Module 7 - Science and Risk
Quick Access to General Introduction to Science and Risk | Science and Catastrophic Risk | Inductive Risk in Science? | Self-Test
Instructed by Prof. Andre Curtis-Trudel
General Introduction to Science and Risk
Science and Catastrophic Risk
Robert Oppenheimer
Around the 5th c. BCE, the Greek philosopher Leucippus suggested the atomic hypothesis - that the world is fundamentally composed of atoms. Two and a half thousand years later, the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated in the desert of New Mexico by a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Oppenheimer – known collectively as the ‘Manhattan Project’. Since then, humanity has lived under the threat of potentially catastrophic nuclear war.
It did not take long for scientists to begin to reflect on their role in bringing about this state of affairs. Robert Oppenheimer, for instance, writes that:
Despite the vision and far seeing wisdom of our wartime heads of state, the physicists felt a peculiarly intimate responsibility for suggesting, for supporting and in the end in large measure for achieving the realization of atomic weapons. Nor can we forget that these weapons as they were in fact used, dramatize so mercilessly the inhumanity and evil of modern war. In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin, and this is a knowledge which they cannot loose. (Quoted by Mendelsohn in Science in the Twentieth Century.)
Oppenheimer himself went on to advocate for disarmament, with little success. Since then, scientists have played an increasingly prominent role in public discourse surrounding existential risks like nuclear war and climate change, and scientists are routinely consulted by politicians and other stakeholders about how best to respond to these risks.
This episode raises various important philosophical questions about the relationship between science and existential risk. For instance, do scientists have a responsibility to not engage in research which will lead, or can be reasonably foreseen to lead, to the development of potentially catastrophic technologies like nuclear weapons? And what role, if any, should scientists play in addressing and mitigating these risks? We will explore these questions in more detail in the following video.
Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this component, students will be able to:
- Describe how scientific research can contribute to technologies that pose catastrophic risks.
- Explain different views about the role of science in addressing catastrophic risk.
- Articulate their own perspective on the relationship between science and catastrophic risk.
Inductive Risk in Science
Little in science is known for certain, and all scientific inquiry involves reasoning under uncertainty. Scientific research therefore involves distinctively epistemic risks that must be taken into account when conducting scientific inquiry. (Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge and justification.
Epistemic risks are risks that pertain to uncertainty and our present state of knowledge.) In the simplest terms, an epistemic risk is the risk of being wrong. Epistemic risks in science comes in different forms and from different sources. Some of the most important types of epistemic risks encountered in science are inductive risks. Roughly put, these are risks that arise when we try to extrapolate from limited scientific data. For example, until the 19th century it was thought that diseases were caused by noxious air produced by garbage and rotting plant and animal matter (this was known as the miasma theory). This theory was based partly on the observation that people living in squalid conditions often got sick. This is not unreasonable as a first guess: at the time, people living in squalor are often exposed to the smell of rotting matter. The inference from noxious smells to the miasma theory of disease was risky – as we now know, there is another, better of explanation of disease. Thus the available evidence - that people living in squalor often get sick - did not perfectly support the miasma theory. Instead, nowadays, we accept the germ theory of disease.
Learning Outcomes
This component will equip students to:
- Understand the notion of epistemic risk.
- Explain different kinds of epistemic risk that arise in science.
- Articulate and defend their views on epistemic risk in science.
Q1) Do you agree with Bridgman’s view that scientists should be free to pursue their research regardless of the social consequences?
I agree with Bridgman's view. I believe that scientists should be free to pursue their research regardless of the social consequences. It is the responsibility of politicians and other thought leaders to ensure that scientific results and technologies are used ethically.
I do not agree with Bridgman's view. I believe that scientists have a responsibility to not pursue research that has potentially drastic negative social consequences. Scientists should work with politicians and other thought leaders to ensure that their research is ethical.
Q2) Scientists working on the Manhattan Project were motivated by the worry that their opponents in Nazi Germany were trying to build an atomic bomb at the same time. What should scientists do when they know that others—who might not have good intentions—are also working on potentially catastrophic technologies?
In this scenario, I believe it is permissible for scientists to work on potentially catastrophic technologies. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction acts as a check on any one side using catastrophic atomic technologies.
In this scenario, I believe it is not permissible for scientists to work on potentially catastrophic technologies. Increasing the number of potentially catastrophic technologies does not make the world a safer place.
Q3) Do scientists have a responsibility, as scientists, to alert the public about potential catastrophic risks?
I believe that scientists have a responsibility as scientists to alert the public about potential catastrophic risks. Scientists are part of the broader social community even in their role as scientists. They still have responsibilities to their broader community.
I believe that scientists do not have a responsibility as scientists to alert the public about potential catastrophic risks. Even though scientists are part of the broader social community, their job as scientists is to investigate the truth. It is the job of politicians and other thought leaders to alert the public about potential catastrophic risks.
Return to the Module List