A phenomenon of recent years is the emergence of a class of full-time scientists. Accompanying this phenomenon is the question: to what extent should scientists be held responsible for the effects of their discoveries and inventions? In my opinion, they should be, to a large extent, because of the disproportionate power they wield, and because science, it seems to me, is not value-free, especially so in the modern era.
Many of the arguments that contend that scientists should not bear responsibility take root from the belief in value-free science. They claim that scientists, in the capacity of their occupation, are only in charge of seeking out the truth, and do not have the right to contaminate the purity of their profession by imposing their personal moral judgement on their work.
However, it is my belief that this is an utterly specious line of reasoning arising from a fundamental flaw—that science is not, in fact, value-free. First of all, the duty of a scientist often, if not, always, overlaps with his or her role as a member of society. As a part of society, the scientist is, ideally speaking, obliged to preserve, or better, the well-being of society. This already places automatically an innate bias in his or her research work.
[...] How far should scientists be held responsible for the effects of their discoveries and inventions? A phenomenon of recent years is the emergence of a class of full-time scientists. Accompanying this phenomenon is the question: to what extent should scientists be held responsible for the effects of their discoveries and inventions? In my opinion, they should be, to a large extent, because of the disproportionate power they wield, and because science, it seems to me, is not value-free, especially so in the modern era. [...]
[...] Whilst the public possesses imperfect knowledge of the scientific work and its ramifications, the scientist is fully aware of, or at least more conscious of, the potence of his or her discoveries and inventions. This knowledge is surely incommensurate to the capacity of an ordinary societal member, thus elevating the scientist. In light of this power to bring forth either improvement or destruction, the scientist therefore has a responsibility towards the society to answer for the consequences of his or her own actions. [...]
[...] If not, then the scientific research has at least a predetermined agenda since it is funded by big businesses which are inherently profit-driven. Thus with this predestined intent fuelling scientific research, science cannot be value-free, and increasingly scientists should be held responsible for the effects of their discoveries and inventions. Nonetheless, just because knowledge can be abused does not qualify ignorance. This is why scientists, being as they are in their privileged positions, should bear the onus and take especial care in their choices. [...]
[...] A notorious example is the invention of the atomic bomb during the Second World War, which not only annihilated life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also left a trail of diseases and maladies behind. With such purposes driving scientists' inventions and discoveries in the modern era, science is all the more definitely not value-free, rendering scientists responsible for the effects of their actions. It is also wise to note that modern scientific research very often requires a lot of financial and material funding. The recrudescent compromise is hence the scientist working for the of a multi-national corporation while the latter reciprocates by funding (or providing whatever is needed for that matter). [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
