In a world of countless challenges and issues regarding the environment, diseases, life in space and the future of humans in general, every scientist dreams of finding that which will change the world, of receiving the Nobel Prize for the greatest invention that will go down in history, that will change what we hitherto know. Good. At this point though, I am wondering: does a scientific Nobel Prize align with the values of peace and humanitarianism? For instance, how much responsibility should be attributed to the scientists who invented nuclear energy, taking into consideration the horrible catastrophes that were brought on by its misuse with military equipment?
On the one hand, the scientist is –or should be– an intellectual person. A great deal of responsibility derives from this. S/He has a duty above all to promote the intellect, civilization and the evolution of the human species. And there is no greater indicator of civilization than that of humanitarianism. S/He ought to be conscious of the fact that s/he possesses the power to destroy or save the world. The human should be the foundation of every effort of investigation, not as an individualist and dominant, but as a person who is in tune with and respects the human species as a whole as well as Mother Nature. A scientist who turns a blind eye, who shares his knowledge and findings, unconcerned about their subsequent utilization, does not promote the aforementioned values. On the contrary, the lack of this kind of insight not only does not advance humanity but also implicitly adds to its destruction.
In the last decades, for that matter, with the development of the fields of biotechnology, cloning and eugenics, the dilemmas of bioethics have culminated and the scientific community is held accountable and exposed to the criticism of the public to a greater extent. Despite the major benefits that it has brought about in the fields of evolution and medicine worldwide, the destructions caused by nuclear energy, electrical circuits, military equipment and many other inventions which undermine the human community give birth to a fear against evolution, a certain skepticism concerning the “purity” of the aims of science.
Most definitely, the scientific community is not comprised solely by people of integrity. It is influenced by interests, makes mistakes and often stains the purity of research when the latter serves immoral purposes. However, whether responsibility is attributed entirely on scientists or on nations and global society as a whole does not matter. What matters is that people’s egocentrism and their desire of imposition and dominance over others is always what leads to the misuse of scientific inventions. Nevertheless, scientific research and evolution cannot be stopped, due to the fear that scientific findings might end up in the wrong hands and become the cause of utter disasters. Such thoughts constitute a hindrance to evolution and render every kind of effort futile and negatively-charged. Thus, there is no question about the purity of science per se but rather about the erroneous decisions regarding its utilization. Every society ought to ensure with respect and transparency that the development of any technology occurs solely for peaceful and evolutionary purposes. The scientist, free of such dilemmas, should be able to devote himself to science, not for the sake of science but for the global benefit.
Besides, it is certain that scientificdevelopment cannot possibly be paused. Evolution now is a one-way street and humans will soon be capable of even greater inventions, capable of creating a world inspired by science fiction movies. In hopes that the natural environment will be “saved” and will be fit to host humans for many years to come, the technological and scientific advancement will be so rapid in the next years, that the treatment of every disease, the colonization of space, the countless material comforts and the optimal quality of life will become reality. A new world has been created, with science residing at the centre of it, in almost every aspect of human society.
Science is and always will be the greatest miracle, the most powerful “weapon” that this world possesses. The dilemma, however, is this: is this new “ideal” world for everyone or will the gap between the third and hi-tech worlds be enlarged? Is it possible, after all, that the rapid evolutionary path of humans through science will inevitably result in their moral and social degradation? As the author C. S. Lewis mentions: “Undoubtedly, the founders of modern science were by and large people whose love of truth exceeded their love of power”. Similarly today, science ought not to be the most powerful weapon in the wrong hands, but rather the weapon of all humanity against the challenges that the future holds.
Translation: Asimenia Chliara
Review: Niki Saridaki