Science, Ethics and Society

by Joachim Pietzsch

“What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?” These are the three famous questions in which, according to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the whole interest of reason is centered[1]. At the beginning of the 21st century, the second of these questions, formulated in the era of Enlightenment, appears to be both the most urgent and important one for humankind to answer, if it does not want to bury its hopes for happiness or even its survival forever. We may well put this question into plural: What ought we to do? To seriously deal with this basic ethical question is especially important for scientists. They have transformed the world since the 18th century and made it - on average - a more comfortable place to live in, albeit accompanied by dangerous interventions into the great cycles of the planet. How shall they conduct themselves to help build a sustainable future? Obviously, the grand challenges that lie ahead need to be addressed in the global context. “The Lindau Meetings offer a perfect platform for just such an approach with discussion taking place between generations, cultures and religions”, remarked Roman Herzog, the former President of the Federal Republic of Germany.[2] Considerations on the complex interplay between science and society and on the ethics of science are an integral part of the discussions on this platform.

“An Ethical Perspective must be Taught and Nurtured”
The link between ethics and science is rooted far back in the history of humankind, as Roald Hoffmann pointed out in his Lindau lecture in 2006. Hoffmann has experienced evil and good more intensively than most other Nobel Laureates. In his Polish home town, once inhabited by 12,000 people, he was “one of perhaps five children who survived” the Holocaust, hidden in the unlit attic of a schoolhouse for 15 months. “Among those who didn’t was my father, three of four grandparents, and many aunts, uncles and cousins. We survived. How? By chance. By political awareness. Through the unimaginably courageous acts of good people.”[3] Ethical questions remain of existential importance for Hoffmann, who won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1981. As human beings, Hoffmann emphasizes, “we are sentenced by our nature to create. But we do have a choice, to fashion this world in consonance with the best in us, or the worst (…) The reason we feel this so strongly is because of another of our creations, as deep and human as science. This is ethics (…) An ethical perspective is the obligation of every scientist, and that perspective must be taught and nurtured”.[4] What makes up science? Hoffmann asked his audience in Lindau[5] and named four aspects as one possible answer: Science is done by normal, curious people; it requires experiments; it offers an open system for the dissemination of what one finds; and it is characterized by a frequent dipping back and forth between approximations to reality and flights of imaginative fancy. Science depends on texts, talks and conversations – and therefore the practice of science can enhance moral behaviour, because „ethics is like a limb that needs exercise to function. It is not formed just by thinking, but it comes from interaction with other people“. Neither are scientists born with ethics nor is their work ethically neutral. „I believe that in any action by a human being, the instruments of this action must be accompanied by a moral judgement, and the judgement minimally is: Will the use of this instrument by me or by others hurt people or not?“ In the history of humanity, Hofmann argues, science is a relatively late social invention, and certainly younger than a human quality as fundamental as ethics. Amazingly, though, curiosity seems to be older than ethics – in fact, it caused the distinction between good and evil to emerge, as he points out in his „respectful and slightly disrespectful reading“ of Genesis 3:6.

Roald Hoffmann (2006) - Honesty to the Singular Object: Some Reflections on the Potential of Ethics Arising out of Science

