On July 3, 1945, ten German scientists who had worked on Germany’s nuclear program were interned by the Allies at a country mansion called Farm Hall, in Godmanchester England, about 20 miles northwest of Cambridge. The purpose of incarcerating the physicists was to find out how close Nazi Germany had been to building an atomic bomb, and possibly also to keep them from falling into the hands of the Russians.
The team comprised Otto Hahn, who in 1938 found out that uranium can split and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944; Werner Heisenberg, an originator of quantum mechanics and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1932; as well as Friedrich von Weizsäcker, whose significant work involved understanding how energy is produced within stars.
About a month afterward, on the afternoon of August 6, 1945, the German scientists discovered that an atomic bomb had struck Hiroshima. Initially, they were skeptical since they believed developing such weaponry would be too costly. However, with additional details emerging gradually, they came to accept this reality. Later, Otto Hahn expressed profound remorse, stating he felt immense guilt because “this great achievement of his research has become associated with unspeakable atrocities.” Subsequently, a significant discussion unfolded between Heisenberg and von Weizsäcker concerning the moral implications of their work and the duties owed by scientists, which occurred whilst they were detained at Farm Hall.
“The term ‘guilt’ doesn’t truly fit,” Heisenberg stated to von Weizsäcker, “although each one of us was part of the sequence of events that resulted in this immense calamity. Both Otto Hahn and we ourselves simply fulfilled our roles within the progression of contemporary science… From past experiences, we understand that such advancements can yield positive outcomes as well as negative ones.” In response, von Weizsäcker remarked:
Certainly, there will be individuals who argue that science has progressed sufficiently… And they might indeed be correct. However, everyone thinking along these lines fails to understand that today human existence relies heavily on advancements in science. Should we cease expanding our body of knowledge, the global population growth would necessitate drastic measures soon… Currently, progress in science remains crucial for humanity’s well-being, thus anyone aiding in such advancement should not face blame. Just as in previous times, our role continues to be steering this progression towards beneficial outcomes, ensuring widespread access to new discoveries rather than hindering their evolution. Therefore, instead of questioning whether further developments should occur, the pertinent inquiry becomes: How can scientists contribute positively to this endeavor; specifically, what duties fall upon researchers? Moreover, it is essential to differentiate clearly between discoverers and inventors. Typically, the former usually does not foresee how their findings could practically apply until after discovery occurs since numerous years often pass before applications become viable.
Heisenberg responded by saying that regardless of being a discoverer or an inventor, “anyone working on a scientific or technical problem should still consider wider implications. After all, if they didn’t, what would be the reason for their effort from the beginning?”
As Von Weizsäcker stated once more: “If so, when the scientist aims to do what’s right rather than merely entertain lofty ideas, they might likely need to take on a more active role in societal matters, striving to influence public issues more significantly. This shift may well be seen positively since advancements in science and technology benefit society; thus, those driving these developments would naturally gain increased influence over time. It doesn’t imply that scientists like physicists or engineers can outperform elected officials politically. However, their training instills objectivity and fact-based reasoning, alongside an essential ability to consider broader implications.”
The principles guiding scientific conduct and the duties owed by researchers aren’t easily defined or prescribed. However, the concerns that spurred Heisenberg and von Weizsäcker some eighty years back remain just as pressing now. Particularly in times where science and fact-driven reasoning face challenges, the position of scientists within their communities becomes crucial, particularly since they can be depicted as being swayed more by monetary or political motivations than pure inquiry.
Heisenberg said that modern science can lead to good or to evil. But sometimes defining the “good” is not easy. For example, is it morally justified to build a weapon to kill people, if by killing a few, we can save the lives of many? Is it morally justified to alter the DNA of human embryos in order to make the resulting human beings smarter or more athletic? Should a scientist stop working on a fundamental research problem, such as how memory is stored in the brain or the behavior of solid matter under extreme pressure, if she thinks that it might lead to harmful applications?
