In this blog post, we will examine why society’s involvement is necessary for the advancement of science and what kind of relationship should exist between science and society.
The Advancement of Science and Society’s Responsibility
Science has evolved rapidly from the ancient Greek philosophers’ exploration of nature to the present day. The pace of this scientific progress has accelerated over time, and it is no exaggeration to say that new advancements are made every day. While technology was once considered a relatively independent field from science, today scientific knowledge is directly applied to technological development, and technology, in turn, drives scientific progress—effectively blurring the boundaries between the two fields. Advances in science and technology have enabled humanity to escape the hardships of scarcity and enjoy a more prosperous life. However, these advancements have not brought only positive effects to humanity. Like two sides of a coin, scientific and technological progress has also brought new risks.
A prime example is the development of nuclear power. Albert Einstein’s formula E=mc², when combined with subsequent advances in nuclear physics, laid the foundation for producing enormous amounts of energy through nuclear fission. At the same time, however, it also made possible the development of the atomic bomb—a weapon of mass destruction capable of devastating an entire city. While science and technology have long enriched human life, they have also significantly increased the potential for causing serious harm to humanity.
The Manhattan Project, the world’s first atomic bomb development project, was carried out during World War II, but the scientific achievements that formed its foundation had already been accumulating since the early 20th century.
In 1905, Albert Einstein, then a 26-year-old employee at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, published a groundbreaking theory that would later be known as the special theory of relativity. The paper, titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” contained the core concepts of the special theory of relativity, and a follow-up paper published that same year introduced the most famous equation in history: E=mc² (E: energy, m: mass, c: speed of light). Also known as the “mass-energy equivalence principle,” this formula demonstrated that mass can be converted into energy, and that even a very small amount of mass can be transformed into immense energy.
Around the same time, scientists across Europe—including those in France and the United Kingdom—were focusing their research on quantum mechanics and nuclear physics to elucidate the structure of the atom and the behavior of matter. Ernest Rutherford of the United Kingdom, who had discovered the existence of the atomic nucleus through alpha-particle scattering experiments, succeeded in 1919 in creating an oxygen atom by colliding an alpha particle with a nitrogen atom—a nuclear reaction. Subsequently, in 1932, Rutherford’s student James Chadwick discovered the neutron, and inspired by this, the Italian Enrico Fermi conducted neutron collision experiments on nearly every element. As this body of research grew, scientists became convinced that the manufacture of a bomb using a nuclear fission chain reaction was no longer merely a theoretical possibility but could become a reality.
When World War II broke out in 1939, the United States officially launched the “Manhattan Project” in 1942 in response to persistent requests from scientists concerned that Germany might develop an atomic bomb first. Led by the young theoretical physicist Robert Oppenheimer, thousands of scientists conducted research with the single goal of developing an atomic bomb, and on July 16, 1945, the world’s first nuclear test was successfully carried out at the Trinity Test Site in New Mexico. However, as it became known that Germany had already come very close to developing an atomic bomb at that time, the project’s purpose was significantly undermined. Nevertheless, uranium and plutonium bombs were ultimately dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, and Japan surrendered in August 1945. However, this process resulted in the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed or exposed to radiation.
Since then, international awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons has increased significantly. With the signing of various international treaties and agreements to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the likelihood of their use has been curbed to some extent, and nuclear power began to gain attention as an alternative solution to energy shortages. However, the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the United States, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident—caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami—demonstrated that nuclear power generation also carries significant risks. As a result, in South Korea and other countries operating nuclear power plants, there has been active civic activism and public debate warning about nuclear safety and the risks of nuclear energy.
These changes demonstrate that society has begun to actively reflect on and engage with advancements in science and technology. At the same time, scientists have come to face new demands regarding social responsibility. Whenever ethical and social issues arise that cannot be resolved within the scientific community alone, science and society come into conflict. These conflicts extend beyond questions of ethics and morality to policy issues, such as the level of risk society is willing to accept and the appropriate amount of public funds to invest in research. Science and scientists are no longer entities separate from society. In other words, societal involvement is essential to the advancement of science.
Does societal involvement hinder scientific progress?
