Maurice Wilkins Talks on Social Responsibility in Science
LSC 11th May 1999 5.30pm
Precis by Angela Ryan, Institute of Science in Society
Please note
I have written this report in the first person in
order to preserve the autheticity of the message from the speaker. The
speaker has agreed that this is indeed a true account of what was said.
There are various levels in which social
responsibility in science can be demonstrated.
One way is through individual scientists. Sue
Mayer is one such scientist She resigned her post at a MAFF associated
laboratory in Bristol after she had been asked to work on a project that
would eventually lead to the development of bacterial weapons. This is the
only example I know of in Britain were a person’s moral position took
precedence over their scientific career. The other is through organizations like Pugwash,
Scientists for Global Responsibility, special governments committees and
so on.
There is an increase in importance to develop all
these levels of social responsibility so as science can be seen in
relation to the needs of society. Science is an Art and Philosophy used in
the development of civilization for the benefit of society.
During the Nazi war, I was working as a physicist
on radar at Birmingham University. We helped some fellow physicists who
were Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany and the physics department at
Birmingham was thick with these very good people. Then nuclear
capabilities came along and I remember tripping on some sacks in my head
of departments office and him saying to me ‘be careful with those,
they contain Uranium oxide’. Anyway I became interested in this new
development and we all got into it , each carried along by the group
feeling. It later took me to Berkley California where I worked on the
bomb. On the day the bomb was detonated, for the first time, I made a
visit to a good friend who said to me, "This is a black Monday, I
always hoped it would never work". When Nagasaki and Hiroshima
happened and I was disgusted, I thought of giving up science altogether
and going off to Paris and becoming a painter. Then I read Schrodingers
book ‘What is Life?’ A big question I thought and that got me
interested in biology. I thought biology would not lead to the same sorts
of terrible consequences. In 1960 I gave a speech in San Francisco after
receiving the Lister Prize and I said that every real important scientific
discovery leads to important applications. I was struck by the response of
the audience who wowed and showed warning over this remark. I thought then
that perhaps such equally awful things could come up from of the discovery
of DNA and I may not have been entirely wrong there.
There was worry about genetically engineered
bacteria escaping from laboratories and Steven Rose, myself and others had
a big meeting at the Royal Society about genetic engineering and that got
the British Society for Resonsibility in Science off the ground. Later
three Nobel laureates and others held another big meeting of friends just
as Edwards and Steptow were preparing the ground for test tube babies and
there was talk of all the unnatural things that science was doing. But
they went about it in a very responsible manner and it went well. These
people did very careful work.
There are many other very controversial areas in
science. Science is essentially unpredictable. We have been caught out in
BSE by political and financial interests. We now have the GM debate and
the Royal Society called a lengthy one day meeting calling on all sorts of
people, representatives of consumer groups, Jonathan Porritt, Green Peace
etc. Lord Sainsbury said that people should engage in ‘open debate’.
I was looking for a more positive word, ‘open dialogue’, that’s
it. This meeting was historic, it strikes a new note although it hasn’t
got much publicity. There has been too much dependence on the man in the
white coat. We now see clearly in medicine that patients want to be
treated like human beings and not talked down to.
About open dialogue, I remember Francis Crick
talking about why he and Watson had worked so well together. He offered a
very creative word "frank", open to the point of even being a
bit rude to one another. This is a key thing for the future, frankness
between specialist scientists and not so specialist ones. Money from
industry is increasingly pouring into science now. Denis Potter battled to
hold on to his life before he eventually passed away so as to give us a
very important message for the future. Lazerous, like Rupert Murdoch shows
us the immense power an individual can have and I think this is a very
important message. Money does make the world go round and it’s not so
easy as it was thirty years ago in science.
The difference between wisdom and knowledge? The
de-humanization of scientists, noses always down at the work bench and the
pressures seem to be moving more and more that way. Scientists must look
broader because they are very involved. In the work of Coleridge he says
that scientists love their experimental material and that this love can be
an impediment. We must broaden more and there must be a closer coming
together of Art and Science and a broader understanding of human life.
In some of our teachings at Kings we touch on a
poem by William Gruper and I’m going to read some of it out because
it says more about wisdom and knowledge that I can ever hope to.
Walking in white snow after a fall
Stillness echoes with sounds so soft
Learning wiser grow without his books
The heart may give good lesson to the head
Jonathan Glover, Philosopher at Kings then spoke.
Important points made by Jonathan Glover and
afterwards during the discussion:
- Jonathan Glover, Prof. of philosophy at Kings
suggested we establish a ‘Whistle Blowers Charter’ to protect
whistle blowers from victimization. He remarked that the chap who
exposed the incompetence of the surgeon in Bristol was dismissed and
thereafter found it impossible to obtain further employment in Britain.
He had to emigrate to New Zealand in the end and this is not at all
fair.
- Jonathan Glover spoke of the reality of social
responsibility and said technology itself enables a certain level of
detachment from the sense of responsibility. He demonstrated this point
by referring to the pushing of ‘the button’ in launching
nuclear war heads. He suggested that in order to overcome this sense of
detachment, a baby should be placed along side the button. In order to
qualify for the responsibility of pushing the button the person must
first strangle the baby. The nuclear war head would undoubtedly kill
many more babies and this process would bring the person in touch with
that fact and highlight the pushing of the button for a terrible act
that it is.
- Jonathan Glover also suggested that scientists
should be able to publish details of their experimental data when
necessary, prior to peer review in a learned scientific journal.
Important scientific debates should not be restricted by codes of
practice nor the lag of time in getting published via the peer review
system. He believes this has significantly hindered open dialogue in the
case of Arpad Pustaiz.
- Maurice Wilkins pointed out the importance of
Ledoux’s work on rats examining the emotion of fear. He said at
last we may have gained real biological evidence that significantly
supports what Freud concluded about the human mind. He suggests people
read Ledoux’s book ‘The Emotional Brain’ and less talk of
‘phyco-babble’ would be very useful in science and society.
| 
