there are those about us who say that [atomic] research should be stopped by law, alleging that man's destructive powers are already large enough...Personally, I think there is no doubt that sub-atomic energy is all around us, and that one day man will release and control its almost infinite power. We cannot prevent him from doing so and can only hope that he will not use it exclusively in blowing up his next door neighbor. (Rhodes, 141)
The largest ethical dilemma of modern scientific history occurred during the Second World War, the use of the atomic bomb. This dilemma occurred with many of the scientists who conducted nuclear research during Word War II. Edward Teller recalled his agreement with President Roosevelt's description of a scientist's role in the war effort: "If scientists in free countries will not make weapons to defend the freedom of their countries than freedom will be lost" (Teller, 33). From this statement, Teller "believed Roosevelt was not proposing what scientists may do 'but something that was our duty and that we must do...'" (Teller, 33)
According to Oppenheimer, the head of the Manhatten Project to develop the atomic bomb, a scientist's only work is to discover empowering knowledge for humanity; a notion that has value by itself. Such a premise is morally defunct because it does not consider the outcomes of a scientist's work. If scientists were the only ones affected by their work, then consequences would be confined to the individual. Scientists, however, live in a world where all men use their discoveries and share the consequences. The wrong application of technology can detrimentally influence humanity.
Because scientific discoveries potentially affect all of humanity, scientists should be subject to a minimum of ethical standards when doing their research. For example, in 1934 the Hungarian theoretical physicist Leo Szilard prophetically noted that "the discoveries of scientists...have given weapons to mankind which may destroy our present civilization if we do not succeed in avoiding future wars" (Rhodes, 214). Although Szilard was probably referring to military aircraft and "the horrors of strategic bombing...almost certainly he was thinking of atomic bombs" (Rhodes, 214). Szilard knew that science was on the brink of developing the technology capable of destroying mankind. Accordingly, atomic research was concentrated in America during World War II. Named the Manhattan Project, this scheme involved a $2 billion investment and the gathering of the world's greatest scientists, all to build the world's most destructive weapon.
Despite any peaceful benefits achieved from nuclear technology, its predominant application can still destroy mankind. As citizens of the society that will inherit their discoveries, scientists have a moral duty to consider the consequences of their work. Men have done much to liberate themselves through science. Yet when they use it improperly, they have also caused some of humanity's greatest miseries. For example, during World War I, poison gases—such as chlorpicrin and dichlorethyl sulfide—were used to efficiently immobilize and kill soldiers. More effective than a thousand bullets, these compounds caused masses of inhumane deaths and many other injuries. Although a blatant violation of the Hague Convention, the method was justified as "a way of saving countless lives, if it meant that the war could be brought to an end sooner" (Rhodes, 93). This premise paradoxically sanctions the use of killing as a means of preserving life. Science is used to introduce new and im moral mechanisms which are historically permanent and intensify violence. Human talents that could have improved humanity are abandoned for more violent pursuits. In this capacity, scientists use their skills to destroy their brothers, convincing themselves that their efforts are humanitarian. The creators of the gasses, "like bargain hunters, imagined they were spending a pittance of tens of thousands of lives to save a purseful more" (Rhodes, 95). Using science this way for the preservation of life is morally bankrupt; human lives are not guaranteed. Every time a scientific development—such as gassing—is used to kill more efficiently, a destructive precedent is established for future generations to supersede. Thus, the nature of science is perverted, establishing a new standard of human cruelty; ironically, the occupation that discovers cures for illness also develops methods of mass destruction.
Despite ethical obligations, scientists should not be held responsible for every application of their work because they cannot predict the future. Ethical responsibilities do not obligate a scientist to improve society but to at least morally question his work. It is when deliberate research is conducted for destructive purposes and rationalized as humanitarian that great dilemmas arise. Historically, the destruction during WWI established a precedent for using atomic weapons and saturation bombing in World War II. The old methods of destruction had become inefficient; therefore, new techniques were required. Accordingly, the "most compact, efficient, inexpensive, inexorable mechanisms of total death are nuclear weapons. Since 1945 they have therefore come to dominate the field" (Rhodes, 779). Like their predecessors, the new breed of scientists rationalized their atomic developments for shortening the war, ending Hitler's terror and saving lives. While justifying the necessity of atomic research after the war, Robert Oppenheimer asserted:
The reason we did this job was because it was an organic necessity. If you are a scientist you cannot stop such a thing...you believe that it is good to find out how the world works; that it is good to find out what the realities are; that it is good to turn over to mankind...the greatest possible power to control the world and to deal with it according to its lights and values. (Rhodes, 761)
Although it is a noble intention to empower the world, Oppenheimer's statement indulges in ethical rationalizations which have no moral foundation. Mankind's control of nature is by its values, which is a belief or condition held in high esteem. Knowledge given to the contemporary world would be wasted because it is obsessed with expanding destruction.
