|
Letter to the Editor by Harold Beck Published in the BULLETIN of The Institute of Physics and the Physical Society, p.283, September 1967 |
||
|
|
||
|
RÔLE OF SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS IN SOCIETY The President raised and dealt with many important issues in his Address concerning the rôle of scientists and technologists in society (June issue of Bulletin). One point that particularly caught my attention was the function of the scientist or technologist as a political animal. This is a subject worthy of development. To what extent should we be concerned with "proving a case by scoring points in debate or by oratory" and under what circumstances should scientists "create pressure groups if they wish to be taken seriously"? More important, how should such pressure groups conduct themselves in attaining their objectives? Political animality can take many forms and it seems to me that a careful examination of the implications of political action should be made to ensure as far as possible that scientists and technologists make a contribution to national life, walk the corridors of power and indeed exercise power on the basis of scientific knowledge, its attributes and its values rather than on political grounds. At one end of the scale policies may be formulated on a scientific basis and scientists supporting these policies may group together to exert pressure to see that they are implemented. If they do this with integrity and are willing to adjust their policies if new factors come to their attention, there seems to be nothing incompatible with scientific ethics. At the other end of the scale, political activity of a Machiavellian sort, especially if it uses modern knowledge of the behaviour of a group, is surely not consistent with the integrity, direct unambiguous communication and reasoned, open argument which are at the very root of science. Machiavelli has been described as the creator of scientific politics. Paradoxically, the methodology he describes is the destroyer of science in politicians and a scientist who achieves power in this way does so not as a scientist but as a politician. Where in the spectrum of political philosophies between these two extremes should the scientist operate? My preference is for a close proximity to the former - the open, direct way with only occasional concessions, where absolutely unavoidable, to the kind of politics which embodies deception, pressures on individuals and appeal to emotions. The only time a full Machiavellian treatment seems justified is if responsible scientists have sound evidence of an impending catastrophe failing upon the human race and cannot by open persuasion convince their non-scientific political colleagues of it. It has been said that the main concern of a politician is to get things done. Scientists and technologists are in a strong position to get the right things done, rightness being measured by the appropriateness of the action to the task in hand. The use of the powerful concepts of science, technology and engineering, such as uncertainty, duality, prediction, measurement, design, experimentation, discovery and feedback, not solely in the technical sense but in their universally applicable form, puts those trained in their use in a unique position to shape history. They must be careful not to lose that position by adopting practices in widespread (though, be it noted, not universal) use in the political world. If anyone wishes to join me in forming a pressure group to implement this policy, I should be delighted to hear from them. H. V. BECK |
||
|
8a |
|
|