|
As far as we know, man is unique in the created universe. One of the attributes
separating mankind from the animal world is the urge to find things out, to add
to the common store of knowledge. Historically, any attempt to
thwart
investigation, or to conceal or ban its results, has been doomed to failure.
There is no case for restricting scientific investigation. However, the effects of
scientific discovery are sometimes bad, so new technology based on such
discovery should be, and usually is, scrutinized and carefully tested before it is
let loose on the public.
The scientist is not the right person to carry out the scrutiny of the new
technology. Indeed, though expert in the particular field, he or she is often woefully naive in other matters. The right people are government ministers
who, in a democracy, are responsible to the people. The minister will seek
reports from independent experts. This may mean lengthy scrutiny, as in the
case of new drugs. The first reason for this is the humane consideration for
human life and health. This means eliminating any possibility of harmful side
effects. The second is more material; in the event of such harmful side effects,
very considerable damages are being awarded by the courts to the sufferers
nowadays. Many very large drug companies have their reports own research
departments, and their findings, together with independent reports are passed
to the Department of Health so that the minister can take the final decision.
New technologies based on new discoveries are also controlled in this way.
When scientists bypass the correct channels from whatever motives, and the
effects of their discoveries prove harmful, then they must be held responsible.
When they do, the motivation may be personal prestige, money or political bias.
Isaac Newton's feuds with Flamsteed, the Astronomer Royal, and the German
Leibniz resulted in unscrupulous behavior. While the promulgation of calculus
can hardly be said to have public side effects, Newton's self-esteem, had it
gone unchecked, would have had disastrous consequences in other fields,
such as atomic research.
Scientists are relatively badly paid; judges on the other hand are well paid in
order to place them above possible bribery. So the temptation to sell
discoveries to the highest bidder must be great. This raises the point of
national loyalty. As mentioned, scientists are often politically naive. Some fail
to realize the industrial harm that the money motive can do to the country which
both trained them and provided the crucial facilities for their research.
Others see patriotism as a deplorable nationalism. Many in this century have
felt it their duty to support Communism. They are victims of the pathetic fallacy
that we are, or should be moving towards a one-world society. So they have
given or sold information to Russia. Thankfully, the end of the cold war has
terminated this treachery, but the dangers of a nuclear confrontation, such as
in the Bay of Pigs episode, is traceable directly to certain scientists for whom
no punishment is sufficiently severe. They are just as guilty as the spies who
peddle their discoveries.
In the case of the terrible side effects of exposure to nuclear energy, the
scientist can hardly be held responsible, since in the early days nobody fully
understood these effects. Madame Curie died of cancer or leukaemia. Many
who were present at the early detonation of nuclear bombs at Bikini, New
Mexico and the Monte Bello Islands, not to speak of Nagasaki and Hiroshima,
have suffered disastrous long-term effects. Civilians who have been exposed
to nuclear accidents or accidental leakages have suffered in the same way.
Some people make the case that even to live near a nuclear power station has
its dangers. Disastrous as all this is, the scientist can no more be blamed than
the inventor of gun powder for the rifle and the cannon, or the first man to make
a long-bow for causing death at a distance.
The same principle applies to all the harmful effects resulting from other
scientific discoveries, whether actual or potential. The possible misuse of
genetic discoveries is obvious, but it is hoped that all countries will exercise the
kind of control outlined above. Again, scientists discovered the powerful
insecticide DDT, but should not be blamed for the fact that it may destroy the
ecology, or for the fact that some strains of mosquitoes have developed an
immunity.
However, there have been times in the past when the establishment has tried
to suppress scientific discovery, deny its truth, or proscribe it altogether.
Historically, the Christian Church has more than once been the culprit; in
asserting that the earth is flat, in denying the Copernical view of the universe,
the time-scale of the world's development, the physical ancestry of man as an
offshoot of the world of apes. None of this succeeded in the long run, nor will
any future attempts to suppress the results of scientific investigation.
It is only when the scientist personally and deliberately misuses his knowledge
that he or she should be held responsible. Otherwise, the responsibility should,
and actually does, lie with others.
|
