What values should scientists pursue when advances in science and technology have both benefited and threatened humanity?

The scientific and technological advances of the Fourth Industrial Revolution have brought many benefits to humanity, but they have also created threats, such as nuclear weapons. It is necessary to discuss how scientists should be socially responsible and pursue beneficial values when selecting research topics.

 

As we enter the Fourth Industrial Revolution, advances in science and technology have brought many benefits to humanity. We can now grow and harvest our own food, unlike in the past when we had to hunt and gather for sustenance, and we can travel long distances quickly and safely using various modes of transportation rather than sweating and walking. The invention of the light bulb and the widespread availability of electricity have allowed us to enjoy bright nights, as opposed to wandering in the dark at night. Machines that used to replace human labor have become more and more advanced and human-like, and humans who used to look up at the sky and admire the moon and stars can now explore them themselves. In addition, various disease treatments and medicines have been developed to realize the dream of prolonging life, and we live a connected life where we can check in on each other anytime, anywhere through smartphones.
Throughout history, advancements in science and technology have enriched human life and have continued to transform it to the present day. However, these advances have not always been for the better. There have been instances where advancements have put humanity at risk. For example, the development of nuclear weapons led to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, and today many countries possess nuclear weapons and live under the constant threat of nuclear war. In addition, Fritz Haber, who developed a method to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, developed a poison gas using nitric acid during World War I that killed countless people.
These examples raise two questions. First, should science only pursue beneficial values? Second, if science only pursued beneficial values, could we have avoided problems like the risk of nuclear war or weapons of mass destruction? To answer these two questions, we need to understand the nature of science in relation to its agents, scientists. We will then consider the values that science should pursue by discussing whether scientists should pursue beneficial values.
The nature of science has been discussed by many philosophers of science. Karl Popper first proposed inductivism and teleology as ways to define science. Inductivism is when a scientist observes a variety of natural phenomena and generalizes a common theory or principle of operation based on these observations. On the other hand, disprovabilism recognizes that scientific theories derived from inductive reasoning are only speculative, so to make them more certain, disprovability is proposed. Disprovability refers to the possibility that a hypothesis can be disproved through experimentation or observation. Popper used this to argue that scientific theories are developed through a process of speculation and refutation.
In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn described the stages of scientific theory development as “normal science1 – emergence of anomalies – crisis – paradigm shift – emergence of normal science2”. Here, normal science refers to research activities that are based on past scientific achievements, which a particular society of scientists takes as the basis for scientific progress over a period of time. Kuhn believed that science does not progress continuously, but rather in revolutionary ways, overthrowing existing paradigms.
Both Kuhn and Popper saw science as being practiced by an actor – a scientist or group of scientists. Taken together, science can be defined as a type of intellectual activity that explores the general principles of natural phenomena and is practiced by a specific group of people called scientists. In other words, science does not operate on its own, but is carried out by scientists as actors. Scientific research consists of two stages: topic selection and research exploration, and the role of the scientist in the topic selection process is crucial. The scientist is an important actor who determines the direction and nature of the research.
Scientists are first and foremost members of society. According to communitarianism, the standard of justice is the pursuit of the good and happiness of the group as a whole, and the individuals who belong to it have a moral obligation to follow it. Therefore, scientists are also members of the community and have an obligation to conduct research that benefits society. For example, research such as the development of a nuclear bomb does not benefit society, and scientists should refuse to participate in it. When choosing a research topic, scientists should consider the interests of society as a whole and choose a topic that is beneficial. If scientists ignore this definition, scientific advances that lead to global threats such as nuclear weapons will once again occur.
The impact of science on society is profound. Scientific advances can make our lives better, but they can also pose great threats. Scientists are recognized as experts in society, and their findings are trusted by many people and influence important decisions. For example, in the Oxy humidifier sanitizer case, scientists’ research was at issue. After a prominent professor falsified a research report to claim that the humidifier sterilizer was harmless to humans, many people used it with confidence, when in fact it contained a number of harmful substances. The result was a tragedy that killed 78 people, including 36 infants and children. Scientists have a responsibility to consider the impact of their work on society and to make value judgments when choosing research topics.
Science is inseparable from scientists, and the nature of science is determined by scientists. Scientists are supposed to conduct research that benefits society, so 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 pursuit of righteous values did not turn out as expected. For example, Alfred Bernhard Nobel invented dynamite to create a safer bomb when he saw that liquid bombs were killing many people. However, dynamite has since been used as a tool to kill people. As you can see, research that starts with a righteous cause can have unintended negative consequences. That’s why it’s important for scientists to do their best to seek the truth in their research.
Finally, it’s worth thinking about the extent to which science can benefit humanity. While the development of nuclear weapons may be justified in terms of advancing science for the defense of one’s own country, humanity is part of a global community, and global values should be prioritized. Scientific advances can also be pursued for the benefit of the disadvantaged. For example, 3D printing technology has made it possible for people without a hand to make prosthetic limbs cheaply, and blind students can recognize their peers’ faces and feel themselves through 3D printed yearbooks. In this way, science can be used as a tool for the underprivileged.
In conclusion, science is a research activity conducted by scientists, and as members of the community, scientists should choose topics that benefit society. Scientists have a responsibility to consider the impact their research will have on society and to pursue beneficial values. The scope of this benefit can be for the human community as a whole, or it can be directed toward the marginalized. In the end, scientists should actively pursue beneficial values through their research and think about how to improve society.