We believe that science itself and the technologies derived from it aren’t intrinsically imbued with value; rather, humans hold these values. Therefore, when applying science and tech, our personal values ought to guide us. This perspective contrasts with that of AI entrepreneur Mustafa Suleyman, whose latest work “The Coming Wave” posits that technology has inherent political aspects.
Heisenberg likely viewed ‘good’ through the lens of enhancing overall societal welfare—including happiness and improved living standards—for the greatest possible number of individuals. Conversely, ‘bad’ would detract from such wellbeing. Additionally, we propose that scientists bear civic duties within their communities—to make certain that new findings and inventions benefit humanity without causing harm. Fulfilling this duty requires them to step out of laboratories occasionally and interact more closely with both policymakers and general audiences.
Moreover, considering ourselves inhabitants of an interconnected globe, scientists carry collective responsibilities beyond national boundaries, particularly regarding reducing worldwide disparities like limited access to essential services and goods across regions in the Global South. Although scientist roles differ significantly from those of lawmakers due to distinct skill sets, according to Von Weizsacker, experts can contribute valuable insights based on rigorous analysis which could inform better policymaking aimed at improving universal prosperity.
Given today’s fast-paced advancements in fields ranging from bioengineering to machine learning, educating non-specialist populations about fundamental principles becomes crucial. Even though elected officials might act driven primarily by vested interests, democratically structured governments remain accountable to popular opinion over time.
In our view, the areas of science and technology now posing the greatest ethical dilemmas and challenges are artificial intelligence, biotechnology and “synthetic biology,” advanced medical procedures, and climate change. Artificial intelligence is already revolutionizing many aspects of our lives, including health care, banking, transportation, information exchange, and even warfare. New computer programs are able to learn things by themselves, as well as utilize vast data banks, and will someday become fully autonomous, operating without human input. Biotechnology—the manipulation of biological processes and the DNA of microorganisms to produce novel products—is already being used to create such things as batteries, drugs, improved fertilizer and other agricultural products, and new engineering devices. This rapidly developing field began with the understanding of the structure of DNA in the 1950s. Advanced medical procedures include the ability to edit the DNA of human embryos, extend the lives of permanently bedridden patients, and rapidly sequence and analyze a person’s full DNA, revealing psychological tendencies, origins of personality, and potential illnesses.
Individuals occasionally employ the term
science
To encompass both science and technology, we must recognize the difference between “pure science,” which focuses on understanding the natural world, and technology, which involves developing tools aimed at enhancing human life and solving various issues. We’ll revisit this concept to discuss whether every technological advancement truly benefits humanity. In some cases, technology can be seen as an application of scientific knowledge. However, distinguishing clearly between basic research and practical applications isn’t always straightforward. Numerous findings from fundamental studies have eventually led to significant advancements; examples include the creation of transistors in 1947 (utilized in electronics and telecommunications), decoding the structure of DNA in 1953 (currently employed in identifying diseases, treating cancers, among others), uncovering mRNA in 1961 (a cornerstone for today’s coronavirus vaccinations), and discovering carbon nanotubes in 1991 (employed in making conductive plastics and drug delivery systems along with regenerating neurons).
In today’s world, we rely heavily on technology, making us increasingly susceptible to technological breakdowns or errors. For individuals to feel comfortable navigating this rapidly evolving landscape and become productive members of society, having a fundamental understanding of scientific principles and breakthroughs is essential. Science education and dissemination should not be exclusive to professionals alone. Clearly, recent events like pandemics, environmental shifts, and advancements in artificial intelligence have kept these topics top-of-mind. However, policy decisions regarding healthcare, power usage, and ecological preservation also hinge significantly on scientific insights. Grasping the core elements doesn’t require much effort—much as many people enjoy listening to music without being able to create or play it themselves. Similarly, foundational scientific theories can be understood and appreciated broadly; detailed complexities might seem intimidating, yet they often matter little for everyday comprehension and application, leaving such intricacies best handled by experts.