Despite their role in the discovery of knowledge, scientists are not the only parties at fault for the destructive application of science. Once knowledge leaves a scientist's hands, he often has little control over how his discoveries will be used. For example, the American military wanted to utilize the atomic bomb before the technology was replicated, thereby using their atomic monopoly to cement a dominant role in the postwar era. "When other countries acquired nuclear weapons, as they would in 'just a few years,' that advantage would be lost" (Rhodes, 637). Rather than share the information, it would be used to intimidate other countries into complying with American political objectives. President Truman's Secretary of State James Byrnes believed "international relations worked like domestic politics as money was to banking, a medium of enriching exchange. Only naifs and fools gave it away" (Rhodes, 635).
When the Trinity test proved its reliability, the atomic bomb became a political weapon removed from the scientific realm. Two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; cities filled with innocent men, women and children that were vaporized in seconds. Telling themselves it was in the world's best interest, American political and military personnel created reasons for the bomb's use and its evil was unleashed. For example, former U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson ironically justified the bombings mainly as a humanitarian endeavor. His:
chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men...In the light of the alternatives...which were open to us I believe that no man...holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities...could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face. (Rhodes, 696)
This statement is a prime example of the danger ethically unguided science and politics pose to mankind. When both are manipulated, the world is endangered by great opportunities for destruction. Politicians eager to pursue their agendas manipulate science for their own ends, while scientists eager to empower the world unleash harmful information. Ultimately, scientists should be careful because their efforts are the primary source of harmful technology.
The world was irrevocably changed with the initiation of the nuclear era. Although not currently embroiled in war, the world has spent half a century in preparation for nuclear fallout. Many people would argue that the devices themselves created peace, but it is an existence established through fear. Danish theoretical physicist, Niels Bohr recognized that nuclear technology had engulfed the world "in a new situation that cannot be resolved by war" (Rhodes, 532). When nuclear weapons "spread to other countries...no one would be able any longer to win. A spasm of nuclear destruction would be possible. But not war" (Rhodes, 32). Because he believed such a future was inevitable, he envisioned a world so terrorized by nuclear weapons that it would unify mankind. Nevertheless, Bohr and his compatriots were not rationalizing peace but a nuclear cold war. The future they foretold has become psychologically imprisoned by fear and hatred; a world unable to distinguish between fear and safety. I. I. Rabi remarked that:
the lesson we should learn from all this...and the frightening thing we did learn during the course of the war, was...how it is easy to kill people when you turn your mind to it. When you turn the resources of modern science to the problem of killing people, you realize how vulnerable they really are. (Rhodes, 779)
Rabi's statement is the crux of unethical science. Scientists must be subject to ethical guidelines lest their efforts let mankind destroy itself.
Many credible and famous scientists, however, agree that the use of the atomic bomb was necessary in fact. Edward Teller, a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and physicist most widely known for his contributions to the first demonstration of thermonuclear energy maintains that the atomic bomb was put to good and moral use on Japan.
Teller maintains that “Science considers what is true, starting out with almost unimaginable ideas” (Teller 23). Thus, the job of science is to put ideas together in a large and logical pattern. Therefore, it is the job of the politicians to decide whether science can be put to good use. Raised as an anti-Communist, he saw what many politicians saw, that nuclear weapons were useful in deterring enemy aggression. Could this same argument have been applicable to the Japanese situation? Teller states that:
“The developed nations have paid a great price in terms of their national resources in their strenuous effort to protect life, to safeguard peace. They displayed sufficient wisdom to overcome the traditional inclinations toward military solutions of world problems. This has happened for the first time. And it has provided an abiding pattern to apply new, peaceful and joint approaches to solving the most acute world problems. For the first time in world history, the most powerful weapons ever created were not used. Instead, they became an instrument of human experience, the means of great discoveries, and the tool of deep penetration into the secrets of Nature. We trust it will henceforth and forever take its deserved place among the sophisticated tools of enlightened generations” (Teller 28).
