The fact that we should never take anyone’s word for anything also applies to the study of science. It all has to be about being open minded, in that way we will not see be a reduction in the study of science. We have to be humble concerning our intellect, and recognize the unknown to be able the explore it.
Science has a positive affect on us, since it changes the way we see ourselves and the world. That we are able to be unprejudiced, gives us among other things the opportunity to see that we people have much in common with other living things.
At the end of the article, Quigg celebrates the great privilege of being a scientist and the joy to share knowledge with others.
- It is quite an interesting task to discuss the difference between “a scientist’s responsibilities” and “a citizen’s responsibilities”. It gives rise to bring up questions such as personal morality, responsibility to science, duty and love of one's country, and responsibility to humanity.
Generally speaking, first and foremost, a scientist has a responsibility to explain, in the language of the ordinary world, what he is trying to do, why he can't help doing it that way, and to explain where this could lead us to. What he has got to do is to say, "These are the kind of things we can provide for you: it is for you to decide how you will apply them. We will tell you whether they will be easy to apply in one way, how difficult it may be in some cases, etc.
I do not think that the idea of “knowledge for its own sake” exonerate scientists from being responsible for what they do. They have some responsibility to think how their activities might be used or misused. I also believe that different sorts of scientists have different responsibilities as scientists; and at the same time they also have responsibilities as citizens, responsibilities which they have in common with everyone else.
First of all, any scientist is a citizen of some country. This leads us to Heisenberg, who as a citizen of the country Germany, at one point – in my opinion - felt an obligation to support his country during the war. Heisenberg gets most attention because as Germany's leading atomic theorist, he could, in principle, have given Hitler an A-bomb. In practice, he couldn't have. He was an example - there were many, many of them even Jews - who rated loyalty to their German nation so high that they were ready to overlook many things.
There has been a great deal of discussions about Heisenberg’s contribution to the German bomb project. Did he actively work to prevent its development, as he claimed after the war? Or was it in his intention to build an A-bomb for the sake of his country and perhaps personal acknowledgement?
There were many scientists, while participating in the development of weapons, strongly objected to the use of atomic bombs. Their wills, and maybe their consciousness of "guilt"; that is, scientists realize some danger in their research and impose certain restrictions or norms on their research. That is the right thing to do, because in spite of the situation of one’s country, you should - as a scientist - keep your morality. Therefore I think that the real issue Heisenberg should have faced was the very specific one of whether German physicists should have worked - as they did - on a bomb for Hitler.
The problem is not just one of scientist in a period of war but anyone who is a citizen of a country has to face a question of his own personal morality and the job he does.
In my opinion it is also a scientist’s job and responsibility to pass on knowledge to the population based on objective tests. Therefore I think it’s critical when for example the American government hire scientists to work out scientific reports concerning the environment, which are projected as objective, but where the results are actually adjusted in a way so that they are in agreement with the environmental policy in USA.
Last but not least I would like to point out an essential responsibility of governments, which I believe is to create the conditions in which a scientist can say no to projects in which he does not want to take part. A scientist must even be able to give advice which is distasteful to those in authority, and still must not be hounded out of public life or prevented from making a living.
