Heisenberg argues that scientists should consider the possibility that their discoveries will be used in ways they didn’t intend, and that inventors, unlike discoverers, have a greater responsibility for societal impact. While Friedrich argues that scientific progress is an inevitable process and that individuals need not be held accountable, Heisenberg emphasizes that engineers must also fulfill their ethical responsibilities to prevent inappropriate use of technology.
Heisenberg is a physicist known for his uncertainty principle, one of the core theories of quantum physics. His book The Part and the Whole is a collection of debates he had with various scholars over the course of his life. There are many arguments, but in this essay, we’ll focus on the chapter “On the Responsibilities of Researchers”.
Heisenberg practically led Germany’s uranium program during World War II and felt a great deal of guilt knowing that his research (atomic nuclei) could be used to build an atomic bomb. Many modern engineers also struggle with the question of how far researchers should go in terms of their social responsibility, given that the research they are passionate about can sometimes be used for purposes other than their original intentions. For example, the obligation to fulfill research outcomes as an employee, or the responsibility in collaborative research, is a matter of debate. In this context, we will discuss Heisenberg’s discussions with physicists of his time about the responsibilities of a researcher, and consider the responsibilities of a researcher for modern engineers.
Heisenberg continued his research in Germany until the outbreak of World War II, when Hitler’s regime expelled Jewish scientists from the country, forcing him to travel to various locations. He ended up in Heidelberg, Paris, and Belgium, where he spent time at Palm-Hall, a large estate in the English countryside, with a group of younger colleagues with whom he worked on uranium. On August 6, 1945, Heisenberg learns that the atomic bomb has been dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, and he and Friedrich begin a discussion about the responsibilities of scientists as researchers.
Friedrich argues that he should not feel guilty that his scientific discoveries contributed to the catastrophe. He believes that modern human life is heavily dependent on the advancement of science, and since knowledge is power, the race for knowledge will continue as long as the race for power continues. Therefore, the advancement of science is part of the process of human life, and the individuals who participate in it cannot be said to be guilty.
Heisenberg agrees that the natural sciences are part of the human life process, and that these activities cannot be viewed as sinful. He views the development of science as a historical process, arguing that if a particular scientist is unable to make a discovery, someone else will eventually make that discovery. In other words, the individual just happens to be in the right place at the right time in the historical development process, and is merely doing his or her job.
Both scholars agree that scientists shouldn’t feel guilty if a scientific discovery is used in the wrong way. Science is a human cognitive activity and a theoretical system of knowledge that explores the structure, nature, and laws of things, so it is a part of our lives that has developed alongside human existence. If we look at the development of science as a historical process, for example, even if Einstein hadn’t published the theory of relativity, someone would have eventually come up with it. Even if Kekule had accidentally discovered the hexagonal structure of benzene in a dream, someone else would have discovered it at some point, even if it wasn’t him.
However, this idea may be too harsh an assessment of scientists who have made great achievements. For example, when Einstein published his theory of relativity, there were only three people in the world who understood it. This means that it’s hard to estimate how long it would have taken someone in the future to come up with relativity. Similarly, if Kekule hadn’t discovered the structure of benzene, it’s hard to imagine how long it would have taken for someone else to make the same discovery by chance. This raises the question of whether viewing the achievements of scientists as simply the accidental outcome of a historical process undervalues their hard work and, conversely, whether we can’t hold scientists accountable for inventions that are harmful to humanity.
To answer these questions, Friedrich argues that we should distinguish between discoverers and inventors. In his view, discoverers are usually unable to predict the possible use of their discovery before it is made, and it is almost impossible to predict the actual use of the discovery because there is a considerable distance between the discovery and the actual use. Therefore, the discoverer cannot be held liable for the benefits or risks arising from the subsequent use. Inventors, on the other hand, have specific utilitarian goals in mind, and therefore, it is argued, have a deep insight into the societal impact of their work and should be held accountable accordingly. Inventors are expected to exercise good judgment, combine it with public life, and, if necessary, influence at the national level.
Heisenberg partially agrees, but points out a practical difficulty: scientific and technological progress tends toward a centralized order, but until that central order is established, competitive invention will continue. For example, American physicists feared the possibility of Germany building an atomic bomb and justified their own atomic bomb research as a way to deter it. This is closely tied to their own national hegemony, and it is difficult to hold scientists accountable in the midst of this interstate rivalry. This is because scientists are also citizens of a country and can make inventions that harm humanity for the sake of national interests, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
Therefore, Heisenberg believed that scientists should be required to be logically precise, broad-minded, and rigorous, and that they should be able to judge and take responsibility for the impact of their inventions rather than simply leave them to be used politically.
Based on Friedrich and Heisenberg’s discussion, the responsibilities of an engineer are as follows An engineer is a person who solves practical problems based on natural, scientific, and technical knowledge. While some engineers make scientific discoveries, these discoveries often have a practical purpose. As such, it’s hard for engineers to escape some responsibility for the impact of their work.
One could argue that scientific inventions can be immunized in the same way as scientific discoveries because it’s hard to predict all the ways in which they might be used outside of their intended purpose. It could also be argued that as long as the world continues to compete, scientific inventions will never stop, and therefore cannot be held accountable.
However, engineers must take responsibility for themselves to ensure that tragedies such as the atomic bombing do not repeat themselves as a result of being disconnected from the real world and immersed in their own dreams. This means, as Heisenberg emphasized, “the responsibility to take a broad view of the possibility that one’s invention might be used in ways other than intended.
Heisenberg also called for scientists to exert their influence even when their inventions are used politically, but this is not just a matter of individual scientists. A global consensus is needed to create a way for science to take the lead in the public sphere. Therefore, we will need to find a way to allow engineers to exercise their rights to their inventions in the public domain. This will ensure that engineers are held accountable for their work, so that they cannot justify inappropriate research as a historical process or avoid responsibility.
At the end of the day, engineers must fulfill their responsibility to ensure that their work benefits humanity.
