In this blog post, we will examine the advancement of science, the responsibilities of scientists, and the ethical implications of science and technology through Heisenberg’s ‘The Part and the Whole’.
Modern atomic physics is not only a cutting-edge field of science but also raises various issues that transcend the realm of science, such as philosophy, religion, and politics. This duality is clearly evident in Heisenberg’s ‘The Part and the Whole’. The author of this book, Werner Heisenberg, was a German theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics. At the time, atomic physics, set against the backdrop of World War II, stood at a crossroads between the peaceful use of atomic energy and the development of the atomic bomb. Atomic physics expanded into a political issue, and ultimately, the United States developed the atomic bomb, resulting in the sacrifice of countless innocent lives.
Until then, human progress had been regarded as proportional to scientific advancement. However, the development of the atomic bomb claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and the survivors and their descendants also suffered for a long time from the aftereffects of radiation. Just as there are two sides to every coin, the advancement of science and technology has always been accompanied by side effects, both major and minor. However, the advent of the atomic bomb turned the fear that science and technology could lead all of humanity to destruction into a very real concern.
Consequently, some began to argue that scientific progress could lead to catastrophic disasters and that, since humans cannot predict how science and technology will be used, we should no longer participate in scientific advancement. Furthermore, a perspective emerged that sought to hold the scientists who developed such technologies accountable and pin the blame on them. So, are scientists truly guilty? And should we now turn our backs on science? Based on Heisenberg’s perspective, I intend to critically examine these two arguments.
First, we need to consider whether it is appropriate to criticize the scientists who developed a technology simply because that technology was misused. To do this, we must first define the concept of “development” more precisely. Heisenberg argues that while it is true scientists have a certain connection within the overall causal chain of the misuse of science and technology, using the term “guilt” to describe that relationship is meaningless.
The development of the atomic bomb began with the discovery of uranium fission. Otto Hahn, who first discovered fission, is clearly causally linked to the development of the atomic bomb and the resulting countless casualties. However, this does not mean he can be blamed. The reason is that in science, discovery and invention are clearly distinguished. A discovery is the identification of a new fact, principle, or law, whereas an invention involves setting a specific goal and utilizing the discovered knowledge to achieve that goal.
In science, it is generally difficult to predict the future potential applications of a discovery based on the discovery alone. A discovery is merely the process of understanding a new natural phenomenon, and it takes considerable time before it leads to practical applications. Therefore, at the time of the discovery, it is nearly impossible to predict how it will be used. For this reason, one cannot hold someone accountable for subsequent misuse based on the discovery alone.
In fact, Otto Hahn was deeply shocked upon hearing the news that the atomic bomb had been dropped. However, his shock and frustration stemmed solely from human and moral remorse over the misuse of his research; the fact that he discovered uranium fission did not in itself constitute grounds for liability.
Heisenberg also states the following:
“If Hahn had not discovered uranium fission, Fermi and Joliot would likely have discovered this phenomenon a few years later. Therefore, one cannot impose greater responsibility on the individual who took that decisive step than on others who could have done so in his place.”
Ultimately, as Heisenberg argues, a discovery can be viewed as nothing more than a single point of contact or link within the overall chain of causality.
Conversely, as mentioned earlier, an invention is made with a specific practical goal in mind, and that goal presupposes the value inherent in the technology. An inventor is someone who has recognized the value of their technology. That value may be a new energy source for some, or a weapon of mass destruction for others. Therefore, an inventor who has realized that value and brought the technology to fruition cannot help but bear some responsibility for the misuse of science and technology. In other words, within the overall chain of causality, the inventor has played a role in providing the cause. However, it is unfair to place all the blame on the inventor alone. The process by which, following the invention of the telephone, the cell phone was developed to enable calls outside the home, and subsequently the smartphone emerged to allow free access to the internet, can also be understood in this context.
As such, most scientific and technological inventions today originate from social and communal needs. For this reason, unless a scientist developed a technology solely with the intent to harm humanity, while it is true that they bear some responsibility for the consequences, it is not fair for them to shoulder all the blame alone. In summary, we must distinguish between discovery and invention in the development of science and technology, and it is unfair to hold the discoverer responsible for the misuse of science and technology. On the other hand, the inventor must bear some responsibility for the consequences. Otto Hahn and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the “Manhattan Project,” are prime examples illustrating this distinction.
Next, will science and technology truly lead humanity to destruction? If so, should we now turn our backs on science? If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the argument that we must halt scientific progress for the sake of humanity’s survival and prosperity would also gain credibility. In fact, various debates surrounding these issues continue to this day.
