Heisenberg’s Part and Whole is an original work of quantum physics and philosophy that challenges us to reconcile scientific truth with human values. The book provides deep insights into the role of scientists and engineers and how they should fulfill their social and ethical responsibilities.
Heisenberg is a physicist known for the Uncertainty Principle, one of the core theories of quantum physics. The Part and the Whole is a collection of debates Heisenberg had with many scholars during his lifetime. There are many arguments, but in this essay, we’ll focus on the chapter “On the Responsibility of the Researcher”. Heisenberg became the de facto leader of Germany’s uranium program during World War II, and it is said that he felt a great deal of guilt that his research (atomic nuclei) would be used to build the atomic bomb. As many modern engineers pursue a variety of research interests, there is a debate about the extent to which researchers should assume social responsibility. For example, how to fulfill their obligations as employees if their research is used in ways they didn’t intend, or the unclear responsibilities of collaborative research. In this context, I’d like to share Heisenberg’s discussion with physicists of his time about the responsibilities of a researcher to help us think about the responsibilities of modern engineers as researchers.
Heisenberg worked in Germany until World War II, when Hitler’s purges of Jewish scientists in Germany forced him to flee his country, and he lived in Heidelberg, Paris, Belgium, and elsewhere. After many years of wandering, he eventually settled down with his old friends and young collaborators in uranium research at a large mansion in the English countryside called Palm-Hall. On the afternoon of August 6, 1945, when Heisenberg hears that the atomic bomb has been dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, he debates with Friedrich about the responsibilities of a scientist as a researcher.
Friedrich argues that he should not feel guilty that his scientific discoveries have been tainted by the stain of catastrophe. In today’s world, human life depends on the development of science to a large extent, and since knowledge is power, the struggle for knowledge will continue as long as the struggle for power on earth exists. For the time being, therefore, the development of science is part of the life process of mankind, and it cannot be said that the individuals who are active in it are guilty.
Heisenberg agrees that natural science is a process of life and that participation in it cannot be considered sinful. He regards the development of science as a historical process, arguing that if someone does not make a scientific discovery, another scientist will probably discover it a few years later. In other words, the individual is only in the right place at the right time according to historical development and is able to fulfill the tasks assigned to him or her, and nothing more.
Both scholars agree that scientists should not feel guilty about the fact that their discoveries are misused. It’s not easy to argue against such a claim. Since science is the theoretical cognitive activity of human beings that explores the structure, properties, and laws of things, and the systematic and theoretical knowledge as a product, it can be said that science has been a part of our lives since the existence of humans on earth. Therefore, we can consider the development of science as a historical process. If we recognize this, we can think about the following. Even if Einstein hadn’t published his theory of relativity, someone else would have come up with it many years later, and the German chemist Kekule is said to have discovered the hexagonal structure of benzene by accident after having an idea in a dream. However, I think this idea is too harsh on scientists who have done great things for humanity. 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 imagine how long it would have taken someone other than Einstein to come up with the theory of relativity. Similarly, in the case of Kecula, who discovered the hexagonal structure of benzene by accident, it is difficult to imagine how long it would take for someone else to have the same serendipity. The question remains whether it is too devaluing to attribute the achievements of those who make inventions that benefit humans as merely the natural outcome of the historical process, which often accelerates the progress of civilization by years, and whether those who make inventions that harm humans should not be held accountable for them because they are merely historical products.
Friedrich attempts to answer these questions by arguing that we should distinguish between discoverers and inventors. The discoverer usually knows nothing about its possible use before the discovery, and even then, it is almost impossible to predict it because it is so far away from actual use. Therefore, the discoverer cannot be held responsible for the benefits or risks of the later practical use of his discovery. In the case of the inventor, on the other hand, it is argued, he must certainly be calculating on some particular practical end, and must therefore be held responsible for its fulfillment. The inventor is therefore required to see his aim in its grand connection, which means that he must not only think the right thing, but put it into action, and, if he wishes to realize his idea, he must endeavor to combine it with public life and to influence the administration of the state in a broader sense.
Heisenberg agrees to a certain extent, but argues that there is a practical difficulty: scientific and technological progress will eventually lead to a relationship that maintains a centralized order, and until it is determined who maintains that centralized order, competitive scientific invention will continue. For example, American physicists were terribly afraid that Germany might try to build an atomic bomb, so they justified their own research to avoid the catastrophe of Hitler’s victory with an atomic bomb. However, this was also closely related to their own hegemony, and they justified dropping the bomb based on the principle that the ends justify the means. It is argued that the competition between nations leads to an indiscriminate race for scientific invention, making it difficult to hold scientists accountable. Heisenberg believed that scientists should be endowed with logical precision, a broad perspective, and strict integrity, and that they should be responsible for their own judgment and influence on the use of their inventions, rather than simply leaving it to politics.
Based on Friedrich and Heisenberg’s story, the responsibilities of an engineer are as follows An engineer is a person who uses natural, scientific, and technical knowledge to solve practical problems. Of course, there are engineers who make scientific discoveries, but those discoveries are also based on practical purposes. As such, engineers must have had a goal in mind, so it’s hard to escape some responsibility for the impact of their work.
Obviously, one might ask whether scientific inventions can be exempted from liability in the same way as scientific discoveries, since it is impossible to know all the ways in which they will be used outside of their intended purpose. You could also argue that the world is made up of many countries, and as long as there is competition between them, scientific inventions will never stop, so we can’t hold them accountable.
However, engineers themselves should take responsibility for their inventions because they should not turn their backs on the real world and live in an ivory tower, indulging only in their own self-satisfied dreams, lest they rekindle the catastrophe of the atomic bombing. This responsibility means taking what Heisenberg called a “broad view of the possible uses of one’s invention outside of one’s own intentions.
However, Heisenberg also called for influencing the use of his inventions for political purposes, which I don’t think is something that scientists can simply strive for. Specifically, there needs to be a way for science to exercise its right to initiative in public affairs, which requires the consent of all countries around the world. In other words, based on the above understanding of engineering students’ responsibilities and why they need to secure them, we need to find a way for engineers to exercise their rights to their inventions in public affairs. If engineers’ responsibility is secured through this, they will be clearly held accountable for their research, and they will not be able to exonerate themselves by glorifying their inappropriate research as a historical process.
Therefore, in the end, I think that the responsibility of engineers can be achieved through changes in the environment that engineers are in based on the consent of the world, and in addition to this, changes in themselves are the most important. If the issue of engineers’ responsibility is clarified through this, I think humanity will be able to develop in the right direction with the help of science.
