NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/nitrogen.html

I was reading the article above, and I was struck by the fact that like so many other inventions, this discovery has many applications. Energy storage and release in an extremely compact form has great applications for peaceful uses - we would all like a non-polluting vehicle (whose exhaust was the same as the main constituent of air) that had incredible range. And on the other hand, this material has the potential to be the most powerful non-nuclear explosive on earth.

There are other discoveries that have made recent news that also have this dual use - and I'm wondering if the pace of discovery is now so fast and so profound that we can't know all of the uses for the things we're discovering. Governments don't review all research, and I don't think everyone in the research arena completely thinks these things out, either.

So, at an individual level, what responsibility does a scientist hold? And what are his counterarguments?

The creator has absolutly no moral obligation as to what the use is applied to his or her device

The creator has absolutly no moral obligation as to what the use is applied to his or her device

Agreed.

The creator has absolutly no moral obligation as to what the use is applied to his or her device
I'd partly agree with that. I don't think the scientist who makes a particular scientific discovery should be held in any way responsible for the uses to which it is put. On the other hand, if a 'technologist' makes use of that science to create some deadly weapon, then you could argue that they bare some responsibility for the (intended) uses to which it is put. As an example, consider people who invent methods to disguise your vehicle number plate from speed cameras - it would seem ridiculous not to hold them responsible for their invention designed to help people break the law.

The creator has absolutly no moral obligation as to what the use is applied to his or her deviceI'd say that depends on what the uses are. I fyou know someone is going to use your invention to kill people, in fact if that is its sole purpose, then the creator is responsible for it.
Which is not to say he/she shouldn't invent it. Someone will eventually. But whoever is first can also try to find countermeasures, in case someone else does come along who tries to misuse it.

I'd say that depends on what the uses are. I fyou know someone is going to use your invention to kill people, in fact if that is its sole purpose. Than the creator is responsible for it.
Which is not to say he/she shouldn't invent it. Someone will eventually. But however is first can also try to find countermeasures, in case someone else does come along who tries to misuse it.
I still feel that the creator has no moral obligation to the uses

A killing device like anything is a tool

The people that implement that tool wrongly are thoes responsable for thoes actions ... not the person that came up with the device

The creator has absolutly no moral obligation as to what the use is applied to his or her device

I agree in this case, but if the invention is a death ray or anal probe or something else that only has evil applications then the inventor really is responsible.

I agree in this case, but if the invention is a death ray or anal probe or something else that only has evil applications then the inventor really is responsible.
Why? he is not the one that chose to apply the device

For example the gun ... its only use really is injury

But like anything it can be used for good or for bad ... it can be used to deter (through threat or use) injury

Or it can cause it

Even a device with "only one use" still can be used for good or bad ... it is the person that CHOOSES the application of the device that is responsible for the consequences

A killing device like anything is a tool

The people that implement that tool wrongly are thoes responsable for thoes actions ... not the person that came up with the deviceBut he facilitates it.
If I meet you in the street and desperately want to kill you, by shooting you in the head. And then ask around "hey can anyone lend me a gun, I want to shoot this guy here through the head", then whoever would give me that gun would share responsibility.

But he facilitates it.
If I meet you in the street and desperately want to kill you, by shooting you in the head. And then ask around "hey can anyone lend me a gun, I want to shoot this guy here through the head", then whoever would give me that gun would share responsibility.
They would be providing a wepon after they know your exact intent

A creator of a device does not nessisarily know the intent of all their users

For all they know its going to be used to defend an orphanage from a band of murderous theves

None.

The duty of the scientist is to create things. If he creates something that could be used to cause others harm, so be it.

The creator is not at fault for how his creation is used.

Blaming the creator for the creation's use would be like blaming the knife manufacturer if you got stabbed by a mugger.

They would be providing a wepon after they know your exact intent

A creator of a device does not nessisarily know the intent of all their usersThat's true in some cases. But do you know any peacefull uses for weapons of mass destruction? Like bioweapons?
It's quite clear what the intended uses of some things are.

