Skip to main content
Philosophy, sociology and religion

Philosophy, sociology and religion

The social conscience of scientists

06 Dec 1999

Joseph Rotblat, the medical physicist who shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize, says that scientists need to accept responsibility for the human and environmental consequences of their research and that learned societies should pay more attention to the ethics of science

the first Pugwash conference in 1957

Should scientists be concerned with the social impact of their work and the ethical issues it raises? Should they accept responsibility for the human and environmental consequences of scientific research? These questions did not arise in the distant past because there were very few such consequences. In those days science had no role in the day-to-day life of people or in the security of states. The only motivation for scientific pursuit was sheer curiosity – the same impulse that drives scientists today – with no avowed practical aims.

The detachment of scientists from general human affairs led them to build an ivory tower in which they sheltered, pretending that their work had nothing to do with human welfare. The aim of scientific research, they asserted, was to understand the laws of nature; since these are immutable and are not affected by human reactions and emotions, these reactions and emotions have no place in the study of nature.

As a result of this exclusivity, scientists developed certain precepts and principles about science to justify the separation from reality. These included: “science for its own sake”, “scientific inquiry can know no limits”, “science is rational and objective”, “science is neutral”, “science has nothing to do with politics”, “scientists are just technical workers” and “science cannot be blamed for its misapplication”. John Ziman has analysed each of these postulates and found them all wanting in the modern world.

Outside the ivory tower

The ivory-tower mentality was perhaps tenable in the past, when a scientific finding and its practical application were well separated in time and space. Following a discovery, it would take decades before an application was found, and then it would be taken up by different people, mostly engineers in polytechnics or industrial laboratories. Nowadays, the distinction between pure and applied research is barely discernible. Practical applications can follow immediately after scientific discoveries, and be pursued by the same people. Indeed, university scientists are encouraged to do applied research, to enable them to be financially self-sufficient.

The tremendous advances in pure science during the 20th century – particularly in physics during the first half and in biology during the second half – have completely changed the relationship between science and society. Science has become a dominant element in our lives. It has brought enormous improvements to the quality of life, but has also created grave perils. These include pollution of the environment, the squandering of vital resources, increases in transmittable diseases and, above all, a threat to the very existence of the human species through the development of weapons of mass destruction. Scientists can no longer claim that their work has nothing to do with the welfare of the individual or with state politics.

Scientists should not make such claims, but many of them do. Amazingly, many scientists still cling to the ivory-tower mentality, advocating a laissez-faire policy for science. Their logic rests mainly on the distinction between pure and applied science. It is the application of science that can be harmful, they claim. As far as pure science is concerned, the only obligation on the scientist is to make the results of research known to the public. What the public does with them is their business, they argue, and not that of the scientist.

Hideki Yukawa (left), Sin-ltiro Tomonaga and Iwao Ogawa at the first Pugwash conference in 1957.

However, as we have seen, the distinction between pure and applied science is largely non-existent. And for scientists to adopt an amoral attitude is unacceptable. It is, in my opinion, an immoral attitude because it eschews personal responsibility for the likely consequences of one’s actions.

We live in a world community with ever greater interdependence; an interdependence due largely to technical advancement arising from scientific research. An interdependent community offers great benefits to its members, but by the same token it imposes responsibilities on them. Every citizen has to be accountable for his or her deeds. We all have a responsibility to society.

This responsibility weighs particularly heavily on scientists for the very reason stated above: the dominant role played by science in modern society. The mathematician Michael Atiyah, who is currently president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, explained the reasons for the special responsibility of scientists in his 1997 Schrödinger lecture: “First there is the argument of moral responsibility. If you create something, you should be concerned with the consequences. This should apply as much to making scientific discoveries as it does to having children.”

Atiyah went on to outline four further reasons why scientists needed to take responsibility for the consequences of their work.

  • Scientists will understand the technical problems better than the average politician or citizen, and knowledge brings with it responsibility.
  • Scientists can provide technical advice and assistance for solving the incidental problems that may emerge.
  • Scientists can warn of future dangers that may arise from current discoveries.
  • Scientists form an international fraternity that transcends natural boundaries, so they are well placed to take a global view in the interests of the human race.

In both his Schrödinger lecture and his 1995 presidential address to the Royal Society, Atiyah stressed the need for scientists to take responsibility for their work for yet another reason: the consequences to science of having a bad public image. The public does hold scientists responsible for the dangers arising from scientific advance: nuclear weapons are a menace and the public rightly blames the scientists; human cloning is distasteful and viewed by the public as immoral, and science as a whole is castigated for the few scientists who want to pursue it.

The general public, through elected governments, have the means to control science, either by withholding the purse, or by imposing restrictive regulations harmful to science. Clearly, it is far better that any control should be exercised by the scientists themselves.

It is most important that science improves its public image, that it regains the respect of the community for its integrity, and that it recaptures public trust in its pronouncements. Scientists must show by their conduct that it is possible to combine creativeness with compassion, caring for their fellow creatures as they let their imaginations roam, and being fully accountable for their actions as they venture into the unknown.

Actions for scientists, young and old

The fulfilment of these desiderata calls for certain measures to be taken. The first is an ethical code of conduct for scientists, along the lines of the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors. An ethical code of conduct for medical practitioners has been in existence for nearly two and a half millennia. In the past, and still today, the life of a patient is literally in the hands of the doctor, and it is essential to ensure that he or she wields this power responsibly, with the care of the patient being his or her foremost duty. This is why doctors take the Hippocratic oath when they qualify.

