http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_science_res.

html

Science & Responsibility- Why science?

Science is vigorously employed in the research and development of armaments. It also has
other characteristics which require it to be regarded as a special case. It has claims to be
more objective, even though its objectivity may be limited. (It has been shown, for example,
that the presence of an observer may alter the event observed.) In modern times scientific
discoveries often lead to powerful applications which rapidly affect a society ill-prepared for
them. (The development of nuclear weapons was fast, and done in secret.) Science allows
us to recognise facts which existed long before we become aware of them or can take
responsibility for their implications. (Psychology has shown how soldiers accused of
cowardice were in fact suffering from illness caused by the traumatic effects of war.)

Science and society

Scientists are human beings like anyone else, with the same ability to accept or evade
responsibility for their actions. It can be argued, however, that scientists have a particular
duty to accept responsibility for what they do in their professional capacity.
Science does not stand still: there is always something new to learn. (In 1933 Ernest
Rutherford, who first split an atom, told the public that the idea of atomic power was
‘moonshine’.) Long-term effects cannot accurately be foreseen, or foreseen at all. (The
defoliant known as Agent Orange, used by America in Vietnam, has since been found to
cause genetic defects.) Risks and catastrophes are discovered after the events which
caused them. (The devastating medical and social effects of the sophisticated weapons
technology used in the Gulf War have not yet been fully recognised.)

Science and technology

Above all, the practical uses to which scientific discoveries may be put are full of risks and
uncertainties. Furthermore, it is the possible practical use of discoveries that drives scientific
research onward. Scientists may be disinterested in their search for knowledge, but their
employers are not. Funds may be made available for short-term applications of scientific
knowledge, but not for investigation of possible long-term effects. Financial pressures make
disinterested research difficult to sustain.
Big business provides funds for specific research, such as the invention of new polymers
capable of withstanding the impact of bullets and explosives.
National governments are themselves governed by budgets and profit- incentives, which
dictate where research and development money goes. Themselves driven by national
defence policies, the military establishments spend substantial amounts on research
projects of specific interest. The military relevance can often be covert.

Scientists as individuals
Even when scientists perceive possible implications and potential risks arising from their
researches (as developers of the atomic bomb did), it is often very difficult for them to make
these public or to take responsible action.
Scientists, like doctors, are often perceived as having a special power and authority.
Whistle-blowing requires a courage, and an indifference to personal consequences, that few
people possess. Individuals are not usually in positions from which they can control events,
foresee effects, or be certain that they hold all the necessary information. Nor can they halt
the flow of knowledge-hunting.

Scientists in society
There are, however, many scientists who do feel that they have a special responsibility to
consider the implications and consequences of what they do. They have formed groups and
organisations to increase public awareness. These are people who say: ‘Peace is the most
important preventive skill’; who, in this uncertain world, look for ‘a new vision for science and
scientists appropriate for a socially responsible democratic society’.

West Island School – TOK – SJT GM Food – 6a -Science & Responsibility

 http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_science_res.html

BRISTOL UNIVERSITY
In August 1988 a team at the BU Veterinary School learned that it was to receive a large
grant from the chemical & biological warfare establishment at Porton Down.

Vet School researchers had unsuccessfully applied elsewhere for funds to study four
airborne disease organisms affecting the health of farm animals. Now the Ministry of
Defence was making the project possible. But there was a condition attached: research was
to be in one organism only. That organism causes potentially fatal pneumonia in humans.
The professor in charge admitted that knowledge gained from this research could be used to
enhance the survival of a harmful airborne organism for military purposes.

Department staff rebelled. One, who resigned over the issue, said: ‘Not only are scientists
members of society but also, because of their privileged insight, they have a greater
responsibility to ensure that their work is not being abused. Weapons do not make
themselves.’ As for funding: ‘Scientists are now being coerced subtly to alter the direction of
their research in an attempt to find funding from the MoD.’

THE DARK SIDE OF OBEDIENCE

In the early 1960s, at Yale University, Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments as
part of an enquiry into obedience. One of these was directed at the following question: What
will people do when ordered by an experimenter to impose electric shocks in increasing
intensities on another person?

Milgram set up an apparent study of 'the effects of punishment on learning' and

advertisements were placed for participants. A simulated but convincing-looking 'electric
shock generator' was prepared for them to operate. Actors were briefed in the parts of
learner (who would answer questions incorrectly, thus meriting punishment, and register
physical distress as it increased) and experimenter (who would instruct the participants and
maintain calm authority throughout).

Of the 40 members of the general public paid for taking part, all complied with the order to
administer shocks up to 300 volts (marked intense shock); as many as 26 responded
obediently to the experimenter’s urging to apply the maximum 450 volts.

The experiment, not surprisingly, was controversial, not only because of the deception
practised on the men administering the ‘shocks’ but also because of the severe distress
experienced by many of them while doing so.

Milgram wrote: ‘For many persons obedience may be a deeply ingrained tendency, an
impulse, indeed, overriding training in ethics, sympathy and moral conduct.’

The 40 subjects were placed in a troubling conflict between not wanting to harm the learner
and not wanting to disobey a legitimate authority. The authority in this case was not an
official, or a member of an armed force, but a scientist in a white coat.

West Island School – TOK – SJT GM Food – 6a -Science & Responsibility