Should scientists take an oath?

The discussion developed from here: PSI abilities, ARE THEY REAL!?!

The essence of it can be summarised from Leo's post:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Even if the 'Wrong' side had won that war, affairs would have found a new normalization after no more than 150 years, but more probably things would have been little different than before in about 50. Yet the scientific community went headlong to invent a Globe Destroying Weapon. Not just Einstein, but hundreds of physicists (almost half of the American GNP went to pay for 'secret weapon's development' during the War years). And the most obvious thing about it was that no Politician could ever have imagined the possibility of a Nuclear Weapon. All the Scientists had to do was keep their mouths shut.

Why is it that only Doctors must swear to \"First, do no harm\"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Placebo)</div>

Quote:

---

I can't argue that scientists thought about the humanity of the issue ... they could possibly have avoided the situation
Realistically speaking though, scientists are human, and as such there would always have been someone who would built the unthinkable
[/b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont@

Priests insist upon confidentiality. Lawyers insist upon confidentiality. doctors insist upon doing no harm. Journalists insist upon protecting their sources. So Scientists appear to be the Only Profession that PROFESSES TO HAVE NO MORAL CONSTRAINTS

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Kaniaz

You know, he (Einstein) probably did think that at some point. But what can you really do? It would be either drop an entire field of scientific discovery at the hint of something sinister on the horizon, or keep going and expect the \"powers that be\" to do their job properly. (ie: Not detonate whatever might happen).

Tongue I don't think any scientist would be stupid for inventing something that could blow up the world. They're just putting the tools there that some other guy would only go and invent someplace else - that's just inevitable. If no scientist we know, then some guy in a remote place in china. Arguably it's probably better that every side knew what exists, because then you can get MAD (\"Mututally Assured Destruction\"), which means that no side is going to launch the weapon, because the other has it too, and all it would result in was death on either side. If only, say, China had the weapon, then they could blow up anything they liked at their luxury. Not a good situation.

The person who really is stupid, (in my opinon) would be the one who detonated it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheUnknown
Perigrinus, if it wasn't for scientists.. the human race would be stronger today then ever. Its because of your cures for measles that we now have a weakened gene pool. Yet people wonder why there's so much cancer. Oh no, it would make sense to blame their cellphones, or their zero-calorie sweetner for that. People would rather blame something that can be safely blamed. Wouldn't it be insane if I called pennicillan a horrible invention, yet because of it we now have antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

We came from a world that was natuarally regulated, and took it over. I don't deny it was inevidable, everything happened for a reason. The end is coming however, the bomb is one of the least of our worries.

---

Are you serious?

The pursuit of medicine is as old as the human species itself. Folk remedies are known throughout the world and are passed down from generation to generation as treatments for common ailments. Pharmaceutical medicine is simply the advancement via the application of modern biology and chemistry of the preexisting search for cures to human illnesses. It is not new. It is simply newly successful. I am not defending the myriad flaws of the pharmaceutical system (over-priced drugs unavailable to those who need them, over-prescription of drugs out of convenience rather than necessity, a common disregard for the holistic nature of human health, etc); however, what you are suggesting is that the search for treatment is itself bad – that that historical human pursuit of seeking the physical salvation of our loved ones is bad because such a pursuit desires to fight what you seem to regard as our natural destiny as determined by bacterial infection. When a cat eats grass to clear a painful digestive tract, is that “going against nature”? Is the cat “naturally” supposed to suffer? If the clot is (without the aid of grass) severe enough that the cat is unable to eat and perishes, is that it’s destiny, nature’s way of balancing the population, weeding out the weak? I guess I should go telepathically commune with my cats and tell them that the next time they’re feeling sick, they shouldn’t go eat the grass in the backyard, but rather sit there and take it like the neutered men that they are. Of course, it could be that the weak are those that are not intelligent enough to know about the grass cure – there are many measures of strength.

