8. Scientists and their discoveries.

As far as we know, man is unique in the created universe. One of the attributes separating mankind from the animal world is the urge to find things out, to add to the common store of knowledge. Historically, any attempt to thwart investigation, or to conceal or ban its results, has been doomed to failure. There is no case for restricting scientific investigation. However, the effects of scientific discovery are sometimes bad, so new technology based on such discovery should be, and usually is, scrutinised and carefully tested before it is let loose on the public.

The scientist is not the right person to carry out the scrutiny of the new technology. Indeed, though expert in the particular field, he or she is often woefully naive in other matters. The right people are government ministers who, in a democracy, are responsible to the people. The ministers will seek reports from independent experts. This may mean lengthy scrutiny, as in the case of new drugs. The first reason for this is the humane consideration for human life and health. This means eliminating any possibility of harmful side-effects. The second is more material; in the event of such harmful sideeffects, very considerable damages are being awarded by the courts to the sufferers nowadays. Many very large drug companies have their own research departments, and their findings, together with independent reports are passed to the Department of health so that the minister can make the final decision. New technologies based on new discoveries are also controlled in this way.

When scientists by-pass the correct channels from whatever motives, and the effects of their discoveries prove harmful, then they must be held responsible.

When they do, the motivation may be personal prestige, money or political bias. Isaac Newton's feuds with Flamsteed, the Astronomer Royal, and the German Leibniz resulted in unscrupulous behaviour. While the promulgation of calculus can hardly be said to have public side-effects, Newton's self-esteem, had it gone unchecked, would have had disastrous consequences in other fields, such as atomic research.

Scientists are relatively badly paid; judges on the other hand are well paid in order to place them above possible bribery. So the temptation to sell discoveries to the highest bidder must be great. This raises the point of national loyalty. As mentioned, scientists are often politically naive. Some fail to realise the industrial harm that the money motive

can do to the country which both trained them and provided the crucial facilities for their research.

Others see patriotism as a deplorable nationalism. Many in this century have felt it their duty to support Communism. They are victims of the pathetic fallacy that we are, or should be moving towards a one-world society. So they have given or sold information to Russia. Thankfully, the end of the 'cold war'  has terminated this treachery, but the dangers of a nuclear confrontation, such as in the Bay of Pigs episode, is traceable directly to certain scientists for whom no punishment is sufficiently severe. They are just as guilty as the spies who peddle their discoveries.

In the case of the terrible side-effects of exposure to nuclear energy, the scientist can hardly be held responsible, since in the early days nobody fully understood these effects. Madame Curie died of leukemia. Many who were present at the early detonation of nuclear bombs at Bikini, New Mexico and the Monte Bello Islands, not to speak of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, have suffered disastrous long-term effects. Civilians who have been exposed to nuclear accidents or accidental leakages have suffered in the same way. Some people make the case that even to live near a nuclear power station has its dangers. Disastrous as all this is, the scientist can no more be blamed than the inventor of gunpowder for the rifle and the cannon, or the first man to make a long-bow for causing death at a distance.

The same principle applies to all the harmful effects resulting from other scientific discoveries, whether actual or potential. The possible misuse of genetic discoveries is obvious, but it is hoped that all countries will exercise the kind of control outlined above. Again, scientists discovered the powerful insecticide DDT, but should not be blamed for the fact that it may destroy the ecology, or for the fact that some strains of mosquitoes have developed an immunity.

However, there have been times in the past when the 'establishment' has tried to suppress scientific discovery, deny its truth, or proscribe it altogether. Historically, the Christian Church has more than once been the culprit; in asserting that the earth is flat, in denying the Copernical view of the universe, the time-scale of the world's development, the physical ancestry of man as an offshoot of the world of apes. None of this succeeded in the long run, nor will any future attempts to suppress the results of scientific investigation.

It is only when the scientist personally and deliberately misuses his knowledge that he or she should be held responsible. Otherwise, the responsibility should, and actually does, lie with others.

The writer discusses how far the scientists could be held responsible and when they cannot be blamed. Notice also how he discusses that the motive of the scientist is also important and how the scientist should not be blamed if he intended  good. This is how the argument should be.