SOME TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR SCIENTISTS NAME ______
Science has been defined as a search for knowledge for its own sake. Others search for knowledge with a specific goal in mind, such as finding a cure for a disease or harnessing solar energy.
The benefits of most scientific research are obvious. But what happens when scientific knowledge leads to applications that are destructive to human beings? Is a scientist who is involved in pure research responsible for the way in which his or her discovery will be used? Should a scientist who is involved in applied research be concerned with the implications or potential hazards of his or her discovery, even if the goals appear to be justified? And, perhaps most difficult to answer, is it morally and ethically right for a scientist tot knowingly contribute to the development of weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people?
These are the kinds of questions that many scientist must face every day. Even in a field as life-affirming as cancer research, ethical considerations arise. A person desperately seeking a cure volunteers for an experimental treatment. The treatment fails, causing suffering and possibly death. Is this fair to the patient? Many researchers would argue that the treatment was voluntary and that the risks were made clear. They might also point out that the sacrifice of a few individuals may lead to the saving of many more individuals in the future. Yet some people might say that researchers are taking advantage of a person's desperation, and that untried treatments should not be used on human subjects under any conditions.
Like the field of genetic engineering promises to benefit human health. Genetic engineers have been able to redesign bacteria so that they can produce such vital substances as insulin. But this type of research carries a certain risk. What if the engineering process runs amok and a disease-producing bacterium gets loose in the environment by accident? A new epidemic might devastate thousands of people because there would exist no natural immunity to the previous non-existent germ.
Thus far our discussion has centered around areas of research in which it is the methods and risks, not the goals, that are in question. Of greater concern to many people are those areas in which the intended goal is to produce substances that are harmful or destructive. This category would include research for biological and chemical warfare, and the development of nuclear weapons.
Consider the following situation. A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal Reported that the soviet genetic engineers were attempting to develop a flu virus that could manufacture cobra venom. The virus would be used as a biological weapon against enemies of the Soviet Union.
Presumably, Soviet citizens would be vaccinated against the virus in order to survive its deadly effects.
In may of 1985, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an article indicating that the United States would not be caught napping the race to develop biological weapons.
In this article, the writer states that the U.S. Department of Defense "has begun to ask how the new biology [of genetic engineering] might be tapped to develop novel biological, as well as chemical, weapons." Is the creation of deadly germs and poison gases a justifiable or ethical activity on the part of any scientist?
A question like this one, but dealing with a different deadly weapon, confronted scientists in the early days of World War II. At this time, there was fear among U.S. and British scientists that their common enemy, Nazi Germany, was well on the way to building an atomic bomb. There was no question that if the Germans succeeded-and we did not-the Germans would win the war.
Based on this reasoning, U.S. and British scientists went to work to build the most destructive weapon ever produced by human beings-a weapon that helped to end the war but which haunts us to this very day.
As J. Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the scientific team that built the bomb, said after the war, "The physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge that they cannot lose." Oppenheimer was referring to the sin of the destruction of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by two separate atomic bomb.
It was not long after the end of the war that the Soviet Union developed and atomic bomb. Later, both the United States and the Soviet Union developed a far more powerful bomb, the hydrogen bomb. Neither weapon would have been possible without the active work of scientists. Were they compounding Oppenheimer's "sin," or were they justified in defending their homelands?
Some scientists question the roles that they are asked to play n the development of weapons. One of those scientists is Charles Schwartz, professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley. Writing in Physics Today, Professor Schwartz states, "...we may find the urgent need to actively separate ourselves from the plans that our government has made to use us." He warns, "When we have reached the very brink [of war], then it will be too late to apply the brakes." Scientists who disagree with Schwartz are just as concerned about avoiding nuclear war, but they view scientists' participation in the arms race from a different point view. Franklin Offner, a physicist at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois, helped to build the first atomic bomb. Offner states that we must be so strong that "no one will ever have the incentive to test our preparedness." Instead of advocating a withdrawal of scientists from weapons research, Offner urges "students whenever the occasion arises that...the best thing they can do to preserve humanity...is to assist in any way they can n the development of more effective defense weapons."
This argument was echoed by President Reagan in a speech on March 23, 1983, when he called for the development of an antimissile defense Initiative (SDI) and, popular "Star Wars." In his speech, President Reagan contended that the SDI would "intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reach our own soil or that of our allies." Mr. Reagan was convinced that if this could be achieved, it would "give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete."
Scientists such as Hans Bethe have questioned Mr. Reagan's conclusions on a scientific basis, and scientists such as Charles Schwartz have questioned the President on a moral and a political basis. Speaking of a nuclear arms race that is out of control, Schwartz points out that "science and technology provide the leading edge in this mad race."
It is paradoxical that both the supporters and foes of the arms race claim the same ultimate goal-the preservation of humanity. It is this kind of paradox that makes the questions confronting scientists so difficult. A scientist helps to create a powerful bomb on the assumption that it will never be used. But what if it is used-or is used accidentally? A researcher who administers and ex-researcher who administers an experimental treatment. Who is to say which person is right?
Some people have advocated that certain areas of research-such as genetic engineering-should be declared "out-of-bounds" because of the dangers and risks involved. But who would set the restrictions? What would be the criteria? Limiting the freedom of research would probably create more ethical problems than it would solve. The same basic discovery can lead to a miracle drug on one hand or a deadly biological weapon on the other. is it worth losing the benefit of the drug in order to eliminate the risk of the pathogen?
The research scientist walks a kind of tightrope-in seeking the greatest good, he or she runs the risk of setting loose the greatest evil. To walk this tightrope successfully requires courage, awareness, and responsibility. This, ultimately, may be the scientist's greatest challenge.
To complete this enrichment, go to Moodle and open Tough Questions. There, you will be asked to answer one of two questions and submit your answer electronically through Moodle.