When embarking on any research project, a technoscientist
must evaluate if the results of the study will be used in ways that they deem
ethically and politically responsible. This is a simple first step, but one
that depends significantly on the opinions of the individual in question. While
opinions of what is ethical vary, ensuring that every participant in the
research is comfortable with the consequence is a great step towards determining
if the study should continue. In many respects, this is similar to employment
in any controversial industry. Often though, this first step is not enough.
Repeated self-inquiry is the only way to ensure that individuals can morally
continue in their topic of research. An excellent example of this comes from
the famous theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. Feynman’s genius was
recognized from his youth, and almost directly after completing his Ph.D. he
was recruited as part of the Manhattan Project. He worked at both the Los
Alamos and Oak Ridge facilities, and made contributions to safety procedures
that helped allow the development of the first nuclear bombs. Later in his
life, Feynman expressed regret at not reconsidering his work after the defeat
of Germany in World War 2. While he maintained support for his initial
participation, he found it difficult to justify his work past that point (atomicheritage.org). The experience of
Feynman perfectly illustrates the dangerous human tendency to question once and
then accept the consequences beyond that point (despite the fact that the
situation is changing). Another lesson can also be learned from Feynman’s
mistake, and that is the value in looking to history for additional perspective
on the present. There are uncountable examples of noble minded scientists oblivious
to the sometimes devastating consequences of their research. In some
situations, it can be difficult to cease participation once beginning. In these
cases especially, it is essential to understand the loss of control one has
over information once it is released. There is no way to enforce this personal
caution among all scientists, but I believe that many would (or continue to do)
if more critical analysis were encouraged.
One of the final methods to encourage ethically and socio-politically
responsible outcomes from science is to minimize misunderstandings. While the
suggestion of improved communication could hardly be amiss in almost any field,
the process of communication between technoscientists, society, and the media
has far reaching consequences. This point becomes even more pertinent given the
history of poor communication between these three groups. In many cases, it may
be difficult for scientists to translate highly technical findings in a way that
is both useful and simple enough for the media to understand. There are a
multitude of pitfalls in this process. The first is the potential for a
scientist to personally communicate poorly. An attempt to explain important
work or results that are not decipherable or susceptible to misinterpretation
is dangerous. Similarly, there is the danger of oversimplification. If a concept is abstracted too far, there
remains no value in the media reporting it. The media also holds responsibility
for miscommunication too. As we discussed in lecture, media groups are
typically profit driven organizations. This can sometimes lead to an unhealthy
focus on “fun” science at best, and sensationalism at worst. Moreover, time and
time again simple ignorance on the media’s and society’s behalf can lead to
misinterpreted statistics and unfounded conclusions. To some degree, scientists
need to become judges of what is most important for the media and society to
know. This is a huge but necessary responsibility, and despite the reticence some
may feel participating in the process, it is the scientist themselves that are
in the best position to perform this arbitrage. I would argue that it also
becomes the responsibility of the scientist to stay current with modern news
and controversy. Any individual in a position affecting so many others must
consider their choices with a broader scope. This too is a challenging method to enforce on
its own. Perhaps a mandatory follow up period could be required for certain research.
Scientists that produce innovations in certain fields are required to act on a
regulation committee and/or guide the directions that the innovation is taken.
This requirement could increase the degree of personal responsibility
scientists feel for how their discoveries can help society.
Scientists discover and innovate in ways that can both
enhance and decrease public well-being.
This is not the only goal of science, however. Some science is
undertaken purely for the sake of knowledge, and the belief that knowing more
about the universe alone makes this a worthwhile cause. Due to the massive ways
in which technoscientists affect society, it becomes the responsibility of
these individuals to consider the implications of their research as both
professionals and members of the public. One of the important ways this can be
done is through being aware of the outside influences on any given experiments,
and the ways this can indirectly affect the accuracy of results through
selective reporting. Another essential method for maintaining ethics in science
is through regular critical thinking and self-inquiry about the kind of work
scientists perform. Finally, the curriculum and education of young technoscientists
needs to focus on communication between technical work and the public.
Scientists are the ambassadors between the future and the present, and their
expertise is needed not only for discovery, but also integrating these
innovations responsibly.
Works cited:
"Richard
Feynman." Atomic Heritage Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/richard-feynman>.