While some argue that societal involvement can reduce the risks posed by science and technology, others contend that it may, conversely, hinder scientific progress. In fact, in early medieval Europe, following the migration of the Germanic tribes and the collapse of the Roman Empire, political and social turmoil persisted in Western Europe, resulting in a significant disruption of the scholarly traditions of ancient Greece and Rome. Furthermore, within the religious-centric social climate of the time, research in natural philosophy was sometimes restricted. For these reasons, this period was long referred to as Europe’s “Dark Ages.”
However, recent historical scholarship has adopted a more cautious view of this interpretation. The Middle Ages were not merely a period of darkness but also a crucial era during which knowledge in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and chemistry—developed in the Arab and Islamic worlds—was transmitted to Europe. Alchemy, in particular, contributed to laying the foundation for chemistry by developing various compounds and experimental techniques. Furthermore, the development of medieval universities and Scholastic philosophy played a crucial role in establishing a tradition of systematically studying Aristotelian philosophy and logically investigating natural phenomena.
Thus, it cannot be concluded that societal involvement necessarily hinders the development of science. While the social environment may appear to slow scientific progress at certain times, from a broader historical perspective, society and science have influenced each other and developed together. Moreover, given the rapid pace of scientific and technological advancement today, it is unlikely that appropriate social involvement would fundamentally hinder scientific progress itself.
Lessons from the Manhattan Project
The Manhattan Project was a pivotal event in the history of science in many respects. It broke away from previous research methods to introduce the “Big Science” model, in which thousands of scientists collaborated systematically toward a single goal—the development of the atomic bomb—and it served as a catalyst for subsequent large-scale, state-led scientific research. Furthermore, by impressing upon the world the immense influence of science, it brought about a significant shift in the public’s perception of science. Above all, this event served as a crucial catalyst that prompted the scientific community to seriously reflect on the issue of “scientists’ social responsibility.” In July 1955, shortly before Einstein’s death, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto—co-authored with the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell—was published, warning of the dangers that nuclear war would pose to all of humanity. This served as a catalyst for the gradual expansion of scientists’ peace movements and social engagement.
The era when science remained confined solely to the realm of pure academia is now over. Today, science and society are in a closely intertwined relationship. Society influences science and the activities of scientists through ethical, economic, and political constraints; conversely, scientific achievements and applied technologies derived from basic science have a profound impact on the lives of people around the world. Sometimes, that impact manifests in unexpected ways.
Today, science is also influenced by capital, politics, and various vested interests. There is a possibility that the direction or results of research may be distorted or exaggerated for economic or political purposes. Furthermore, as scientific information spreads rapidly through the internet and various media, there are numerous instances where inaccurate or exaggerated information is conveyed. In such circumstances, social verification and ethical oversight are necessary, in addition to autonomous efforts within the scientific community. At the same time, scientists must not remain confined to their laboratories but actively engage with society, striving to accurately explain and help policymakers and citizens understand rapidly advancing science and technology.
Who Should Determine the Purpose of Science?
The question of what the purpose of science is cannot be answered in a single sentence. However, one thing is clear: scientists themselves must take responsibility for this. Some argue that science cannot be left solely to individual scientists or specific groups, and that since science and technology have a significant impact on society as a whole, they must be utilized in the direction demanded by society.
However, if science and technology are utilized solely based on the purposes demanded by society at any given time, no one can guarantee that another tragedy like “Little Boy” will not occur again. The scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project at the time were also aware, to some extent, of the potential impact their research could have on the world, but there were limits to what they could do to actively prevent it. For this reason, science and scientists remain the subject of criticism and scrutiny regarding social responsibility to this day.
Of course, appropriate regulation of science and technology is necessary. However, no matter how much regulation is strengthened, it is not easy to completely suppress a scientist’s desire to conduct research in a specific field. Therefore, scientists—who understand their respective fields more deeply than anyone else—must take the lead in making responsible judgments regarding the potential applications and research directions of science. Furthermore, the extent to which such research outcomes are permitted in society and how they should be utilized are issues that society as a whole must discuss and decide together.
Science and society are already closely intertwined, and we have entered an era where a single scientific or technological advancement can have a massive impact on the general public in ways that were unforeseen. Consequently, scientists must strive to fully anticipate the ripple effects of new scientific achievements through theoretical analysis and thorough review before they are actually applied, and based on this, they must deeply consider the appropriate direction for their utilization. Now, if any scientific and technological advancement is used in a destructive manner toward humanity, the responsibility lies not only with individual scientists but also with society as a whole, which selects and utilizes such advancements.
