This blog post examines how much responsibility scientists and engineers should bear for their inventions and discoveries, focusing on Heisenberg’s theory of researcher responsibility.
Heisenberg is a physicist famous for the ‘Uncertainty Principle,’ one of the core theories of quantum physics. His book ‘Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations’ compiles debates he had with various scholars throughout his life. While many debates are included, this blog post will focus on the chapter titled ‘On the Responsibility of the Researcher.’
Heisenberg reportedly felt significant guilt during World War II, as he practically led Germany’s uranium program while knowing his research (on atomic nuclei) could be used to manufacture atomic bombs. Many modern engineers also grapple with the question of how far a researcher’s social responsibility should extend, given that research they pursue out of interest can sometimes be used for purposes different from their original intent. For instance, the obligation to achieve research results as an employee and the allocation of responsibility in collaborative research are subjects of debate. In this context, we aim to examine the responsibilities required of researchers today by exploring Heisenberg’s discussions on ‘researcher responsibility’ with his contemporaries in physics.
Heisenberg continued his research in Germany until the outbreak of World War II, but was forced to move around various locations as the Hitler regime expelled Jewish scientists from Germany. He passed through Heidelberg, Paris, Belgium, and eventually spent a long period at the large country house Palm Hall in the English countryside with his young colleagues who had collaborated on uranium research. Upon hearing the news of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945, Heisenberg began a discussion with Friedrich about the responsibility of scientists as researchers.
Friedrich argued that Heisenberg need not feel guilty that his scientific discovery had caused such a catastrophe. He believed modern human life depended heavily on scientific progress, and since knowledge equaled power, the competition to acquire this power would persist, meaning the competition for knowledge would continue. Therefore, scientific advancement was part of humanity’s life process, and one could not say individuals participating in it were guilty.
Heisenberg also agrees that natural science is part of the human life process and believes such activity cannot be viewed as sinful. He regards the development of science as a historical process, arguing that if a particular scientist had not made a certain scientific discovery, someone else would have made it eventually. In other words, individuals were simply present at that point in the historical development process and faithfully performed the tasks assigned to them.
Both scholars concur that scientists need not feel guilt even when scientific discoveries are misused. Science, as a human cognitive activity exploring the structure, properties, and laws of things, and as a theoretical knowledge system, is part of our lives that has developed alongside humanity’s existence. If we view the development of science as a historical process, then even if Einstein had not published his theory of relativity, someone else would have eventually devised it. Even if Kekulé had not discovered the hexagonal structure of benzene by chance in a dream, someone else would have discovered this structure at some point.
However, this line of thinking could be too harsh an assessment for scientists who have made great contributions. For instance, when Einstein published his theory of relativity, it is said that only three people worldwide understood it. This makes it difficult to estimate how long it would take someone in a later era to independently devise the theory of relativity. Similarly, if Kekulé had not discovered the structure of benzene, it is hard to guess how long it would have taken someone else to stumble upon such a discovery by chance. Therefore, viewing scientists’ achievements as mere accidental outcomes of historical processes raises questions: does this undervalue their hard work? Conversely, does it mean we cannot hold scientists accountable for inventions harmful to humanity?
Friedrich addresses these questions, arguing that discoverers and inventors must be distinguished. He contends that discoverers generally cannot foresee the potential applications of their discoveries beforehand, and predicting their practical uses is nearly impossible due to the significant gap between discovery and actual application. Therefore, discoverers cannot be held responsible for the benefits or dangers arising from subsequent uses. Conversely, inventors, who undertake research with specific practical goals in mind, must deeply understand the social impact of those goals and bear corresponding responsibility. Inventors must practice sound judgment, integrate their work with public life, and exert influence at the national level if necessary.
Heisenberg partially agrees with this while pointing out practical difficulties. He observes that scientific and technological progress tends toward maintaining a central order, but competitive invention will continue until that central order is established. For example, American physicists, fearing Germany’s potential to build an atomic bomb, justified their own atomic bomb research to prevent this. This is closely tied to national hegemony, and it is difficult to hold scientists accountable within such international competition. Scientists, as citizens of a nation, can make inventions harmful to humanity for national interests, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
Therefore, Heisenberg believed scientists must possess logical precision, broad vision, and strict integrity. Furthermore, rather than simply allowing their inventions to be exploited politically, they must judge their impact themselves and take responsibility for it.
Based on Friedrich and Heisenberg’s discussion, the responsibility of engineers can be considered as follows. Engineers are people who solve practical problems based on natural scientific and technical knowledge. While some engineers make scientific discoveries, these discoveries often serve practical purposes. Therefore, engineers cannot entirely escape responsibility for the consequences their research may bring.
One might counter that, just as with scientific discoveries, they could be exempt from liability because it is difficult to predict all possibilities of scientific inventions being used for purposes other than their original intent. Furthermore, as long as competition among nations persists, scientific invention will not cease, raising the question of whether one can hold individuals accountable for every single instance.
However, engineers must take personal responsibility to prevent tragedies like the atomic bombings from recurring, which resulted from becoming detached from the real world and becoming overly absorbed in their own dreams. This signifies the ‘responsibility to judge from a broad perspective the possibility that one’s invention may be used contrary to intent,’ as emphasized by Heisenberg.
Heisenberg also urged scientists to exert influence when their inventions are exploited politically, but this is not achievable solely through the efforts of individual scientists. Establishing mechanisms for science to exercise leadership in the public sphere requires global consensus. Therefore, engineers must explore ways to exercise their rights over their inventions within the public domain. This will ensure engineers clearly define their responsibility for their research, preventing the justification of inappropriate research through historical processes or the evasion of accountability.
Ultimately, engineers must fulfill their responsibility to ensure their research advances in a direction that benefits humanity.
