or bad.

I can't see ethics having anything to do with the product of science. Ethics should have a role in how science is studied though(as in, not do like german doctors during second world war).

That is how i see it.

Sincerely
Tobias
 
Tobias,

Yes, I agree on basic research. How that research or technology is applied is political. However, I was thinking specifically about whether or not I would be part of a weapons program myself, not just how I'd feel about, say, some of my non-existent research being used to make a weapon by someone else.

I dislike war, especially being a soldier myself and having seen it up close (medic, though, so more patching for me and less shooting). But, I'm also not niave enough to believe that there is never a case to be made for justified violence. Sometimes, due to irrationality on one or both parts, or humans rights atrocities, or other reasons, war is justified and necessary. For those occassions, I'd prefer my country (assuming my country is on the side I consider justified) to have the best possible weaponry in order to insure a faster, cleaner victory and less overall damage, suffering, and loss of life. Also, like I siad, earlier development of a weapon means more time to research, test, and perfect countermeasures.

Again, though, my weapon could very well be used in ways that aren't justified, and that's the danger. Which is why I said I'd have to consider such a project (being hired to design/help design a weapon) carefully, but I can't give a blanket "yes I would" or "no I wouldn't".
 
rats said:
Given the opportunity I would not apply to work for a company that produces weapons, but am also aware some projects I work on will be exploited by the military and used in threatening applications. I don’t think that’s justification to stop fostering the ‘benign spin-offs’ we are working on.
Click to expand...

We scientists (I think I can say "we" because I worked for 13 years as a professional scientist) have an ethic that I think is more refined than this. It is to be totally honest about what we are finding out, and honest about our limitations. As scientists, we're just as dumb as the next guy about what should be done. We're only experts about what happens if you do something.
 
Huntsman said:
Tobias,

Yes, I agree on basic research. How that research or technology is applied is political. However, I was thinking specifically about whether or not I would be part of a weapons program myself, not just how I'd feel about, say, some of my non-existent research being used to make a weapon by someone else.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, i didn't get that. My bad. That is a bit too philosophical for me to have an opinion on.
 
epepke said:
We scientists (I think I can say "we" because I worked for 13 years as a professional scientist) have an ethic that I think is more refined than this. It is to be totally honest about what we are finding out, and honest about our limitations. As scientists, we're just as dumb as the next guy about what should be done. We're only experts about what happens if you do something.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that’s why the end of the Rees article jarred. I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to decide on what research should or shouldn’t be carried out. There’s also hope that a beneficial outcome will come from a ‘threatening’ line of research (though the only example I can think of at end of a long day is the plasma screen – sorry!). For the projects I work on, the benefits to society outweigh the ethical issue of their probable military application, which is how I’ve rationalised.

TobiasTheCommie said:
Technology is science. Science has no bias, it is simply information.

Use of technology as weapons is politics, not science.
Click to expand...
Tobias, I agree that science itself has nothing to do with ethics, but the application of science does. However, the article discusses the ethics of scientists and that they should be more proactive in the decisions on how their research is applied; be more involved in the politics of application. How we’re supposed to find the time for this as well as communicate with & educate the public, write papers, get funding, give lectures, and get some research done is beyond me at this stage!


P.S. Here’s the link to the article in case you missed it in the OP:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1794385,00.html
 
rats said:
Given the opportunity I would not apply to work for a company that produces weapons, but am also aware some projects I work on will be exploited by the military and used in threatening applications. I don’t think that’s justification to stop fostering the ‘benign spin-offs’ we are working on.
Click to expand...
I don't understand where this concept that working on weapons systems is inherently immoral came from. It simply is not.

Take, for example, the recent killing of Zarqawi. That was accomplished by a combination of some pretty high-tech weapons systems (the Litening sensor pod on the F16, laser targeting, laser-guided bomb, etc). Without those high-tech weapons available, the alternatives for capturing or killing him would almost certainly have been bloodier, and would likely have ended up with more people dead (maybe many more, if he had gotten away and lived to fight another day). Better weapons, particularly precision weapons, really can save lives. The nasty conflicts, the ones where people are killed indiscriminately and in huge numbers (Congo), the ones where child soldiers are employed (Liberia), the genocides (Rwanda and Darfur), are overwhelmingly fought with low-tech weapons. Most of the people killed in the Rwandan genocide weren't even shot with guns, they were hacked to death with machetes.

High-tech weaponry, contrary to the general reflexive fear felt expressed here, isn't really a cause of misery in this world. The belief that they are is, in essence, a superstition, which makes its prevelance in the scientific community rather ironic.
 
Not to mention that technolgies devloped for weapons use have found applications in the civillian sector as well, such as some of the targeting systems and algorithms used in military weaponry, advanced composites used for armor, explosive shaping and penetration techniques (as well a blasting systems and methods) used for civillian demolition projects, fully automatic guns...while primarily a weapon, have had the firing systems and loading mechanisms adapted for other uses as well, in automated machinery of various types...there's even plans on tables for gun-launching of orbital packages. Heck, for that matter, the technolgoy used to make cluster bombs and ICMs was redesigned to distrubute aid packages in Afghanistan.
 