It's a matter of weighing the good uses against the bad ones (or rather the consequences of either use). Scientists don't live in a moral vaccum, they're part of society and have responsibility not to blow it up willynilly

That's true in some cases. But do you know any peacefull uses for weapons of mass destruction? Like bioweapons?
It's quite clear what the intended uses of some things are.

It's a matter of weighing the good uses against the bad ones (or rather the consequences of either use). Scientists don't live in a moral vaccum, they're part of society and have responsibility not to blow it up willynilly
I did not say pecefull uses nessisarily

But they can be applied to things like deterance (see MAD)

Blaming the creator for the creation's use would be like blaming the knife manufacturer if you got stabbed by a mugger.So why not? If he hadn't made the knife, it wouldn't be used to stab you.
Of course he doesn't just deserve blame, also praise for every knife you use to butter your bread, cut steak with or stab muggers with in self-defense.

Makes more sense then blaming the manufacturer of a microwave for not telling you you shouldn't use it as a means to dry your cat.

I did not say pecefull uses nessisarily

But they can be applied to things like deterance (see MAD)Well, then it's again an example where the benefits outweigh the costs. The end result is positive (probably). And maybe the inventor will get the nobel peace price.

If they can't get blamed, they shouldn't get praised either. That two sides of the same coin.

Well, then it's again an example where the benefits outweigh the costs. The end result is positive (probably). And maybe the inventor will get the nobel peace price.

If they can't get blamed, they shouldn't get praised either. That two sides of the same coin.
I always did think that the piece prize was more applicable to those that applied and did rather then those that just did research

Well, the same goes for any price really. But peace price has a slightly more ethical connotation than the others.

Well, the same goes for any price really. But peace price has a slightly more ethical connotation than the others.
The other prizes are awared on the quality of the work not its application

They are all aplicable ... they are not based on others use of that device but on the quality of the researcher directly

I suppose you've got a point there.

Perhaps we should return to the topic. There's more to science than just invention and discovery, also the method and experiments themselves.
Any thoughts on animal and (involuntary) human experimentation?

I suppose you've got a point there.

Perhaps we should return to the topic. There's more to science than just invention and discovery, also the method and experiments themselves.
Any thoughts on animal and (involuntary) human experimentation?
Personaly I think animal testing is a nessicary evil ... my personal wishes is to reduce the suffering they experience (if any)

No to involuntary human experiementation but a big yes to vaulentary

What about Oppenheimer, Fermi, etc. people working on the Manhattan project- they knew full well that they were working on a government weapon- and yet they had no idea of the destructive nature of what they were creating. Is there a moral responsibility that lies with them?

There is a great line in Jurassic Park ( I know, I am quoting from Jurassic park, and I am sorry)- "your scientists were worried so much about whether or not they could, they didn't stop and think if they should."

IMHO-the scientists are there for the discovery. ask any scientist why they do what they do, its not the money, its the fact that they can achieve something no one else ever has before-- that rare, but elusive moment of total and complete understanding- it is not normally a moral issue, but rather one that has to do with being egocentric- I do this because I can and no one else can.

it seems to me, as has been stated on the thread before, that the intention that is driving the research is what ultimately decides whether they are morally responsible or not. In a time of war (ie WWII)- even though the atomic bombs were used to wipe out entire cities, the research behind that was justified. Doing morally reprehensible research for greed, power, money, etc. is unjustifiable. All though, in a sense, all research is done out of greed-- greed for knowledge, greed for the power of doing something no one else has. Hmmm, maybe I just totally contradicted my self- oh well, though, points for others to ponder.

What about Oppenheimer, Fermi, etc. people working on the Manhattan project- they knew full well that they were working on a government weapon- and yet they had no idea of the destructive nature of what they were creating. Is there a moral responsibility that lies with them?

There is a great line in Jurassic Park ( I know, I am quoting from Jurassic park, and I am sorry)- "your scientists were worried so much about whether or not they could, they didn't stop and think if they should."

