In this blog post, we will consider how much responsibility scientists and engineers should take for their inventions and discoveries, focusing on Heisenberg’s theory of responsibility for research.
Heisenberg is a physicist famous for the “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 throughout his life. There are many debates, but this essay will focus on the chapter titled “On the Responsibility of the Researcher.”
Heisenberg, who was effectively leading Germany’s uranium program during World War II, is said to have felt considerable guilt over the fact that his research (atomic nuclei) could be used to manufacture atomic bombs. Many engineers today also wonder how much social responsibility researchers should bear, given that the research they are interested in pursuing can sometimes be used for purposes other than those originally intended. For example, the obligation to achieve research results as an employee and the allocation of responsibility in joint research are subjects of debate. In this context, we will consider the responsibilities of researchers today through Heisenberg’s discussions on the “responsibilities of researchers” with his fellow physicists of his time.
Heisenberg continued his research in Germany until the outbreak of World War II, but was forced to move around various regions as the Hitler regime expelled Jewish scientists from Germany. After passing through Heidelberg, Paris, and Belgium, he ended up spending a long time in a large mansion in the English countryside called Farm Hall with his young colleagues with whom he had researched uranium. On August 6, 1945, upon hearing the news that an atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, Heisenberg began discussing the responsibility of scientists with Friedrich.
Friedrich argued that there was no need to feel guilty about the fact that his scientific discoveries had led to such a catastrophe. He believed that modern human life depended heavily on the advancement of science, and that knowledge was power, so as long as the competition for power continued, the competition for knowledge would also continue. Therefore, he argued that the advancement of science was part of the human process and that individuals participating in it could not be blamed.
Heisenberg also agrees that natural science is part of the human life process and does not consider such activities to be sinful. He regards the development of science as a historical process and argues that if a particular scientist had not made a scientific discovery, someone else would have made it eventually. In other words, individuals were simply in the right place at the right time in the course of historical development and faithfully carried out the tasks assigned to them.
Both scholars agree that scientists should not feel guilty even if their scientific discoveries are used in the wrong way. Science is a human cognitive activity and theoretical knowledge system that explores the structure, properties, and laws of things, and can therefore be said to be a part of our lives that has developed alongside the existence of humankind. If we view the development of science as a historical process, even if Einstein had not announced his theory of relativity, someone else would have eventually devised it. Even if Kekulé had not discovered the hexagonal structure of benzene by chance in a dream, someone else would have discovered it someday.
However, this way of thinking can be too harsh on scientists who have made great achievements. For example, when Einstein announced his theory of relativity, only three people in the entire world understood it. This means that it is difficult to estimate how long it would have taken someone in a later generation to come up with the theory of relativity. Similarly, if Kekulé had not discovered the structure of benzene, it is difficult to estimate how long it would have taken someone else to make the same discovery by chance. Therefore, viewing the achievements of scientists as mere results obtained by chance in the course of history raises the question of whether this underestimates their efforts, or conversely, whether scientists who have made inventions harmful to humanity can be held responsible.
Friedrich answers this question by arguing that we must distinguish between discoverers and inventors. He believes that discoverers generally cannot predict the potential uses of their discoveries before they make them, and that it is almost impossible to predict their practical applications because there is a considerable gap between discovery and actual use. Therefore, discoverers cannot be held responsible for the benefits or risks that arise from subsequent uses. On the other hand, he argues that inventors engage in research with specific practical goals in mind, and therefore must have a deep understanding of the social impact of those goals and bear the corresponding responsibility. Inventors must exercise sound judgment and, in conjunction with their public life, exert their influence at the national level if necessary.
Heisenberg partially agrees with this, but points out practical difficulties. He believed that scientific and technological progress tends to move toward maintaining the central order, but that competitive invention would continue until that central order was established. For example, American physicists feared the possibility of Germany manufacturing an atomic bomb and justified their own atomic bomb research in order to prevent this. This was closely related to the hegemony of their own country, and it is difficult to hold scientists responsible in such competition between countries. This is because scientists, as citizens of a country, may make inventions that harm humanity for the sake of national interests, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Therefore, Heisenberg believed that scientists must have logical accuracy, a broad perspective, and strict integrity, and furthermore, rather than simply allowing their inventions to be used for political purposes, they must be able to judge their impact and take responsibility for it themselves.
Based on the discussions of Friedrich and Heisenberg, the responsibilities of engineers can be considered as follows. Engineers are people who solve practical problems based on their knowledge of natural sciences and technology. Some engineers make scientific discoveries, but even these discoveries often have practical purposes. Therefore, engineers cannot escape responsibility for the impact of their research to a certain extent.
It could be argued that engineers should be exempt from responsibility, as in the case of scientific discoveries, because it is difficult to predict all the possible uses of scientific inventions that differ from their original purpose. Furthermore, as long as competition between countries continues, scientific inventions will not stop, so it is questionable whether engineers can be held responsible for each and every invention.
However, engineers must take responsibility to ensure that tragedies such as the dropping of atomic bombs are not repeated as a result of being detached from the real world and focusing only on their dreams. This means “the responsibility to judge from a broad perspective the possibility that one’s inventions may be used contrary to one’s intentions,” as emphasized by Heisenberg.
Heisenberg also insisted that scientists should exert their influence when their inventions are used for political purposes, but this cannot be achieved through the efforts of individual scientists alone. Global consensus is needed to establish measures that enable science to exercise leadership in the public sphere. Therefore, engineers must seek ways to exercise their rights over their inventions in the public sphere. This will enable engineers to clarify their responsibilities for their research and prevent inappropriate research from being justified as historical progress or from evading responsibility.
Ultimately, engineers must fulfill their responsibilities to ensure that their research benefits humanity.