Huntsman said:
Not to mention that technolgies devloped for weapons use have found applications in the civillian sector as well, such as some of the targeting systems and algorithms used in military weaponry, advanced composites used for armor, explosive shaping and penetration techniques (as well a blasting systems and methods) used for civillian demolition projects, fully automatic guns...while primarily a weapon, have had the firing systems and loading mechanisms adapted for other uses as well, in automated machinery of various types...there's even plans on tables for gun-launching of orbital packages. Heck, for that matter, the technolgoy used to make cluster bombs and ICMs was redesigned to distrubute aid packages in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how much good could have been done if nobody had bothered to develop weapons first and had spend the same resources on inventing good stuff to begin with.
 
T'ai Chi said:
"Answering" a question with a question is not an answer.
Click to expand...

No, but it is a valid to expand the scope of the question, in order to view it in it's full implications, instead of picking and choosing.

By the way, bombs are routinely used to clear debris, dig holes, cut things, remove old buildings, etc. Unless you want to be more specific.

And guns, even fully automatic ones, have other uses if not signifigant. There are many collectors, for example, that maintain older firearms, including fully automatic ones, and enjoy this hobby.

But, to get to the point of Ziggurat's question, since you either aren't intelligent enough to understand the implication or simply want to ignore any other possibilities that might detract from your point:

Even if killing is the only function, is killing always a bad thing? Is it sometimes necessary? Does some killing, at the right time, prevent more killing later? Can more effective and efficient weapons shorten the length of wars (and thus suffering), and reduce the number of casulaties overall?
 
Rasmus:

But have the weapons been useful or not? Would the refusal of some people to build those weapons led to greater suffering? What if no one had wanted to do weapons research before or during World War 11, except for Germany?

What if the scientists brought in to research rocket propulsion and jet engines for the Allies (items the Germans acquired first) had not done so?

It's not a black and white issue. Idealistically, no one would fight. Realistically, there are always some people who will want to fight, due to ideology, fanatacism, greed, or numerous other motivators. Someone will research the weapons. Someone will develop them. To think otherwise is niave and idealistic (although it would be nice, don't get me wrong). IS it better for the people who do value morality and ethics to ignore weapons research, when those weapons may be used against them later by people less ethical? WHen countermeasures to these weapons could be developed? When these weapons could bring a swifter end to those nations who are unjustifiably aggressive, with less collateral damage?

I'm not arguing either way, as I said, I'd have to think carefully ona case-by-case basis. But a simple idea like "Weapons research bad" is, like most black-and-white arguments, inadequate.
 
Last edited:
@Huntsman: Too right. I'm generally against placing too much emphasis on developing destructive technologies and the stuff that goes with. But the worm does turn, and ploughshares do on occasion get made from swords. I can think of a system originally developed by the Newnited States military and gummint* to provide a way of communicating data with good reliability even if parts of the network were destroyed by, oh, say an atomic war... but the majority of its use these days is of a non-military nature. :-}

And then there's GPS. But we're not all posting to a forum using GPS. So I just mention it.
_______________________________
* Al Gore famously helped.
 
Meffy said:
@Huntsman: Too right. I'm generally against placing too much emphasis on developing destructive technologies and the stuff that goes with. But the worm does turn, and ploughshares do on occasion get made from swords. I can think of a system originally developed by the Newnited States military and gummint* to provide a way of communicating data with good reliability even if parts of the network were destroyed by, oh, say an atomic war... but the majority of its use these days is of a non-military nature. :-}

And then there's GPS. But we're not all posting to a forum using GPS. So I just mention it.
_______________________________
* Al Gore famously helped.
Click to expand...

This is true (except the Al Gore bit). But even the weapon-specific uses, I'm hesitant to declaim those who build them. I can't reach the level of moral certitude required to make a blanket "weapon research is bad". Because I can easily think of cases (both hypothetical and historical) where it wasn't. Where the weapons were used in a way that, although causing deaths, caused far fewer than if the weapon had not been developed.
 
T'ai Chi said:
"Answering" a question with a question is not an answer.
Click to expand...

So what? Your question had an obvious answer (weapons are intended to kill people). But that answer is only meaningful if you make the assumption that killing people is always and necessarily bad, which is what my question addresses. In other words, your original question was itself useless and irrelevant.
 
Huntsman said:
But have the weapons been useful or not? Would the refusal of some people to build those weapons led to greater suffering? What if no one had wanted to do weapons research before or during World War 11, except for Germany?
Click to expand...

That is not an easy question - but a different one nonetheless, I think.

I just think that good things being byproducts of weapons doesn't make the weapons any better. I think it makes them worse - in just that aspect - since it is a waste of resources.

I agree that weapons are needed, but we should assess things for what they are. That doesn't make weapons all bad; but I think a nuke isn't one bit better just because I finally find my way around thanks to the miracle that is GPS.

Nor do I think it's worse because on top of having nukes we also have a blown up reactor in Tchernobyl. These things are connected - but the connection is thin, and one doesn't hold responsibility for the other.

Back to the OP, whoever was designing the first nuclear bomb had ethical questions to face and answer one way or another. I will not hold them responsible, however, for failing nuclear power plants, ultimate storage sizes for nuclear waste, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom