h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Like I say. Interesting

I'd like to debate you on this one Chris: got time? The energy ? I mean, if you don't mind.

But I need to think about it first...

Glad you liked it.

A debate, eh? Well, I only had a reasonably well structured argument ready for the article itself, so I'd probably fail if anyone were to contest it now... But sure, if you want.

Just a couple of observations/ thoughts..........

Scientists are human. And humans have weaknesses, so it follows that there are inevitably going to be a few scientists who do what they do not for the common good but for profit or status....admittedly they are, I'm sure, the minority, but they are not immune from these human foibles.......It is easy to be led astray from the "greater good" when tempting offers of fame and fortune are made by less scrupulous people, be it governments or businesses.

Just a minor point, I know, but I felt the need to make it...In general I agree with you, Chris.The general public, and of course, the popular press/media, are always eager to blame and fear those things they do not understand.......hence the common "mad professor" character in Sci-Fi films.

Now, there's nothing wrong with mad professors!

Thanks for your comments.

I believe, however, that any scientist not doing their work for human benefit shouldn't be counted as a member of the scientific community. Rather a member of the commercial sector regarding profit, or government sector regarding status.
Well, those are traits really, not actual defining factors. I suppose anyone who can act like a scientist, good or bad, is part of the scientific community - just not necessarily a decent, upstanding member.

I well, I meant that I wanted to disagree with you a bit, and was asking your permission! I also wanted to hear what you would say...

However, I still don't have time to do it with any coherence yet: hold that thought...

Right-ho.

No offence meant, but that's a load of dingo's kidneys.

To say that scientists are not responsible for their activities because of who "commissioned" or "sanctioned" the actions is pish. A scientist is responsible for whatever he does: With the liberty to act freely comes duty and responsability, and it is in exercise of duty and responsability that the liberty of others is not impeded. In short, in doing anything that is in any way contentious, a scientist becomes responsible for anything which he has facilitated. The scientist who designs a nuclear weapon is by no means obliged to do so: the fact that he DOES carry through whatever actions he carrys through implicates him in any use of the technology for which he is responsible.

In addition, the catagorising of society into different classes, whilst being something that Plato would agree with, is also wrong. For a start, the definitions of the different "sectors" are far too ambiguous to be useful for anything other than trivial thought, and do not even correspond to the same level of though: moving backwards through the definitions presented, the "scientific" community, represented by scientists, hones in on specific individuals, whilst the governmental sector refers to large organisations. Whilst this misnomered distinction provides much of the thrust of the article, it is also wrong. For purposes of finger pointing, it is simply NOT possible to present several generalised groups as the basis for a liberal society. The only sector to which we may refer is the country itself, for any relations internal to that are far more complicated.

Moreover, as a social democracy (the catagory under which the country in which you live falls into, not to mention many other European states), the "governmental sector" are elected representitives of the people, and far from "control[ling] the people", the government is in place to protect the liberties of those under its care, and is elected into power by those people. As such, even if it does not directly represent the peoples every thought, it does represent their sentiment, implicit in the fact that it is elected. The distinction is between representation and advocacy. As such, the government is a piece of machinery put in place BY the people, the philosophy of which is the underpinning of western liberalism as it exists.

Moreover, the scientific community IS the people. As long as scientists vote, they are the people, and as long as they are people, they are (at least in theory, and usually more so than even that) equal to everyone else.

Quite simply, if a scientist is working for a genetic research company, or if he's working at the Aldermaston Nuclear Weapons facility, he KNOWS what he's doing, and is responsible for any and every action carried out as a result of any research he has a hand in, since by facilitating others in using his research, he is sanctioning it.

The only society in which science has been allowed to reign free, unchecked, and with full governmental support, was during the second world war, during nazi rule in Germany. The technology it provided us with is the basis of all rocket science, biological & chemical warfare we have today, the space program, and aspirin. The scientific impact of the scientific program masterminded by that regime is responsible for everything from the contents of your medicine cupboard to the GPS satellites which orbit the earth geosyncronously (to pick two aged examples alone). And it systematically murdered over 6,000,000 Jews.

- Njan.

Uh, you weren't really who I was going to argue with, but if you insist...

You mention 'the scientist who designs a nuclear weapon.' He's not working of his own free will. He's working under orders from his government or other ruling body.

My definitions of society's different sectors were, I'll admit now, thought up for my own benefit as well as to facilitate my argument. I'm not going to go into individual specific details in an article for an online newspaper! Especially considering I wrote it in the space of roughly half an hour.

I'd also like to state that these sectors can overlap. I did not mean to imply that a member of the public cannot be a member of the commercial sector as well. Similarly, a scientist working for personal gain (a part of both the scientific community and commercial sector, possibly government), is not solely within the scientific community, and as such is not the good scientist I am trying to prove the existence of in my article. They're the 'evil scientists'.

To further that, scientists may well be part of the people (society as whole, the voting population - something only relevant in certain governmental systems), but they're not part of the criticising 'general public'.

I defined - or should have defined - the scientific community as those who merely invent and discover the technologies of the modern age. Indeed, I do believe I stated that as soon as a scientist actually works for a company or government for financial gain, they leave the scientific community and attain membership within the commercial sector or somewhere else.

My stating that the government are here to control the people is justified. The theory behind the government is indeed different (to express the will of the public, as you say), but I was referring to how it actually works. Surely you can't tell me that the current British government - to name but one example - fully enacts that true philosophy behind government!

And most certainly a scientist knows what his technologies can be used for. However, everything has a bright side (even nuclear weapons, though it's still hard to visualise it), and the scientists choose to focus on that.

Furthermore, if they do not focus on that, their chief goal is to basically achieve a greater understanding of the nature of the Universe and all within. As I stated in the article, it's not their fault if another sector then takes those findings and uses it for evil.

You admit in your last paragraph that free reign of science achieved many wonderful technologies. The murdering of 6,000,000 Jews is unrelated in all ways apart from the murderous government being those same people to grant the scientific community freedom to work. I find it truly hard to believe that a team of scientists went round Germany murdering innocent people. No, indeed, that was the government and its minions.

Basically, the scientific community is comprised of the good guys. It is the minority, I'll admit, but whenever something bad happens, be it the result of a scientist or no, it is not a scientist independent of the commercial, public or governmental sectors. Hence, the public, as I said, should not blame the scientific community, but the sector for which the individuals responsible are working.

There, think I replied to just about everything.

Well, I have to say that your article, Chris, started me off thinking about the role of ethics in science more than anything else, and a very satisfying muse (to me) it was too: so thanks again

I am interested, actually, in the idea of how far and in what ways ethical considerations should apply to scientific research. And I can see why there is controversy: a lot of the most voracious critics tend to base their arguements against this or that discovery (or whatever) in terms of how far it goes against the Bible (or another religious tract of your choice), and indeed once you take the fact that morality is set by whatever god says is right (or wrong) out of the equation, then it does become much harder to say why something is wrong (or right).

It also becomes very easy I think to see any ethical concerns over the direction or methods or applications of scientific research as irrelevent, therefore, which I do think is a mistake. And I think that the unease which the general public feel over this subject are ignored unjustifyably by being lumped in with crackpot fundamentalists, because, as I say, this unease is very hard to pin down without resorting to "But in the Bible...". Although I agree that some of it may be due to ignorance and media hype, I think that science has a responsibility to address these issues to my satisfaction (as a member of the public) and within its own community. And at the moment, like I say, I think it has a tendancy to dismiss and dodge such considerations.

Yet in some ways these considerations are to a degree there: Njan mentioned Nazi Germany, which I was also going to drag up because as I understand it (and I'm not sure of the facts here, Chris: I figure it's your artilce, you can do the work in looking it all up ) much of the work done in Germany at this time, particularly, say, in the feild of genetics, was carried out under conditions which we recoil in horror from, and there is a direct link between the holocaust and the scientists' work. Scientific methods given free reign were not a pretty sight, but did result in huge advances, but presumably, scientists since have managed to build on this work without recourse to these methods, and presumably they have done so from ethical considerations. It may have taken a bit longer, but wasn't it worth it? Personally, I'd like to see abit more consideration given by the scientific community to the use of animal experimentaion too. A dialoge about it would be nice, not dissmissal.

The same goes for the subject of study. I agree, generally speaking Chris, that the advancement of our knowledge of the world around us is a good thing and that scientists are engaged in such a persuit, but I doubt that any but the most theoretical of diciplines/studies are untainted by either the stain of corporate or govenrnment involvement and interest, dictation and instigation. I highly doubt whether at any time the development of genetically modified foods, for example, was motivated by any other motives or at anybody else's behest. And while I suspect that somewhere along the line some scientist postulated, just as a thought experiment or something, the possibility of nuclear fisson/fusion (or whatever it is) - was it Einstein, by the way? - the scientists who built the bomb in America were building a bomb, and very proud of it they were too: I beleive that they were concerned that if they didn't, the Gernmans would. While I am not happy with it, I do, actually, accept to an extent this justification for their involvemnt. I also agree that they do not bear quite as much responsibility for the use of the bomb in Hiroshima as the politition who pushed the button, but still. In Russia, you could argue that they didn't have much choice and were acting under orders, but there is an article somewhere in peer review which discusses the Russian scientist Whoosit's involvement in this project, and again this chap had his reasons for being involved, which again I accept. But since I do not think that there are many areas of scientific study which are motivated from pure altruism/intellectual curiosity, I'm with Njan that scientists should choose carefully what to study, and accept responsibility for the consequenses.

