Did Heisenberg fulfill his mission as a scientist in history, or is he not free of ethical responsibility?

Heisenberg remained in Germany to continue his research amid the chaos of World War II. He fulfilled his responsibilities as a scientist by seeking political compromise, but he was unable to avoid the ethical dilemma of indirectly contributing to the development of weapons of mass destruction.

 

When I first opened Heisenberg’s The Part and the Whole and looked at the table of contents, it was difficult to get an overall sense of the book’s themes. There were 20 individual chapters listed under different titles, and the topics covered in each chapter seemed to vary widely. The meaning of the title “Part and Whole” was also not readily apparent from the table of contents. At first, I thought the book was a physics book or a simple memoir, but as I read through it, I realized that Heisenberg’s book was a combination of historical background, philosophical discussions, and physical musings. Heisenberg was not just disseminating his knowledge as a scientist, but also revealing his struggles as an intellectual in the turbulent history of his time.
My particular attention was drawn to the middle of the book, where Heisenberg describes Germany during World War II and the internal conflicts and struggles he faced as a scientist and as a human being during that tumultuous history. At the time, the world was in the throes of World War II, and science was advancing rapidly. Einstein, Max Planck, Rutherford, Otto Hahn, and other brilliant scientists of the time were making revolutionary breakthroughs in physics. But aside from scientific advancements, the world was heading toward chaos and catastrophe with the rise of Nazi Germany.
Heisenberg was still researching and teaching at the University of Leipzig, and his native Germany was becoming an increasingly repressive society under the Nazi regime. In the name of “National Socialism,” the Nazis dehumanized Jews, Gypsies, and other ethnic minorities, attempting to erase their identities. Despite this political oppression, Heisenberg did not leave Germany and continued his research. This was not simply because he was loyal to his country, but rather because he was deeply troubled and conflicted about his responsibilities and role as a scientist and intellectual.
In Chapter 12, ‘Revolution and University Life,’ he describes two conversations. One with a National Socialist youth who walked into one of his lectures wearing a Nazi uniform, and the other with Max Planck, who came to him for political advice. The young Nazi talks about the corruption and powerlessness in Germany at the time, and asks why Heisenberg isn’t part of the change. Heisenberg responds that the means do not justify the ends, and that true change must be gradual. He offers a realistic view of the limited impact humans can have on society, arguing that steady reflection and improvement are preferable to revolution.
Heisenberg later talks with Planck, and he agrees with his advice about the importance of preparing for a Germany after this turbulent time has passed. Rather than compromise with the injustices of the present, Heisenberg stayed in Germany to continue his research, thinking about preparing for the future. In Chapter 14, ”Individual Behavior in Political Catastrophe,” he contemplates the problem of participating in government-led physics research under the Nazi regime. In particular, after the discovery of nuclear fission, physicists were under pressure to utilize the technology militarily. Heisenberg, for one, felt uneasy that his research could lead to weapons development, but he kept his mission as a scientist and the rebuilding of Germany after the war in mind.
It’s important to note here that Heisenberg was not simply making a political compromise. He did not become politically active, nor did he choose to go into exile; he remained where he was, continuing his research and trying to find his own balance in a time of turmoil. While Heisenberg’s choices are understandable, they are also open to criticism given the responsibilities of science in the political and social climate of the time.
Physics during this period went beyond mere research and was used to develop weapons of mass destruction. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima is a prime example. Of course, Heisenberg didn’t develop the bomb himself, but he can’t be completely exonerated of his role in the development of the physics he studied that eventually led to the weapon of mass destruction. The knowledge of physicists of the time played a key role in the development of nations’ weapons, which shaped the course of the war. Heisenberg was part of this process, albeit indirectly.
Furthermore, even in the modern world, the neutrality of science is often questioned. Just as science was used for military purposes in Heisenberg’s time, it can be distorted by capital and power today. David Michaels’s book, For Hire, highlights these issues. For example, researchers funded by tobacco companies produced scientific results that concealed the harmful effects of tobacco. Science claims to be value-neutral, but it must always be guided by social responsibility and ethical considerations.
In conclusion, Heisenberg should have thought more deeply about the social implications of his research. Science is not independent of society, and scientists should have a higher sense of ethical responsibility, especially those who can have a major impact on the public. We cannot turn a blind eye to a brutal and massive historical reality simply because we “didn’t know” about it. Heisenberg should have handled his role in that reality more sensitively, and it remains an important lesson for scientists today.