In this regard, one of the most alarming consequences of the recent global populist movements has been the demise of factual accuracy. In the current “post-truth” epoch, there is minimal consensus on identifying trustworthy information sources.
Scientists working extensively in fields like biotechnology, solid-state physics, and artificial intelligence often get caught up in narrower issues within those domains. This tunnel vision means they might overlook the broader significance of solving such specific challenges, which ultimately serve as stepping stones towards addressing larger mysteries. Engaging with broad audiences actually helps them stay grounded in this bigger picture. Interestingly, discussing profound enigmas narrows the divide between technical experts and laypeople since both groups grapple equally with uncertainty. Even when our explanations fall short, interacting with non-specialist listeners who emphasize fundamental queries reminds us just how little we truly understand. For instance, Robert Wilson—a radio engineer credited with discovering cosmic microwave background radiation that supported the theory of the Big Bang—only grasped the full implications of his findings after reading a piece titled “The Afterglow of Creation” in The New York Times. Effective journalism provides perspectives that may otherwise diminish due to excessive specialization among professionals; thus, it enriches not only the general populace but also seasoned researchers themselves.
In our current era marked by global trade, the internet, and shared concerns like climate change, scientists must interact beyond national borders rather than limiting themselves solely within their societies. Today’s interlinked globe relies heavily on complex systems including electrical power grids, air traffic management, worldwide financial markets, efficient supply chains, among others. These structures will fail catastrophically unless they possess exceptional resilience; otherwise, occasional severe disruptions might negate their obvious advantages.
Pandemics have the potential to propagate across continents via commercial flights, wreaking maximum damage particularly in densely populated urban areas of emerging economies where infrastructure struggles under pressure yet continues expanding rapidly. Similarly, social media platforms can disseminate psychological distress—in the form of false information or fearmongering—at an instantaneous pace akin to electromagnetic waves traveling at the speed of light.
These circumstances compel us toward planning strategies on a global scale—for instance, controlling pandemics hinges significantly upon swift reporting mechanisms available even to rural farmers in countries like Vietnam. Moreover, numerous pressing matters—from energy consumption patterns to long-term environmental shifts—extend well past typical election cycles and policy horizons set by most elected officials. Thus, lawmakers require reliable internal scientific guidance when crafting legislation aimed at addressing these enduring problems.
However, this goes further still because tackling these multifaceted dilemmas necessitates broader societal engagement too. Issues related to sustainability and technological advancement ought to become integral parts of widespread civic discourse involving individuals who understand both the capabilities and limitations inherent in modern scientific research methods. Engaging constructively with various stakeholders—including those holding differing viewpoints—and effectively communicating findings through popular channels remain crucial steps towards fostering informed public opinion aligned with contemporary advancements in knowledge-based fields.
Scientists can influence change through various means like joining campaign organizations, engaging in blogging and journalistic activities, or participating directly in politics. National academies also have an important part to play here. Politicians, guided by their scientific advisors, ought to prioritize long-term global concerns more prominently on the political stage, rather than letting these issues get overshadowed by immediate local matters. When presenting policy suggestions, scientists should base them on a collective agreement among knowledgeable professionals; however, if they choose to advocate, they must acknowledge that when discussing the economic, societal, and moral dimensions of policies, they do so from positions as regular citizens rather than specialists. Additionally, scientists shouldn’t remain detached from how their discoveries are utilized—they should strive to promote beneficial outcomes whether commercial or non-commercial. It’s crucial for them to oppose potentially harmful uses of their research whenever possible and inform policymakers accordingly. Cultivating a mindset of “ethical advancement” is essential, particularly within domains like biotechnology and cutting-edge artificial intelligence.
Of course, scientists have special obligations over and above their responsibility as citizens. Obviously, ethical obligations confront scientific research itself: avoiding experiments that have even the tiniest risk of leading to catastrophe and respecting a code of ethics when research involves animals or human subjects. But less tractable issues arise when research has ramifications beyond the laboratory and a potential social, economic, and ethical impact that concerns all citizens—or when it reveals a serious but still-unappreciated threat.