With the whole ethical question of genetics, then, I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, but that at least scientists could accord me, the general public, some respect when I ask why they would want to, what methods were used in the experimentation, and what limitations we are going to place on its application.

And in saying that, Chris, I'm not getting at you and your article. Really: it just inspired, as I say, a small ponder on the issue. I do sympathise whith the scientific community, actually, in that every time they do something newsworthy like clone a sheep, they do get clobbered with howls of horror and witchburning talk starts, which must be very frustrating, especially when that sort of thing has traditionally accompanied scientific advances in the past which are now thought of as accepted truths or steps along the way to our present, more comfortable lifestyles.

*runs around like a mad thing*

too much work, too much work, too much work.

You can't base an argument for the non-responsability of scientists in the use of their creations on the premise that they all work under duress. Because they don't, for the most part. And if they do, then it's entirely their choice. If they acquiesce to threats from higher up the theoretical chain of command, then it is still, objectively, their responsability, because it is their submission which is the ultimate decider as to whether THEY work on a potentially harmful creation or not. Whether they're working at gunpoint or funding the project themselves, the scientist is always responsable for what he (or she) creates.

Oppenheimer, the father of the Manhattan project (responsible for the nuclear weapons which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) said, after seeing the results of his creation, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds", a passage from the baghavad Gita (the hindu scripture). When meeting president Truman in 1946, he stated "Mr. President, I have blood on my hands". The scientist, I re-state, is responsible for his own creations. You do not leave a mantrap in a busy road and then deny responsability for the child with the missing leg; likewise, you do not carry out scientific research without being fully aware that any consequences of what you have created are your own fault. As Einstein aptly put it, "if we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research".

I also cite the following passage from an article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Stanly Goldber and Thomas Powers, which concerns the german scientists working on the german atomic energy programme during the second world war:

{quote starts}
"Hahn explained to Heisenberg that he was himself very upset about the whole thing. He said he could not really understand why Gerlach had taken it so badly. Heisenberg said he could understand it because Gerlach was the only one of them who had really wanted a German victory, because although he realized the crimes of the Nazis and disapproved of them, he could not get away from the fact that he was working for Germany. Hahn replied that he too loved his country and that, strange as it might appear, it was for this reason that he had hoped for her defeat. . . . They continued to discuss the same theme as before, that they had never wanted to work on a bomb and had been pleased when it was decided to concentrate everything on the engine [reactor]." - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - article by Stanly Goldber and Thomas Powers
{quote finishes}

As regards the holocaust in nazi germany, the work done by nazi scientists in developing Cyclon-B (the gas used to kill 4 million people in the Auschwitz death camp alone) was not done under duress. And the many other scientific research projects, many of which involved unspeakable horrors perpetrated by scientists, many on pregnant women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and twins (but to mention a few) were NOT done under duress. Indeed, the fanaticism with which scientists, in full knowledge of what they were doing, undertook the work which they did, is part of the abhorrant inhumanity which these actions embodied.

Humans are fundamentally prone to be irresponsible, and to have a disregard for the rights of others. Not to drop to abject pessimism, but still working along pessimistic lines, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes stated the state of nature (ie. what man gets up to when left unheeded, as unregulated science would imply) as being nasty, brutish, short, and mean. Rousseau, by comparison, believed it to be a state of individual creativity, but also acknowledged the fundamental disregard of human rights.

It is from this theorising which springs the basis of political philosophy, and science is most definitely an area which must not be exempted from ethical, moral, and political regulation. Mill's harm principle is possibly the most important axiom which we can apply if we wish not to restrict Rousseau's creativity: An action is permissible so long as it does not harm the rights or states of being of other agents (people).

Moving further along, it is up to the general majority of free, rational, and reasonable people to which any appeal of regulation must be made. It is not the criminals to whom we appeal for judgement in court it is the general population (although, having said that, if the present government has its way, it won't be the general population either). In the same manner, it is not for scientists - who have spent their lives studying how to practice science, not politics, morality, philosophy, or diplomacy - to decide how their work should be regulated and treated with regard to these fields of life, it is those who are versed in knowledge of whichever arena the science has an impact into.

Oh dear, so little time do I have this evening...

I'll write a proper reply to your posts tomorrow, though it looks to me after a casual glance at them that I've been defeated already!

No no! Njan is a philosopher *waves at Njan* They are hard work to argue with, using words and ideas the way that mathematitians use numbers, but once you make sure you eliminate logical and semantic loopholes to their satisfaction, you may still loose the argument, but you'll be damn near undefeatable against anyone else...

They are rather less tiresome than lawyers, *waves to any lawyers* who have much the same approach but even when you have proved without a doubt that green is green, they will still maintain that grenn is, in fact red. It is very irritating.

Solnushka