IMHO-the scientists are there for the discovery. ask any scientist why they do what they do, its not the money, its the fact that they can achieve something no one else ever has before-- that rare, but elusive moment of total and complete understanding- it is not normally a moral issue, but rather one that has to do with being egocentric- I do this because I can and no one else can.

it seems to me, as has been stated on the thread before, that the intention that is driving the research is what ultimately decides whether they are morally responsible or not. In a time of war (ie WWII)- even though the atomic bombs were used to wipe out entire cities, the research behind that was justified. Doing morally reprehensible research for greed, power, money, etc. is unjustifiable. All though, in a sense, all research is done out of greed-- greed for knowledge, greed for the power of doing something no one else has. Hmmm, maybe I just totally contradicted my self- oh well, though, points for others to ponder.


You are starting to get into a different argument

From certain standpoint EVERYTHING can be seen as being motivated by a sort of “greed”

What about Oppenheimer, Fermi, etc. people working on the Manhattan project- they knew full well that they were working on a government weapon- and yet they had no idea of the destructive nature of what they were creating. Is there a moral responsibility that lies with them?

There is a great line in Jurassic Park ( I know, I am quoting from Jurassic park, and I am sorry)- "your scientists were worried so much about whether or not they could, they didn't stop and think if they should."I would indeed say they had the moral obligation to look at whether they should have made such a weapon. They might well have come to the comclusion that it was justified, but if they didn't stop to think, they were negligent, and/or choosing to be blissfully ignorant (which I find reprehensible of itself in a way)

I view research as any other (conscious) action in this respect. It has consequences and motivations, and therefore a moral component to them.
But I also have faith that pretty much any discovery will eventually be worth it. So practically that ultimately makes every research good (although some ways to get there are better than others)

You are starting to get into a different argument

From certain standpoint EVERYTHING can be seen as being motivated by a sort of “greed”
Greed and Pride...

it's not just the knowledge and the money, the fame is also there to. I imagine alot of scientists fany themselves the next Einstein.

but back to the original question.
Bioweapons, Spying Equiptment, Weapons in general, Chemical Warfare...

New discoveries in Medicine, new sources of energy, exploration (and Possibly Colonization) of the stars, discoveries of new species on this planet, Genetic manipulation...

I think it's evenly balanced, the only one who can answer that question is the scientists themselves. Can they accept that there is the possibility that their discoveries can be used for both the benefits as well as the detriment of Mankind.

It's the end result that matters. The atomic bomb killed thousands, but it ended the most expensive war(in dollars and in lives) in known world history. Then there was the cold war, but we do have nuclear power now. It's basicly Romeo and Juliet gone radio-active. The lovers died, but their families' feud ended. Of course, if the families would just leave eachother alone, none of this would have happened. I now officially hate whoever came up with the concepts of "gun", shoot wolf with said "gun", shoot foxie with said "gun", and liberal asshole. Nobody likes a liberal asshole. They're so hated, they even hate themselves. They're insulting the good liberals and those whose hobbies include breathing, moving, and not being dead.

I suppose you've got a point there.

Perhaps we should return to the topic. There's more to science than just invention and discovery, also the method and experiments themselves.
Any thoughts on animal and (involuntary) human experimentation?

I love animals, but I value them less than human lives. Thus, I have no problem with animal testing, so long as it is justified in furthering the lives of human beings and does not cause undue suffering to the animal. In the US university system, any animal experiment must be OK'd by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is generally composed of scientists, at least one vetinarian, and at least one lay-person in neither field.

If a procedure that might cause pain to the animal is to be used (ok, this usually doesn't apply for insects/flukes/etc, but only very basic research is done with them), anesthetic must be used. If an anesthetic would hinder the experiment, you must provide some pretty serious reasons that it cannot be used. Death, if necessary, must be relatively quick and painless. If the animal is to remain living, sterile instruments must be used. Animals are kept on a strict diet, in climate controlled rooms (and sometimes climate-controlled cages specifically), with a very specific light-dark cycle that cannot be broken without IRB approval. And this is how we treat *mice*. Imagine how many more restrictions are placed upon higher-order or more social animals. Just a few include: Any dogs used in experiments must have an hour or so a day of human contact that is not experiment-related. In other words, someone has to sit there and pet/play with them, doing no work related to the experiment. Cats must be given time in an open room with plenty of toys. And so on....

As for involuntary human experimentation - absolutely not. I am not in favor of any type of slavery - and that is exactly what that would be.