In this blog post, we explore the essence and importance of the responsibility engineers must uphold amid scientific and technological progress, through Heisenberg’s ‘Part and Whole’.
Heisenberg is a physicist renowned for the ‘Uncertainty Principle,’ one of the core theories of quantum physics. ‘Part and Whole’ is a book Heisenberg authored, compiling debates he engaged in with numerous scholars throughout his life. While many debates are covered, this essay focuses specifically on the chapter titled ‘On the Responsibility of the Researcher.’ Heisenberg became the de facto leader of Germany’s uranium program during World War II. He reportedly felt considerable guilt knowing his research (on atomic nuclei) was being used to manufacture atomic bombs. Many modern engineers also face debates about the extent of the social responsibility researchers should bear as they engage in diverse research driven by personal interest. For instance, issues arise when research is used contrary to the researcher’s intent, when research outcomes are produced solely to fulfill obligations as an employee, or when responsibility becomes unclear due to collaborative research. In this context, we will consider what responsibility modern engineers bear as researchers by examining Heisenberg’s discussions on ‘the responsibility of the researcher’ with his fellow physicists at the time.
Heisenberg conducted research in Germany until World War II, but was exiled from his homeland when Hitler expelled Jewish scientists from Germany. He subsequently led a nomadic life, moving between Heidelberg, Paris, and Belgium. After many years of wandering, he eventually settled for a long period at a large country house called Farm Hall in the English countryside, alongside his old friend who had researched uranium and young collaborators. On the afternoon of August 6, 1945, upon hearing news of the atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, Heisenberg engaged in a discussion with Friedrich about the responsibility of scientists as researchers.
Friedrich argued that he need not feel guilty about his scientific discoveries being tainted by the stain of such a catastrophe. This is because human life in today’s world relies extensively on scientific progress, and since knowledge is power, the struggle for power on earth will persist as long as the fight for knowledge continues. Therefore, for the time being, scientific progress will remain part of humanity’s life process, and one cannot say that individuals active within it are guilty.
Heisenberg also agrees that natural science is part of the life process and believes that participating in it cannot be considered sinful. He regards the development of science as a historical process, arguing that if someone had not made a particular scientific discovery, another scientist would likely have made it a few years later. In other words, he argued that individuals are merely placed in their positions by historical development and can only perform the tasks assigned to them excellently in that position; nothing more.
Both scholars essentially agreed that scientists need not feel guilty about scientific discoveries being misused. It is difficult to refute this argument. Science can be defined as humanity’s theoretical cognitive activity exploring the structure, properties, and laws of things, as well as the systematic, theoretical knowledge produced by this activity. Therefore, science has developed as part of our lives since humans first existed on Earth. Consequently, the development of science can be viewed as a historical process. Accepting this leads to the following thoughts. Even if Einstein had not published his theory of relativity, someone else would have devised it within a few years. Similarly, the German chemist Kekulé is said to have discovered the hexagonal structure of benzene by chance, through an idea he obtained in a dream. In such cases too, even if Kekulé had not existed, someone else would have made the discovery within a few years. However, I believe this line of thinking is too harsh on the scientists who achieved great feats for humanity. For instance, when Einstein published his theory of relativity, it is said that only three people in the entire world understood it. This makes it difficult to imagine how long it would have taken for someone else in a later generation, not Einstein, to devise the theory of relativity. Similarly, it’s difficult to fathom how long it would take for someone else to experience the same serendipity that led Kekulé to discover benzene’s hexagonal structure. Therefore, it raises questions: Is it not unduly dismissive of the immense effort these individuals expended—effort that accelerated civilization’s progress by years—to regard the achievements of those who made inventions beneficial to humanity as merely inevitable outcomes of the historical process? Furthermore, does this also imply that the achievements of those who made inventions harmful to humanity bear no responsibility, simply because they are merely historical products?
Friedrich seeks to answer these questions by arguing that discoverers and inventors must be considered separately. Discoverers generally know nothing of the potential uses of their discoveries beforehand, and even afterward, the path to practical application remains distant, making prophecy nearly impossible. Therefore, discoverers cannot be held responsible for the benefits or dangers arising from the practical application of their discoveries in later times. In contrast, he argues that inventors, who certainly calculate specific practical goals, should bear commensurate responsibility. Inventors are thus required to gain insight into their goals within a broader context. This means that when striving to act upon and realize their ideas, they must endeavor to integrate them with public life and exert influence extending broadly to national administration.
Heisenberg acknowledges this argument to some extent but contends that it faces practical difficulties. He argues that scientific and technological progress will ultimately lead to a relationship maintaining a central order, and competitive scientific invention will persist until it is determined who will maintain that central order. For example, American physicists were deeply fearful that Germany might attempt to build an atomic bomb. They justified their own atomic bomb research to avoid the catastrophe of Hitler’s victory enabled by the atomic bomb. However, this too was closely tied to their own nation’s hegemony, and they justified the atomic bombings based on the principle that the end sanctifies the means. He thus argues that competition among nations leads to a race of indiscriminate scientific invention, making it practically difficult to hold scientists accountable. This is because scientists, as citizens of a nation, whether by choice or compulsion, can make inventions harmful to humanity for the sake of national interests. Therefore, Heisenberg believed scientists must be endowed with logical precision, broad vision, and strict integrity. Furthermore, he argued that responsibility is required not only to judge and influence the use of their inventions themselves, rather than simply leaving it to politics.
Examining the responsibility of engineers based on the stories of Friedrich and Heisenberg reveals the following. Engineers are individuals who solve practical problems using natural scientific and technical knowledge. While some engineers do make scientific discoveries, even such discoveries are grounded in practical objectives. Therefore, since engineers undoubtedly pursue research with specific goals, they cannot entirely evade responsibility for the impact of their work.
One might counter that scientific inventions, like discoveries, cannot foresee all uses beyond their original intent, so shouldn’t they also be exempt from responsibility? Furthermore, since the world consists of many nations and scientific invention cannot be halted as long as competition between them persists, one might question whether individual accountability is feasible.
However, to avoid turning our backs on the real world, retreating into an ivory tower, and becoming lost in self-satisfying dreams that could lead to another catastrophe like the atomic bomb, engineers themselves must adopt an attitude of responsibility for their inventions. This responsibility means the duty, as Heisenberg argued, to “judge from a broad perspective whether one’s invention could be used for purposes beyond one’s own intentions.”
However, Heisenberg also called for influence over the political use of inventions, which I believe cannot be achieved solely through scientists’ individual efforts. Specifically, mechanisms must be established allowing scientists to exercise rights regarding leadership in public matters, requiring the unanimous consent of all nations worldwide. Therefore, based on the understanding of the responsibilities of engineers mentioned above and the reasons for securing them, engineers must seek ways to exercise their rights over their inventions in public affairs as well. Securing engineers’ responsibilities in this manner would clarify their accountability for their research and prevent them from whitewashing their inappropriate research through historical processes to evade responsibility.
Therefore, ultimately, the most crucial aspect of an engineer’s responsibility lies in their own transformation. Furthermore, I believe this can be achieved through changes in the environment in which engineers operate, grounded in the consent of the global community. If the issue of an engineer’s responsibility becomes clear through this process, humanity can develop in the right direction, empowered by science.