Honestly, you think people should be allowed to die, that science should turn away from its healing pursuit because diseases balance the population, allowing natural selection to do its work more efficiently? That having children die early somehow brings us as a species in closer communion with the laws of nature? The most developed countries – those with the best access to modern medicine, namely western Europe and North America – have the lowest birth rates and also statistically healthier populations than developing countries. Countries without modern medicine have not only the highest birth rates, but also the fastest growing populations on the planet. These are not populations of healthy, happy, strong, disease-resistant people. The are starving and dying of diseases that can be prevented with a single vaccination. Diseases are not strengthening the populations of those countries – those people have been suffering the same diseases since human beings first inhabited those areas. As our immune systems evolve, the diseases evolve. It's a biological arms race. You said that because of pennicilin, we now have anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. Well, before pennicilin, even the non-resistant strains killed thousands of people. Diseases don’t slow population growth. They simply add to human suffering.

Tell me, if your mother or father, brother or sister, or child were suffering from the ravages of a painful and, in the absence of modern medicine, ultimately terminal disease, would you really rather watch them endure daily, almost unbearable pain rather than support the science that would allow you to walk to the doctor’s office and come back with a cure in a bottle?

What type of oath would a scientist take?
Exploration with limitations is not very productive. I don't think you can classify scientist with lawers & priest.

As far as weakening the gene pool.
We are the only species that denies the laws of nature. ------>survival of the fitest.
Overpopulation and lack of resources to account for it, will be our demise. IMO

Well in my opinion the oath that they take is their years of studying and appyling scientific method. The 'oath' that they adhere to is to question things, test them beyond reasonable doubt, study things etc. Through doing this they discover knowledge. It is not up to them what is done with that knowledge.

Science made the atom bomb, the American government dropped it. Science invented cars, the people that drive them at high speeds while drunk are the ones that crash them.

Here's something to think about:

After the atom bomb was dropped, the scientists that made it realised what they had done. they formed a board to think about the further implications of the bomb, and what could be done about it. They realised that nuclear arms could quickly spread and throw the world into an 'arms race', because if one country had a bomb, then every other country would want one as well. They decided that the best way to deal with it would be to hand over any remaining nuclear arms to an international orginisation, which would be charged with making sure that they were destroyed, and would be in charge of making sure no other country made them either.

These scientists begged with the American Government to do this, and stop it elevating into potential arms race. The American Government ignored it, and continued to manufacture nuclear arms (the American arsenal of operational warheads stands at around 6,000 today) and as a result started a nuclear arms race. Now America is having to deal with North Korea and Iran.

The point? It isn't the scientists that 'lack morals' it's the people that use the knowledge and technology, in this case the people of the American Government, who were probably all god-fearing, church-going men with 'morals'.

Albert Einstein
Old Grove Rd.
Naseu Point
Peconic, Long Island

August 2, 1939


F. D. Roosevelt,
President of the Untied States,
White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:


Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable -- through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America -- that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable -- though much less certain -- that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

The United States has only very poor [illegible] of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of Uranium is Belgian Congo.

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an unofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:

1. To approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and out forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of uranium ore for the United States;
2. To speed up the experimental work, which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make a contribution for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines, which she has taken over. That she should have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, Von Weishlicker [sic], is attached to the Kaiser Wilheim Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Yours very truly,

Albert Einstein


************************************************** **********************************************

Don't mean to double-post, but I knew I had seen this somewhere and thought it might be an interesting read. Yes, scientists are sometimes painfully aware that some of their inventions might be used for harm, but all they can do is hope that there are the right regulations etc in place to to control them. Sometimes the benefits might outweigh the possibilities of misuse.

no why the hell would scientists take an oath? the whole point of their study is to think up new theories and such that cant yet be explained, we as a civilization would get nowhere without freethinking

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SantaDreamsToo
no why the hell would scientists take an oath? the whole point of their study is to think up new theories and such that cant yet be explained, we as a civilization would get nowhere without freethinking

---

The idea was that eg doctors have to take oaths not to harm.
But scientists can invent any darn monstrocity without breaking an oath of any sort.

Other questions in this line are : 'Is it the onus of scientists to worry about the repercussion of their discoveries?'
And 'Would it help? - someone else will do it anyway'

Quote:

---

The right to search for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be the truth[/b]

---