Scientists and Social Responsibility

The sciences can only really flourish in a free and democratic country. This means a country which supports a system of public and collegiate education where all girls and boys, young men and young women who have the potential have the opportunity to discover science as a subject of learning and progressively cultivate their interest and ability in that subject. In this way, they can one day become scientists themselves, contributing to the good of society. We have in America scientists making incredible discoveries and creating the basis of amazing new technologies. Many scientists have somehow acquired the attitude that they do not have any ethical responsibility for discoveries they introduce to the world. They feel that they are excused from such paltry considerations because they have offered up their minds and diligence to pure scientific research, and that somehow this gives them a carte blanche to unravel anything they choose, no matter what the potential repercussions of uncovering such a mystery to the society in which we live (not to mention the ecological impact -- but that is an issue all of its own). In the meantime, waiting in the wings, are highly unscrupulous firms which are looking for the latest elucidation from these insouciant researchers that might be applied as a form of destructive power. Scientists need to stop to consider whether high-tech weaponry could be extrapolated from their "neutral" discoveries, and then used domestically against our own citizenry to subvert the freedoms which substantiate our country as an effective democracy. Human nature being what it is, when some people acquire immense power, the temptation is to throw out the fine rules that govern a democratic society and exercise that power for selfish purposes. Yet somehow we have scientists who, as bright and gifted as they are, do not see this possibility -- or else do not care. These scientists are given monetary compensation for the right by others to create technological applications of their discoveries, and then, smugly depositing their payoff, these scientists go merrily on with their pioneering work, content in the security of their narrow mental world of "pure science". But what of the regular people whose liberties are constantly being challenged and eroded by those of disproportionate wealth who are looking for disproportionate power to match? If those who do not wish to share power and voice with the regular people in our country get these technologies into their hands, there will be no way for the common person to assert his or her rights or effectively put candidates into office who will truly represent their views. We will be outgunned by vastly superior scientific mechanisms of power, and our democracy will become as hollow as the Roman Republic became when they began to bow before mighty military men who appointed themselves "emperor for life". Scientists DO need to think about the possible destructive applications of their discoveries before they unveil them. They DO need to put legal constraints on how their discoveries are developed. I am all for scientific progress, but only that which will benefit society as a whole. Scientists need to recognize that they are not monks living apart from the real world, safe with a sinecure to honor their superior intelligence. They are born of human society, they were reared by human society, and they owe human society their prudence and moral consideration. A society needs to be democratic for learning, education and science to flourish, but we are somehow educating many of our future scientists to believe that their disciplines exist in a transcendent vacuum, that they are exempt from the considerations with which the social sciences concern themselves. Maybe its time natural scientists stopped holding the social sciences with reflexive contempt under the dismissive moniker of "soft science". Maybe its time that science students took a few courses in human psychology, ethics and moral philosophy. Let's make it a requirement. Wouldn't it be a terrible irony if the fruits of ill-considered explorations of the "pure science" approach fed the very forces which already are seeking to weaken the fabric of public education and higher education in our country? In effect, you would have science destroying its own nurturing nest. Future scientists of quality can only arise from the nurturing bed of a democracy. If this bed is destroyed, scientific progress will cease because it will not be able to renew the human members that keep it moving forward. So consider this, if something you discover could just as easily be used to undermine the ability of regular people to uphold their freedom, than to create some advancement in the peaceful conduct of our civilization, have a care as to who you tell it to or who you sell it to. There is nothing wrong with scientists keeping secrets until the society they live amidst has achieved a higher degree of moral progress and commitment to social responsibility. So don't be a mercenary scientist -- be a patriot for the welfare of your fellow citizens. The act of scientific research is not inherently possessed of its own unqualified justification if the path it takes threatens human rights and the well-being of humanity. Like all human endeavors, science must be approached with humility -- especially since tinkering with its laws puts existence itself on the line.