However, whether science and technology will lead humanity to destruction is not a question that can be definitively answered at this point in time. Therefore, it is also impossible to easily reach a conclusion regarding the argument that scientific progress should be halted. What is clear is that science has played a pivotal role in humanity’s development and is highly likely to continue doing so in the future. If scientific progress were to stop right now, humanity’s progress would also come to a significant standstill. However, modern science is advancing at a very rapid pace, and new fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum technology are having a major impact on society as a whole. In this situation, rather than abandoning science, we must guide it to develop in the right direction.
In this regard, Heisenberg states that even for those who regard contributing to scientific or technological progress as a major life goal, that alone is not sufficient. In other words, scientists are burdened with another task they must fulfill in addition to scientific research.
So, what is this additional task that scientists must give more thought to? Above all, scientists must constantly reflect on ensuring that the application of science and technology does not serve only the interests of a select few or endanger the broader community. Of course, since these issues ultimately depend heavily on a scientist’s conscience and morality, this alone is difficult to cite as sufficient grounds for continuing scientific progress. However, these principles are at least universal tenets that anyone can accept.
Similarly, while it is impossible to control the values of every individual, society must guide scientists in that direction. It is difficult to achieve these goals in a society that demands only research outcomes and technological progress from scientists. While requiring conscience and morality as fundamental qualities of scientists, a social atmosphere that respects and encourages them must first take root.
Furthermore, on a more fundamental level, we must reflect on the profound connection between scientific progress and its consequences. We already know from historical experience that modern science can be used for both good and evil. However, turning our backs on science could actually bring even greater disaster upon humanity. Karl Friedrich, who discussed the atomic bomb issue with Heisenberg, stated the following:
“The advancement of science is an integral part of human life; therefore, the challenge is to steer this advancement toward the good, to use the expansion of knowledge solely for human well-being, while ensuring that the advancement itself is not hindered.”
This is precisely the positive direction of development that science should pursue. And this direction begins with first considering what consequences new technologies might bring in the future.
Furthermore, it is necessary to examine its impact from a global perspective. Reflection on these broad implications requires scientists themselves to clearly ascertain the significance of their research within society as a whole. Only then can scientists view their field of research more objectively and realistically.
Can engaging in academic work cultivate the discernment needed to view the world—and humanity’s place within it—more honestly and critically? Heisenberg states that, precisely because he was an expert in atomic physics, he understood better than anyone else the potential for the atomic bomb to be misused; indeed, it was precisely because he recognized this danger that he was able to strive to prevent such misuse. Ultimately, scientists are required to possess not only the ability to investigate and research scientific facts and the necessary technical skills, but also an attitude that takes into account logical precision, a broad perspective, and social responsibility.
Heisenberg emphasized that to cultivate these abilities, the educational value of scholarship must be prioritized over economic value. This is because an education that fosters critical thinking serves as the foundation for cultivating a scientist’s sense of responsibility. It is clear that, alongside advances in science and technology, education that enables rational thinking—allowing for the proper evaluation and application of such advancements—is also of utmost importance.
We cannot all predict what ultimate outcomes science and technology will bring. However, just as the telephone gave way to the cell phone, which in turn evolved into the smartphone, humanity has continuously pursued a better life and greater convenience, and these changes have been achieved through scientific progress. Scientists must strive to ensure that science is used for the good of humanity’s development, and this will only be possible when they consider the interconnections not only with science but also with various other fields such as politics, religion, society, and ethics.
As the title “The Part and the Whole” suggests, the belief in pursuing the holistic interconnections and meaning of the whole without neglecting the details is clearly evident throughout Heisenberg’s academic work and life. Based on his philosophy, I have attempted to answer two questions: “(1) Do scientists truly become sinners?” and “(2) Should we now turn our backs on science?”
It became clear that not all scientists bear responsibility for the misuse of science and technology, and that it is also unfair to place all the blame solely on scientists. Furthermore, it was evident that scientists are entrusted not only with scientific research but also with various social and ethical responsibilities.
In an era like today’s, where specialization and fragmentation are advancing at an ever-faster pace across all fields, it may seem unrealistic or unnecessary to demand that scientists also grapple with philosophy, politics, religion, and ethics. However, as science continues to advance, the world—including South Korea—needs scientists who possess a sense of social responsibility, the ability to reflect on science and technology, and a strong ethical consciousness more than ever before.
Today, the social impact of new science and technology—including not only the risk of war but also issues such as nuclear waste, climate change, bioethics, and the ethics of artificial intelligence—has become a major topic of discussion. The significance of science and technology for society is greater than ever, and in times like these, Heisenberg’s message is worth heeding more deeply than ever.