One can highlight some fine exemplars from the past: for instance, the atomic scientists who developed the first nuclear weapons during World War II. Fate had assigned them a pivotal role in history. Many of them—men such as Joseph Rotblat, Hans Bethe, Rudolf Peierls, and John Simpson—returned with relief to peacetime academic pursuits. But for them the ivory tower wasn’t a sanctuary. They continued not just as academics but as engaged citizens—promoting efforts to control the power they had helped unleash, through national academies, the Pugwash movement, aimed at ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction, and other public forums. They were the alchemists of their time, possessors of secret specialized knowledge. Nuclear physics was 20th-century science. But other technologies now have implications just as momentous as nuclear weapons. In contrast to the “atomic scientists,” those engaged with the new challenges span almost all the sciences, are broadly international, and work in the commercial sector as well as in academia and government. Their findings and concerns need to inform planning and policy. So how is this best done?
Direct ties forged with politicians and senior officials can help—and links with NGOs and the private sector too. But many experts who serve as government advisers have frustratingly little influence. Politicians are, however, influenced by their inbox, and by the press. Scientists can sometimes achieve more as “outsiders” and activists, leveraging their message via widely read books, campaigning groups, blogging and journalism, or through political activity. If their voices are echoed and amplified by a wide public and by the media, long-term global causes will rise on the political agenda. Rachel Carson and Carl Sagan, for instance, were both preeminent in their generation as exemplars of the concerned scientist—and they had immense influence through their writings and speeches. And that was before the age of social media.
There is a particular duty placed upon scholars working in academic institutions or as independent business owners. These individuals possess greater liberty to participate in open discussions compared to those employed by the government or corporations. Moreover, among us who hold faculty positions enjoy an exceptional opportunity to shape future student cohorts. It’s important for us to strive towards making these students aware of the challenges they might face professionally. In fact, surveys indicate, not surprisingly, that younger folks are increasingly concerned and active regarding prolonged and worldwide concerns when contrasted with previous generations.
Even though these times present immense challenges for scientists, there remains reason for hope. In general, life has never been better for individuals across various countries around the globe. Innovations fueling economic growth hold benefits not only for developed regions but also for those still emerging. Scientific and artistic creativity thrives amidst a broader array of inspirations—reaching far greater numbers globally compared to earlier eras. Our immersion into cyberspace allows connections with anyone from virtually everywhere, providing access to global knowledge, cultural insights, and fellow humans like never before. Technologies of the 21st century could potentially grant every person a quality of living akin to modern-day Europeans, yet sustainably and using less energy overall.
Further efforts are needed to evaluate and mitigate the risks and challenges outlined herein. However, maintaining an optimistic outlook towards technology is warranted, despite numerous tech leaders requiring guidance. This direction ought to be shaped by ethical principles beyond the scope of scientific inquiry alone. Science and technology inherently lack value; instead, these derive from us humans. Consequently, it falls upon scientists and technologists—together with policymakers and global citizens—to advocate for responsible governance. Indeed, several hurdles persist: politicians focus on immediate constituents and upcoming elections, stakeholders anticipate quick returns, distant crises receive insufficient attention, and future generational issues get undervalued. Absent a holistic viewpoint—that humanity shares one interconnected habitat—it becomes challenging for administrations to adequately fund initiatives beneficial over extended political timelines but fleeting within geological epochs. Given our debt to preceding eras, failing to act responsibly toward posterity by leaving behind diminished resources and degraded environments would indeed be disgraceful.
Young individuals today are growing up in a world that is simultaneously marvelous and troubled, thrilling and daunting, full of promise and ambiguity—a world marked by both fragility and grandeur, unpredictability and consistency, enigma. It is a realm worth celebrating, comprehending, and safeguarding.
This article has been adapted from the upcoming book by Alan Lightman and Martin Rees.
The Form of Awe: Understanding Scientists’ Lives, Research, and Thoughts