Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
March Fourth Convocation: Science and Society
Richard H. Bube
Stanford University
From: JASA 21 (June 1969): 51-52.
A voluntary day-long stopping of research activities by faculty and
students was
observed on March 4 at over 50 universities across the nation. The purpose of
the research shutdown was to afford the opportunity for careful examination of
the growing social and political concerns of scientists, particularly
in connection
with the complexities of military vs. humanitarian involvements. This article
is a report on the March Fourth Convocation at Stanford University.
Opening Presentations
P. Grobstein, a graduate student in biology, summarized the chief concerns of
the convocation: (1) that science and technology are losing relevance
to the real
needs of the world, and (2) that we do not have the means to control the future
of science and technology. Questions raised included: What is the
responsibility
of the scientist in society? Is the scientific community functioning as a vital
part of society? Have scientists lived up to the responsibility that
is inescapably
theirs because of the power that their knowledge gives them? Should we think of
science as morally neutral, only a useful technique? He pled for a
free and open
investigation of all problems, the emphasis that a rational search for truth is
still a viable approach.
Dr. J. Lederberg, Professor of Genetics and Nobel Laureate, called nationalism
one of the principle diseases of the human condition. It might be
easier to modify
man through affecting his innate biology than to modify him through reforming
his social institutions. Science was presented as being almost the
most subversive
(i.e., non-nationalistic) enterprise carried on in the world today.
(It is curious
that the Christian Church did not suggest itself in this connection.) In place
of our passive acceptance of present discriminatory practices before birthwhich
we call global malnutritionDr. Lederberg presented the need to set up
a rational
human biological policy. The question needs to be faced: is life itself and its
indefinite elongation the system value to be pursued by such a policy? Should
a decision he made evaluating a long miserable life with respect to a shorter
happy one? Technical possibilities now on the biological horizon
calling for policy
attention are: (1) pre-natal detection of birth defects in infants
with subsequent
authorized abortion; (2) augmenting the genetic blueprints of
individuals in the
way that we are currently protected against certain viruses by innoculation; and
(3) the development of asexual reproduction, with at least the possibility of
attempting to solve the relative influence on the individual of
genetic vs. environmental
effects.
Dr. L. I. Schiff, Professor of Physics, defended the importance of
basic scientific
research as valuable to all of society and deserving of support from
all branches
of society. He argued that to use present or potential applicability
as a criterion
to judge the merit of basic science is to deprive it of its basic genius.
Dr. S. Drell, Professor of Physics, a member of Stanford's Linear Accelerator
Center, and Presidential
Science Advisor, summarized both the positive and the negative contributions of
modern technology. He addressed himself to the question, What role
can a scientist
play in government? Frequently quoting Einstein, "Politics is much harder
than science," he emphasized that a scientist decides what is,
but a politician
must decide what ought to be, and then must decide what can be done. Scientists
speaking to the question of what ought to be speak with no special
authority compared
to any other citizen of the country; scientists speaking to the
question of what
is and what can be done are exercising their particular expertise. He discussed
the complex technical considerations involved in the antiballistic
missile program
and indicated that sound technical inputs often make it much more difficult to
come to a decision.
Dr. J. Linvill, Professor of Electrical Engineering, emphasized the many ways
in which the engineer is busy working for a better society. Specific examples
drawn from the program at Stanford include a reading aid for the
blind, electronic
instrumentation for medical research including a computer program for analysis
of electrocardiograms, and the utilization of satellite communication
for education
in undeveloped countries.
Appropriately the opening and closing sessions of the Convocation were held in
Memorial Church.
Panel Discussions
Following the opening addresses were a series of seven workshop panel
discussions
on the topics: technology and social development,
military-industrial-university
complex, biology and its implications, basic science: who should support it?,
chemical-biological warfare, antiballistic missile, and population
and pollution.
Underlying some of the reaction to the technical discussions was the
feeling that
the technical details were only one small feature of the total
picture, that somehow
one had to learn how to feed moral and ethical values into the total
decision-making
equation.
Another point frequently emphasized was that the responsibility for undertaking
a specific research project is that of the individual faculty member
in the university,
who contracts for each project independently. The responsibility of
the individual
research worker is to refuse to work on directed research in an area
he considers
in good conscience to be immoral.
Scientists, Engineers, and Politics
This was the title of the closing address by Dr. M. Perl, Professor associated
with the Stanford Linear
MARCH FOURTH
Accelerator.He emphasized that political reality, like physical reality, had
to he lived and dealt with. The recognition of political reality
meant the recognition
of five points; (1) self-interest groups exist, (2) individuals' ideas will be
intransigent because the organization to which they belong profits by
a particular
approach, (3) decisions in the legislature are not based on a simple rational
approach, (4) the public is in despair about understanding technology, and (5)
the scientific establishment tends not to rock the boat. He called scientists
to become involved as scientific advisors to government, by contributing to the
general public information both individually and through concerned
societies such
as the Federation of American Scientists and the American Society for
Responsibility
in Science, and by helping to put science and technology back into grass-root
politics. Facing the realities of political life calls for the acquisition of
political power to combat self-interest groups by lining up our own self-interest
motivated allies;
insisting on open professional and public debate on such urgent
issues as pollution,
environmental problems and the weapons program; being prepared to make suitable
"deals" to achieve desired goals; voluntary offering of
service by scientists
as professional advisors to the Congress; and last of all-luck.
Reflections
Yes, "Politics is much harder than science." It is certainly harder
than science-and coffeeklatsch evangelism. What is the responsibility
of the man
who is not only a scientist-but is also a Christian? It is timely
that the theme
of the 1969 Annual ASA Convention (Gordon College, Massachusetts, August 19-22)
is Science, Scripture, and Social Issues.