The ethical scientist

In reading The Scientist as Rebel (the previously discussed collection of essays by Freeman Dyson), I come upon these sentences in the second chapter - "Can Science be ethical?" - that should give everyone some pause for thought.

The ways in which science may work for good or evil in human society are many and various. As a general rule, to which there are many exceptions, science works for evil when its effect is to provide toys for the rich, and works for good when its effect is to provide necessities for the poor. Cheapness is an essential virtue. .... "Toys for the rich" means not only toys in the literal sense but technological conveniences that are available to a minority of people and make it harder for those excluded to take part in the economic and cultural life of the community. "necessities for the poor" include not only food and shelter but adequate public health services, adequate public transportation, and access to decent education and jobs.

He then goes on to explain why he thinks scientists have lost their way in working towards this goal during the latter part of the twentieth century, aided by the twin issues of pure sciences concentrating on "highly esoteric fields remote from contact with everyday problems" and market-driven applied science concentrating on "products that can be profitably sold", which by its very nature gravitates towards the rich that can buy these "toys."

It is true that the internet has leveled the playing field to a great extent globally but within each society, human kind runs the risk of leaving behind a large segment of the population in the wake of the "new ages flooding over human society like tsunamis;" -- the Information age (already arrived and here to stay), the Biotechnology age (due to arrive in full force early this century, driven by DNA sequencing and genetic engineering) and the Neurotechnology age (likely to arrive later this century, driven by neural sensors and exposing the inner workings of human emotion and personality to manipulation.

As Dyson writes:

The poorer half of humanity needs cheap housing, cheap healthcare, and cheap education, accessible to everybody, with high quality and high aesthetic standards. The fundamental problem for human society in the next century is the mismatch between the three new waves of technology and the three basic needs of poor people. The gap between technology and needs is wide and growing wider. If technology continues along its present course, ignoring the needs of the poor and showering benefits upon the rich, the poor will sooner or rather rebel against the tyranny of technology and turn to irrational and violent remedies. In the future, as in the past, the revolt of the poor is likely to impoverish rich and poor together.

and later..

If we can agree with Thomas Jefferson that these truths are self-evident, that all men created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then it should be self-evident that the abandonment of millions of people in modern societies to unemployment and destitution is a worse defilement of the earth than nuclear power stations.

Surely controversial and a surprisingly pessimistic view from a scientist in looking at the effects of science on human kind at large.... but then, like he explains elsewhere: he is from the "generation that grew up in the shadow of World War I: my generation took such a tragic view of life. We started out with this deep conviction that life was tragic and that one better make the best of it. One didn't expect anything to come out right. If you start out with a tragic view of life, then anything since is just a bonus." Not to forget that he lived through the post-WW II period where the dangers of a nuclear war ending all of human existence on earth as we know it being a palpable reality.

In my mind, science has the power to decimate, plunder, and pillage but at the same time has the power to make revolutionary positive changes. How we use this knowledge should be no reflection of science or even scientists...for the world is not populated by and run by scientists alone. Each of us has an obligation to future generations (though unfortunately many of us do not recognize it.)

On the question of whether scientists should not seek knowledge they know can be used in a harmful way.... I'll revert to Dyson again, who argues in the context of genetically "improved" human beings: "The technology of improvement may be hindered or delayed by regulation, but it cannot be permanently suppressed." Also, once you take the argument of self-policing areas of research just a few steps further, one realizes that it is a slippery slope one treads on - for who is to predict with absolute certainty what is harmful. In a day of spin and partisan politicizing of every aspect of science, who is to decide what are the areas that scientists should or should not be working on? Like Dyson posits, a sense of ethics has to guide human kind as it 'progresses' through these scientific advances but in reality it is a difficult tightrope to balance and it seems foolhardy to trust the future in the hands of 'ethical' choices to be made by a fuzzy group of people. And although there seems to be little hope sometimes that better sense will prevail, giving up on the discussion only makes 'defeat' that much more inevitable.

P.S. I found the three ages he describes to be very similar to the three stages of cosmic evolution put forth by VI Vernadsky. More about him elsewhere.

P.P.S. Recommended for further reading are two other books by Freeman Dyson, (which I have not read.)

- Disturbing the Universe - Supposed to be more autobiographical than any of his other books.

- The Sun, The Genome, and The Internet
.. in which Dyson argues that new technologies can have as much of an effect on the social and political realms as new ideologies do. In particular, he cites three burgeoning technologies--solar energy, genetic engineering, and the Internet--for their potential to affect a more equitable worldwide distribution of wealth and power in the coming century.