In this blog post, we will examine the necessity and limitations of control through positive and negative examples of scientific progress, and explore ways to use science responsibly.
Scientific and technological progress has been ongoing since ancient times, and many developments, such as the invention of electric lights and the advancement of transportation, have had a positive impact on the quality of human life. On the other hand, there are also developments such as Newton’s dynamite, which were intended to benefit humanity but have been used more to kill people. In recent years, some people have expressed concern about the rapid pace of scientific development, citing examples such as AlphaGo, and argue that scientific development should be controlled. They believe that scientific development in the wrong direction could be harmful to humanity. Let’s examine whether controlling the direction of scientific development can truly benefit humanity.
Science and technology have developed out of human curiosity and necessity. From the use of fire and tools in primitive times to modern information and communication technology and space exploration, science and technology have advanced continuously. In the process, humanity has faced numerous challenges and has strived to overcome them. However, such developments have not always had positive results. Some science and technology have resulted in threats to human life and safety. In this context, we must recognize the potential dangers that scientific and technological developments can bring and seek ways to minimize those dangers.
Why do even technologies that were originally developed for good purposes become harmful? There is a theory that explains this phenomenon based on the value neutrality of science. This theory argues that science and technology are neutral in themselves, and their uses vary depending on the intentions of the people who use them. For this theory to be valid, science and technology must develop in a purely neutral manner, regardless of the values of the times. However, according to Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, scientific revolutions arise from the social and historical context of their time. In other words, scientific development is dependent on its historical context, and therefore the value neutrality of science cannot be established.
Maintaining neutrality in scientific development is nearly impossible. This is because science has always been driven by human needs, desires, and social demands. For example, during times of war, weapons were developed rapidly for military purposes, while during times of peace, science developed in the direction of economic growth and convenience. In this historical context, the claim that science and technology can be purely neutral is far from reality.
If the historical context and intentions of researchers inevitably influence scientific development, should we control development in a direction that benefits humanity? Even if we want to control scientific development in a positive direction, our intentions can be distorted and produce negative results. An example of this is the “planning of science” advocated by John Bernal and others. These were socialist scientists in the 1930s who argued that scientific development should be carried out under a national plan. Initially, this argument received strong support, but it ultimately led to the atomic bombing of World War II and the mass murder carried out by Nazi Germany’s eugenics program. As such, collective-led scientific development carries the risk of pursuing the interests of only one group at the expense of many others.
Furthermore, scientific development with good intentions does not necessarily produce beneficial results. Regardless of the purpose of scientific development, the results can be contradictory depending on how the results are used. For example, around the time of World War I, a German chemist named Fritz Haber discovered a method of concentrating nitrogen to make nitrogen fertilizer. This discovery was originally intended to increase agricultural production, and it enabled the production of food far exceeding the population growth. However, this research became the stepping stone for the development of poison gas in Germany, which ultimately led to mass murder. This case is a good example of how a single scientific advancement can save many lives and kill many others at the same time.
Another example is the Turing machine developed by Alan Turing. Alan Turing created a machine to replace human calculations for the sake of convenience, which became an important stepping stone in the establishment of the information society. However, at the same time, it was used for military purposes such as decryption and ballistic calculations, which helped kill many people. This shows that even scientific developments with good intentions can be beneficial or harmful depending on how they are used.
Science has developed from the past to the present and will continue to develop in the future. We have seen that attempts to control scientific development can lead to dangerous consequences, and that even developments with good intentions can have contradictory results depending on how they are used. In other words, scientific development cannot always be forced to proceed in a positive direction, and there is a risk that it may have adverse effects. Therefore, scientific development should be left to individual scientists, and more attention should be paid to how the resulting science and technology are used.
In conclusion, the development of science and technology has a profound impact on our lives, and it is essential to control that development appropriately. However, if control is too strict or is carried out solely for the benefit of a specific group, it can lead to negative results. Therefore, it is important to leave the direction of scientific and technological development to the free exploration of individual researchers, while ensuring that the results are used in strict accordance with social consensus and ethical standards. We must not forget that this is the way to ensure that science and technology contribute to the welfare of all humankind.
