Leonardo

366 Books set up priorities among them, Should India divert a large percentage of her limited resources to high energy physics and molecular biology, when the primary needs of the country are food, housing and education? The Chairman noted that many questions remained unanswered or untouched. For example, the ‘humanities’ were left out of discussion, since they were not felt to be within the purview of ‘big’ science and of the problems of military vs. nonmilitary expenditures by governments. As long as these questions are unanswered, it is legitimate to ask whether science is in conflict or collaboration with civilization. Scientists in Search of Their Conscience. Anthony R. Michaelis and Hugh Harvey, eds. Springer, New York, 1973. 230 pp., illus. $16.30. Reviewed by John Scott Willson* Over 15 years ago the late President Kennedy said: ‘Never before has man had such a capacity to control his own environment, to end thirst and hunger, to conquer poverty and disease, . ..we have the power to make this the best generation of mankind or to make it the last.’ This statement sums up the situation that led to the 1971 European symposium on the interrelationship between science and society. In this book scientists, politicians, writers and industrialists discuss ideas concerning the responsibility of scientists in determining the nature of fundamental research and the way their discoveries are used. Some people have attacked science as being a costly pastime, producing more problems than it solves, an instrument of industrial and military domination, a means of promoting and satisfying imaginary needs, and the cause of deterioration of our natural environment and social structure. Applied scientists defend their work by pointing out that technology has lessened class differences, has brought political stabilization to industrial society and in numerous ways has improved the standard of living of nations. In addition they point out that on many occasions it is society that has failed but science has been blamed. Scientists argue that basic research, which has no immediate application (i.e. seeking knowledge for its own sake), is important for two reasons. First, its results are a potential source of unpredictable yet invaluable spin-offs (e.g. penicillin); second, basic research provides the most effective source for instruction in the use of scientific methods. The conference suggested that worldwide improvement in scientific education and the pooling of scientific knowledge is needed if the underdeveloped Third World is to catch up with the advanced-technology nations. This equality of scientific know-how is thought to be as important as equality of human rights and of the availability of capital. Much time is spent in discussing the merits of a moratorium on research in the natural sciences but few definite conclusions are reached due to different understandings of the intent of such a moratorium. The enforced curtailment or diversion of research for political, financial or ethical reasons is thought by many scientists to be a limitation on the freedom to pursue knowledge. They regard this freedom as a fundamental right, however it is generally agreed that in areas where the applications of science have a definitely determined detrimental effect on life on the Earth, control must be exercised by society. The main suggestions of the symposium are that scientists should cooperate internationally with each other and with politicians in determining scientific priorities and achieving useful results as effectively as possible; they should accept some responsibility for the application of their findings and should use their influence in government , industry and finance to ensure that their discoveries are not misused. Society, for its part, must define clearly what it wishes science to do and, having provided the financial means, must allow scientists the freedom to tackle the problem in whatever way they wish. This account shows that scientists do have a conscience and are striving to find the best way to guide the application of their findings for the greatest benefit of humanity. Many of the speakers do appear to be deeply concerned with the problems facing them in areas such as brain surgery and genetic control, however, I have the impression that they do not follow up their words by action on the social plane. Symposia such as this...