Katie Eppley, Raisa Janke, Leah Schaffer, Kayleigh Sopko and Megan Taylor
“Mankind has reached a critical point at which it will be destroyed by atomic self-destruction, ecological self-poisoning, uncontrolled population explosion, and dehumanization if its scientific and technological progress is not supplemented by thorough-going changes in the social, moral, and cultural life.” –Anonymous, Mauer Museum Haus Am Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin
In the Hot Springs of Pamukkale, Turkey. (Note: This is not snow, but calcium carbonate deposits.)
Photo: Taren Manley
In the course of this ongoing discussion, we have tried our best to deal with the evolution of science and of the scientist. Now, however, we have reached a point of understanding in which we see that the scientist and his science do not always work in perfect harmony, and that often times, a scientist’s own curiosity can be dangerous to the masses, not because of a danger of the science itself, but the possibilities that the science offers to those compelled by other motives.
Arriving to Germany, we began reading Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen, a play that depicts the discussion between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg about their controversial meeting in Copenhagen in 1941 and the implications of physics research during WWII in Germany. At that time, the physicists of the world were no longer working on an international level and were committed to their individual nations as each raced towards the discovery of a successful atomic bomb.
Though our roles in science are not nearly as developed as those of Bohr and Heisenberg in the 40s, we recognize that even now, we are faced with a particular responsibility towards those that our research and theory may impact. Ultimately, we recognize that unless we govern ourselves with our own morality, science will destroy humanity, even if that was not the intention. Just as Heisenberg was faced with the temptation to manipulate the atom for the purpose of innocent scientific inquiry, he had to understand that his discovery would not stop in the lab, and would be executed to serve the needs of his government. Even today, every scientific investigation must be applicable to society. So, now we ask ourselves: How do you decide how far you go? How far do you push science when the one thing you’re certain of is the uncertainty of how your discoveries might used?
JakobsLadder: Back in my day, as a classical physicist during WWI, I felt as though I was the only one merely taking measurements for the sake of knowledge.
Heis57 has entered the chat room.
Heis57: But Jakob, WWI saw the transformation of classical science into science of a function of war.
EXCELentK: However, today we use science not only for application to war, but also to everyday life. We have shifted paradigms of our beliefs from developmental biology into ecology into genetics and DNA. The “fingerprint of life” is believed to hold answers to many of life’s questions, and thus many scientists devote their time to finding these keys.
Megalopteryous: I agree Kayleigh that there has been a scientific shift towards genetics. But even this new field poses many dangerous implications. Competition among countries in the area of cloning continues to heighten without any pause to contemplate the morality of genetic manipulation.
AlexVonHumby: There is no risk in investigation. Any educated person would not abuse the power of knowledge.
GassyGauss28: Humboldt, why don’t you take your blinders off!?!
GassyGauss28 has left the chat room.
TexasRaisaN: Humboldt you are right, there shouldn’t be a risk in investigation. But nowadays, if an educated person is not investigating a part of science to help the progress of the world or a specific country as a whole, there will be no funding available to construct a developed investigation.
Heis57: Raisa, you hit the atom on the nucleus! The two, science and politics, are sometimes painfully difficult to keep apart.
WriteITdown: But just as there shouldn’t be a risk in investigation, there shouldn’t need to be a separation between science in politics. If science is what governs life whether that be defined in terms of developmental biology, ecology, or genetics, and politics is what governs life in terms of society, economy, and world affairs, should the two not be joined? We are science. We are politics.
Heis57: We are the ones who will have to advise them whether to go ahead or not. In the end the decision will be in our hands, whether we like it or not.
WildBohr: What are you telling it me for? What am I supposed to do about it?
Kaitums3.14: What are any of us supposed to do about it? If it’s not about the atomic bomb, it’s about cloning. It’s about genetic engineering, it’s about global warming. We see change and we look to other people to understand it, but in the end, it all comes down to the same thing.
WriteITdown: Uncertainty.
EXCELentK: Uncertainty.
Megalopteryous: Uncertainty.
TexasRaisaN: Uncertainty.
WildBohr: Uncertainty.
“Which cities will be destroyed and which survive? Who will die and who will live? Which world will go down to obliteration and which will triumph?” from Frayn’s Copenhagen .
The characters of Alexander von Humboldt and Gauss are courtesy of Daniel Kehlmann’s Measuring the World and Tomasina Ross’s edited translation of Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America during the years 1799-1804 by Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland. The character of Victor Jakob is courtesy of Russell McCormmach's Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist . The characters of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg are courtesy of Michael Frayn’s Copenhagen . T he dialogue is a compilation of these texts and our own interpretation.
Katie Eppley, Raisa Janke, Leah Schaffer, Kayleigh Sopko and Megan Taylor
sopkokj at hiram.edu
Last Modified 21 Apr 2008
Banner Photo by Mathew J. Wilson