'New Responsibility' for Science:
HARPER, B. K.
An Open Letter to C. ? Snow 'New Responsibility' for Science By ?. ?. Harper The Damoclean sword of nuclear warfare has long troubled thoughtful people throughout the world. As one of the...
...To this, the very tradition of truly scientific inquiry would be opposed and Sir Charles, doubtless, would be among the first to voice his protest...
...All this may seem very elementary, and I would tend to agree with that judgment were it not for the importance of the subject, the prestigious setting of the lecture, the eminence of the author and, as a consequence, the undoubted influence of Sir Charles' conclusions both on the general public and the intelligentsia...
...This is reasonable, although one could wish that Sir Charles had added as a necessary ingredient the will of the nations to produce these weapons...
...They are not: They are based first on an unsupported appeal to history, and second on unsupported hope...
...As one of the most eloquent spokesmen for scientists, C. P. Snow has asked that this group fulfill its "new responsibility" by ardently working for the elimination of nuclear weapons and weapons testing...
...Some scientists now feel a moral responsibility not only for the development hut also for the possible uses of these weapons...
...Immediately following this he asserts with "the certainty of statistical truth" that "some of them are going to blow up...
...For scientists, he says, have a new "direct and personal responsibility," with the power of "moral imperative," and should become latter-day martyrs in the cause ("It is going to make them unpopular in their own nation-states...
...Sir Charles then produces some curious "scientific" reasoning in the form of an "either-or" proposition...
...Through accident, or folly, or madness...
...What if the Russians sign an agreement and then go on testing and developing weapons anyway...
...He could have meant that it was scientifically impossible to achieve 99.9 per cent security, but then he overlooked the possibility that this could be overcome by an increase in the number of observation posts stationed in the USSR and China...
...The first assumes the scientific progress and technological advancement of nations...
...The next step of Sir Charles' reasoning follows: "All this we [scientists] know...
...Does it follow, "with the certainty of statistical truth," that we will be blown up...
...And how many accidents with atomic weapons have there been so far to justify this statistical prediction...
...We know it in a more direct sense than any politician because it comes from our direct experience...
...In a recent speech before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sir Charles implied that this difference "in kind" would involve advocating the cessation of nuclear tests and the establishment of restricted nuclear armaments...
...I hope that we all have trust in our scientists, but we should not confuse a model with an idol, nor should we let the scientists become priests...
...He further assumes the second would prevent the consequences of the first, though he does not say how this would be possible nor why an agreement with the Soviets would prevent the proliferation of both the knowledge and will necessary for the manufacturing of atomic weapons...
...First, what if the Russians raise their "ante...
...Still, let us grant to Sir Charles that nations, merely by being capable of producing nuclear weapons, are recognized as having produced them, and that this is an "engineering truth...
...But of course this would have obviously spoiled the "scientific" presentation of his argument, for he would then have to take into account the motivation of these nations, which may not be so easily measured in terms of "engineering truths...
...Sir Charles starts by stating, as an "engineering truth,' that within 6 to 10 years nations other than those that possess them today will have fusion bombs...
...Sir Charles may be right in his' conclusions (and there is little doubt about the urgency of nuclear arms control), but I hope we can advance more convincing arguments than the ex cathedra statements put forward by him...
...Yet we are told that by putting our trust in their promises we would be incurring mere "risks...
...Second, let us assume that Sir Charles is justified in contrasting the "certainty" of human "folly and madness" with the "risks" resulting from negotiations with the Communists...
...Sir Charles' presentation of his opinions in scientific language was clearly not appropriate because it gave the impression, whether intentional or not, that his conclusions were based on scientific inquiry...
...What Sir Charles has forgotten is that "folly and madness" in human affairs is the result of actions of men like Khrushchev on whose good will he will rely in preference to the "certainty" of his other proposition...
...Here ?. ?. Harper, a graduate student who fled from Czechoslovakia in 1948, examines the "scientific" reasoning on which this position is based and makes a plea for clarity in this area...
...Sir C. P. Snow, one of the scientists' leading spokesmen, has gone so far as to claim for the scientist a new form of responsibility, "one different in kind" from the political responsibility of the ordinary citizen...
...Following Sir Charles' reasoning, no matter how great the "risks" the West would run, no "sane man" would hesitate to take them until they reached the same "certainty" as the alternative...
...These two statements give the impression of being of the same kind —but they are not...
...I dare say that no matter how pessimistic Sir Charles' calculations of human "folly and madness" may be, they could hardly equal the perfidious record of the Soviets...
...It may do worse than make them unpopular...
...Given the uncritical veneration of science and scientists on this continent and, as Sir Charles points out, their increasing importance to national interests (which, in political terms, means that they enjoy an everincreasing importance in policy making decisions), pronouncements of so eminent a scientist on such matters ought not to go unexamined, especially if they are presented under the cloak of impartial scientific investigation...
...Sir Charles is building here upon a precarious foundation, for his pessimistic view of human nature is a matter of opinion, not capable of being demonstrated "with the certainty of statistical truth...
...For this reason, I have limited myself to Sir Charles' reasoning, though there are many policy problems that his propositions would raise—e.g., Would mere stoppage of tests prevent an atomic holocaust...
...The "either" proposition is presented as a criticism of United States policy on controls of nuclear tests and weapons...
...How are the agreements to be enforced...
...The assumptions and implications of Sir Charles' reasoning are based, on the one hand, upon what may be loosely called historical argument— the history of mankind is full of folly, madness and accident—and, on the other, upon the hope of coming to an agreement with the Communists...
...The moot point here is: What does Sir Charles mean by "unobtainable...
...Therefore, for example, if Khrushchev would not allow any observation posts in Russia at all, the incursion of this risk would still be, according to this kind of logic, less dangerous than the "certainty" of destruction naturally following from the alternative...
...If this is so, it is very hard to see how we can ascribe "certainty" to "folly and madness" while attributing mere "risk" to the very source of this "folly and madness...
...Having asserted his faith in empiricism, Sir Charles then asks whether "we" scientists are going to chance the nuclear destruction of the world...
...However, if by "unobtainable" he meant—as I think is implied in the context of the lecture—that the Soviets are immovable in their negotiating position, then there are some unexplained problems...
...EVER since THE development of nuclear weapons, the scientific community in the West has felt uneasy...
...He based his reasoning throughout on the principle of "scientific inquiry" and concluded that the issues in disarmament and test bans are so clear that "a sane man does not hesitate...
...Third, again allowing for Sir Charles' ability to calculate his "certainty," there is an equal possibility of calculating the "risks...
...He acknowledges that there are some risks attached to this "either" course which "I am not going to conceal from you,' but since this course is merely a "risk" and the other a "certainty," "a sane man does not hesitate...
...In fact one would imagine that the latter calculation would be both more accurate and less difficult to obtain, because we have a record of the Soviets' fidelity to the treaties and agreements concluded by them...
...But just how "scientific" was his inquiry, and how persuasive is his conclusion...
...Sir Charles maintains that "the United States is not going to get the 99.9 per cent 'security' that it has been asking for...
...It is unobtainable...
...The "or" proposition, which is "not a risk but a certainty," is the result of the unusual empirical reasoning which concluded that with time more nations will have nuclear bombs and that some of them will blow up...
...What are the statistics...
...And his claim of special responsibility for the scientist would raise even more numerous questions...
...How does one statistically measure "folly and madness...
Vol. 44 • February 1961 • No. 6