Nowadays, scientists can be said to have acquired a somewhat similar role in relation to humanity. The time has thus come for some kind of oath, or pledge, to be taken by individuals when receiving a degree in science. At the least, it would have an important symbolic value, but it might also generate awareness and stimulate thinking on the wider issues among young scientists.

Such oaths have been introduced by some professions (for example the Institute for Social Innovation) and various wordings have been proposed to suit different conditions. The following pledge, introduced by the Student Pugwash Group in the US, would be suitable for young scientists to take when they graduate.

I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.

It should be noted that the pledge refers to harm to the environment that may result from science and technology, as well as harm to human beings. Taking such a pledge would not be compatible with careers related to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

I would like to see universities adopt the practice of students taking such a pledge when they graduate. A precondition for this would be the introduction of courses on the ethical aspects of science into the university curriculum.

While it is very important that new entrants into a scientific career become aware of their social responsibilities, it is also important that senior scientists are aware of such responsibilities. Therefore, I suggest that national academies of sciences (or corresponding bodies in countries where there are no academies) should explicitly include ethical issues in their terms of reference. The charters of some academies already contain clauses that allow them to be concerned with the social impact of scientific research. But I would like to see these clauses become mandatory. I urge all national academies of sciences to make explicit statements that ethical issues are an integral part of the work of scientists.

As a follow up to this general commitment, I suggest a specific task for the academies: the setting up of ethical committees – another practice borrowed from medicine. In many countries, a research project that involves patients has to be approved by the ethical committee of the hospital to ensure that the investigation will not put the patients’ health and welfare at a significant risk. I would like to see this practice extended to research work in general, starting with genetic engineering.

Eugene Rabinowitch (left), Alexander Tupolev, Alexander Topchiev, Alexander Haddow, Lord Hailsham (standing), Nevill Mott, Joseph Rotblat, Cecil Powell and Bertrand Russell at the 1962 Pugwash conference in London.

I suggest that ethical committees, composed of eminent scientists from different disciplines, be set up to examine the potentially harmful long-term effects of proposed research projects. Such ethical reviews could be carried out in parallel with the reviews that are already carried out for other reasons (such as scientific merit, cost and so on). The ethical committees should work under the auspices of the national academy in a particular country, but it would be essential to agree international criteria for these reviews so that the same standards would be applied everywhere.

The role of Pugwash and similar bodies

Apart from academies of sciences, there is also an important role for other, independent organizations that are specifically concerned with the ethical issues that arise from scientific research and its applications. These organizations can take on tasks that academies of sciences cannot because of restrictive terms of reference, or because the academies are either officially or indirectly organs of government.

A large number of such independent organizations of scientists are in existence, but the best known to me is the Pugwash movement, which describes itself as the “conscience of scientists” (see Rotblat in further reading) and describes its role as follows.

The Pugwash Movement is an expression of the awareness of the social and moral duty of scientists to help to prevent and overcome the actual and potential harmful effects of scientific and technological innovations, and to promote the use of science and technology for the purpose of peace.

During the 42 years of its existence, Pugwash has brought together, from around the world, scientists, other scholars and individuals experienced in government, diplomacy and the military. The aim is to reduce the danger of armed conflict, and to find co-operative solutions to global problems that lie at the intersection of science and world affairs.

Francesco Calogero and Joseph Rotblat

The social conscience of Pugwash scientists found its main expression when dealing with the chief threat that has resulted from scientific research – the development of nuclear weapons. For many years Pugwash’s main task was to prevent the Cold War turning into a hot one that would lead to the destruction of our civilization and possibly the human species. The Pugwash effort was then concentrated on measures to halt the nuclear arms race by means of treaties of limited significance, such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 (see Evangelista in further reading).

When the Cold War ended, Pugwash turned its attention to the main objective – the elimination of nuclear weapons. The publications that resulted from this project contributed significantly towards making the issue of a nuclear-weapon-free world a subject of serious study. A direct outcome of the Pugwash project was the setting up of the Canberra Commission: the commission’s report, issued in 1996, is the most eloquent argument against the concept of nuclear deterrence.

The British Pugwash Group has followed up the international study with projects that have questioned the need for nuclear weapons in the UK, and looked at the role that the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston could play in verifying a convention banning nuclear weapons (see Physics World July pp15-16).

Looking to the future

Can the scientific community make a direct contribution towards the elimination of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction? I believe it could, if it heeded the call issued by Hans Bethe a few years ago.

Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues. Whether and when the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is uncertain. But individual scientists can still influence this process by withholding their skills.

Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons – and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.

The elimination of nuclear weapons would remove the immediate danger to the human species, but would not guarantee security in the long run. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented; we cannot erase from our memories the knowledge of how to make them. Should there be a serious conflict between major powers in the future, nuclear arsenals could be rebuilt and we would find ourselves back in the climate of the Cold War. Therefore, ultimately we have to tackle the seemingly Utopian concept of a war-free world. “Eliminating the causes of war” will be the theme for the next Pugwash annual conference, to be held at Queens’ College, Cambridge, next August. This is truly a task fit for the next century.

Related events

Copyright © 2024 by IOP Publishing Ltd and individual contributors