This blog post examines the benefits and threats that science and technology pose to humanity and what values scientists should pursue amid them.
As we enter the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the development of science and technology has brought many benefits to humanity. Unlike the days when people made a living by hunting and gathering, we can now grow and harvest our own food, and we can use various means of transportation to travel quickly and safely instead of walking long distances. Unlike the days when we wandered around in the dark, we can enjoy a bright night thanks to the invention of light bulbs and the spread of electricity. Machines that used to replace human labor have become increasingly advanced and have taken on a human-like appearance. Humans, who used to look up at the sky and long for the moon and stars, can now explore them in person. In addition, various treatments and medicines have been developed to realize the dream of extending life, and we are living a connected life where we can ask about each other’s well-being anytime and anywhere through smartphones.
As such, the development of science and technology has historically made people’s lives more prosperous and brought about continuous change up to the present day. However, this development has not always been beneficial. There have been cases where development has put humanity in danger. For example, the development of nuclear weapons, starting with the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, has led many countries to possess nuclear weapons and live under the constant threat of nuclear war. In addition, Fritz Haber, who developed a method of synthesizing ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, developed poison gas using nitric acid during World War I, which took the lives of countless people.
These cases raise two questions. First, should science only pursue beneficial values? Second, if science only pursued beneficial values, could it have avoided problems such as the risk of nuclear war and weapons of mass destruction? To find answers to these two questions, it is necessary to understand the nature of science in relation to the scientists who are its agents. And we will discuss whether scientists should pursue beneficial values and consider the values that science should pursue.
Many philosophers of science have discussed the nature of science. First, Karl Popper proposed inductionism and falsificationism as methods for defining science. Inductionism is a method in which a scientist observes various natural phenomena and generalizes a common theory or operating principle based on them. On the other hand, the theory of induction is only a probable inference, so the theory of refutation is presented to make it more certain. The possibility of refutation refers to the possibility that a hypothesis can be refuted through experiments or observations. Based on this, Popper argued that scientific theories develop through the process of speculation and refutation.
Thomas Kuhn described the stages of the development of scientific theories in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as “normal science 1 – the emergence of anomalous phenomena – crisis – paradigm shift – the emergence of normal science 2.” Normal science here refers to research activities based on past scientific achievements, and this research is based on the achievements that a particular community of scientists has made as the basis for scientific progress over a period of time. Kuhn saw science as not developing in a continuous manner, but as being subverted in a revolutionary way by existing paradigms.
Both Kuhn and Popper saw science as being created by the actors of science, that is, scientists or groups of scientists. Taken together, science is created by a specific group of people called scientists, and can be defined as a kind of intellectual activity that explores the general principles of natural phenomena. In other words, science is not something that works on its own, but is carried out by the scientist, the agent of action. Scientific research consists of two stages: topic selection and research exploration, and the scientist’s role in the topic selection process is important. The scientist is an important agent who determines the direction and nature of the research.
Scientists are, above all, members of society. According to communitarianism, the standard of justice is to pursue the interests and happiness of the whole group, and individuals in it have a moral obligation to follow this. Therefore, since scientists are also members of the community, they have an obligation to conduct research that benefits society. For example, scientists should not participate in or reject research such as the development of nuclear bombs because it does not benefit society. When selecting research topics, scientists should select topics that are beneficial to society as a whole. If scientists ignore this definition, scientific advancements that lead to global threats such as nuclear weapons will occur again.
Science has a huge impact on society. The development of science can make our lives more prosperous, but it can also pose a great threat. Scientists in society have the authority of experts, and their research results influence important decision-making based on the trust of many people. For example, the scientist’s research was also at issue in the case of the humidifier sterilizer incident of Oxy. After a prominent professor fabricated a research report and announced that the sterilizer for humidifiers was harmless to the human body, many people used it with peace of mind, but in fact, it contained many harmful substances. As a result, 78 people, including 36 infants and toddlers, died. Therefore, scientists have a responsibility to consider the impact of their research on society and make value judgments when selecting research topics.
Science is inseparable from scientists, and the nature of science is determined by scientists. Scientists should conduct research that benefits society, and accordingly, the nature of science is naturally defined as benefiting society.
However, research that pursues unjust values should be filtered out during the topic selection process. However, there are cases where the results do not come out as intended even though the research pursues just values. For example, Alfred Bernhard Nobel invented dynamite to create a safer explosive after seeing how many people were injured by liquid explosives. However, dynamite was later used as a tool of murder. As such, research that begins with a righteous value may unintentionally lead to negative results. That is why it is important for scientists to do their best to explore the truth in the course of their research.
Finally, we need to think about the extent to which science benefits humans. The development of nuclear weapons may be justified in terms of scientific progress for the defense of one’s own country, but since humanity belongs to the global community, we should prioritize global values. We can also pursue scientific progress for the socially disadvantaged. For example, 3D printing technology has helped people who are missing one hand to make prosthetic hands at a low cost, and blind students can feel the faces of their peers and themselves through 3D printed yearbooks. In this way, science can also be used as a tool for the socially disadvantaged.
In conclusion, science is a research activity conducted by scientists, and scientists should select topics that benefit society as a member of the community. Scientists have a responsibility to consider the impact of their research on society and to pursue beneficial values. The scope of the benefits should be as broad as possible, covering the entire human community, and it should also be directed towards the socially disadvantaged. Ultimately, scientists should actively pursue beneficial values through research and have an attitude of thinking about how to develop society.