I am a little afraid to speak about this subject because of the language. The language of ideas - in any language - has words that are reasonably complicated and there is not the crutch, the help of mathematical equations and structural formulas. So please, I have tried to put some of the text on the screen here, but please be patient, just float along on a language, and I will make the text of the lecture available to you on a presentation on the web. Also, if I could, no pictures, it’s distracting to me, not to you I'm sure, you are all used to this, but no photographs during the lecture, after the lecture I will be glad to jump up and down for you! Okay, think of the last 200 years. Incredible things were given to us by other human beings, transforming nature, in art, in music, in social structures. Who will question the value of war and peace? Of a ceramic by Hamada Shoji or a Beethoven quartet. Or the end of slavery and the empowerment of women. But if one gathers enough courage to weigh the incommensurate, and thinks in some way, which I really don’t like to, of the greatest gain in our understanding of the world within us and around us in these last two centuries, I think one cannot avoid singling out science. The achievements of science and technology are of value to humanity and material and in spiritual ways. My own chemistry has so much to be proud of apart, but I think an important one in the extension of life expectancy, from 40 to 70 years, in most parts of the world. In enabling birth control, in synthetic fertilisers to feed twice as many people as could have been fed before. In chemotherapy for cancer and a greater colour palette for all. Science is democratising in the deepest sense of the word, it makes a way available to a wider range of people the necessities and comforts that in a previous age were reserved for a privileged few. The achievement is also spiritual, I am not talking about the capability of listening wherever you are in the world to Bob Marley and the Wailers, or a … on a CD, I speak of the direct spiritual knowledge that comes, that is gained of how genetic information is transmitted or how stars are born. And knowledge that may not be of material value is not patentable but still makes the human spirit soar. Given this incredible gain in our knowledge and the ever so clear material improvements in our lifespan and comfort and that of much of - not nearly all but all as you saw of the world as well, it remains clear that, as we stand at the beginning of the 21st century, that first of all, people are now happier than they were say 100 years ago. And second, they do not necessarily praise the achievements of science and technology with enthusiasm, but they actually question them. They are ambivalent about them. Now, to push these concerns aside as the remnants of superstition as unthinking, as uninformed antiintellectual opposition that could be made a way just by education, I think that’s to miss the point. Real smart normal thinking and feeling people are concerned about where science is going and what it is doing to people’s lives. The concern is often couched in ecological, environmental and ethical terms. So genetic engineering or cloning are one lightning rod, so our reactions against the seed crop which cannot be replanted. Or about nuclear energy. There is a message for us as scientists in this seemingly ambivalent to irrational, to me nicely so, I like it. The response of the public to the amelioration of the human condition and to the enrichment of knowledge that science has brought. It’s a message that I think science has to learn from, as it progresses at a very different pace, once its exponential growth has seized and it has seized in most of the world. Exponential growth is a recipe for disaster, that’s all it is. As it expands into the new millennium, I think science will change. I think it can change, it did change. I want you to think about a time when there were no blacks and Jews or women in science. It wasn’t that long ago. Science is not immutable, it is a socially adaptable and intellectually adaptable system. I think science must change in this century and I think it will change despite our feeling uncomfortable about it in some way, so that every action of science is accompanied by some ethical, environmental, I guess impact assessment on the part of scientists and on the part of the institutions that support them. Not by some constructed them but by us, in a marriage of necessity and of choice for the new millennium. Now, I want to examine in this talk one small aspect of this conjunction. And it happens to be one that is important to me. This is the link between science and ethics. And I’ll do so in my own weird philosophical and poetic way. I want to think with you, without forcing my peculiar way on you, about the potential of the process of science for constructing ethics. Here I actually follow similar consideration by an interesting man, Jacob Bronowski, who was a landsman of mine in more ways than one. And he was much less tentative than I will be. He said simply, as you can see here: And when asked the question ‘Can ethics grow out of science?’, which he answered here. Now, that very question, ‘Can ethics grow out of science?’, seems ludicrous to two communities of people, of scientists. Those who believe that science is ethically neutral, and those who believe that scientists are inherently ethical. Let me fight with these as provocatively as I can. To claim that science is ethically neutral, typical statement. I just worry about the technology of cloning, someone else has to decide whether that’s good for people. That kind of position puts scientists squarely in the company of those people who don’t want to control guns everywhere. They say guns don’t kill, people do. By contrast, I believe and there is a philosophical tradition to back this up, that in any action by a human being, the instrument of that action, a gun, a molecule synthesised, yes, even a mathematical equation or a poem, must be accompanied, must be accompanied by a moral judgement. The judgement minimally is ‘Will the use of that instrument by me or by others, that’s the difficult part, hurt people or not?’ The invention or implementation of a tool without consideration of the consequences of its use by the inventor is deeply incomplete, I would say. Now, as for the claim that scientists are born with ethics, well, that’s as likely as they are being born with aesthetics or with logic. The latter one is not true, all of us find out around the second referee’s reports on our papers. Still, let’s see if there’s something about science that might make an ethical human being out of a scientist. So let’s think first about what science is. We scientists are people who have opted to engage in a remarkable and devolving social system for gathering reliable knowledge. Notice I don’t say truth. I’ll come back to that. That knowledge being of great spiritual and practical value. The critical components can be listed in any way, I’ve listed one selection here. First there are normal, curious people, just happens that some of them like mathematics but that’s not necessary. Second there are people who are not afraid to get their hands dirty. At least some subcommunity, not necessarily me, do experiments. Third there is an open system for dissemination of what one finds and with it a communal urge that turns into an addiction for doing just that. And fourth there is a frequent dipping back and forth between the approximations to reality that are probed by our fallible senses and by our instruments. And flights of absolutely imaginative fancy and theory and in hypothesis building. Just one cut through science, so is there anything in the stratus of science that can enhance the ethics brought to it by scientists or that can possibly engender an ethical outlook? As what I’ve said makes clear, I do not come to this because I think that scientists are better than other people. And especially I don’t think Nobel laureates are better than other people. Far from it. Nor do I dare presume that a relatively late social invention in the history of humanity, science could provide a broad rational for a human quality as fundamental as ethics. Or is ethics itself a social invention? I think it is. If so, it is older than science but not older than curiosity, which is at the basis of science. Ethics is important when goods collide, it’s no problem deciding between something bad and something good. Where ethics really comes is when you have two good things to decide with, and you must decide between them because it has consequences. When goods collide, where do we get our criteria for deciding among them? From the usual sources, like them or not, our socialisation at home and in our schools, that is from our parents and teachers, perhaps from our genes, though I don’t think so as not as much as E. O. Wilson would like to have us believe. From churches and religions, from reading, novels are especially strong moral instruments, not a tad diminished by deconstruction. By the time science enters your moral consciousness, I'm talking to the young people here. You are usually a pretty well defined moral human being. So can science add to that or does it add to that? Two of the things that I mentioned about science here, that open system for dissemination of what one finds and this struggle between experiment and theory and necessity to dip back into experiment, two of these depend on texts and talks and conversations and these acts of communication inevitably confront scientists with ethical choices to be faced, to be evaded, to be negotiated. Let me expand, publications are an important part of the system. And with it is the potential of replication. How reproducible scientific findings are and whether the reality of reproducibility is essential to other people believing, that’s a matter of contention. Could it be that the primary emotional motivation for a scientist who does not falsify a measurement is simply fear, rather than some psycho-ethical drive to report facts honestly? Perhaps, it may be painful for most of us, never ourselves, to do the right deed for the wrong reason. I'm quoting T. S. Eliot from Murder in the Cathedral. But I accept the way we are, fear is okay. Or to put it another way, more positively, as Bronowski did, the habit of truth is formed in many ways. Ethics is like a limb that needs exercise to function, ethics is not formed just by thinking about something in your mind, it comes from interaction with other human beings. The importance of publication is that it provides exposure to potential testing. Time and time again, fraud is really unimportant in science, there is a lot of prurient interest in fraud, with the same origins as our interest in the sexual misdeeds of our priests. That’s why I didn’t use the word truth, because the priests of truth have a longer way to fall, and people like sometimes to see people fall. But fraud is unimportant for two other reasons, most of it has to do with the psychopathology of the perpetrators of fraud. Part of that psychology is that their sense of fear, of being proven wrong, is somehow abrogated. And the second thing is they never forge the dull things in life. They only forge the interesting things. And then the normal workings of the system that people are more eager to prove other people wrong than they are to prove other people right, ensure that science progresses as it does. It’s okay, if it’s not done for quite what you think are the best reasons. So the system works, but what about the individual scientist, motivated by loss of reputation if proven deceptive. Is he or she likely to become more ethical? A cynical viewpoint is that he or she will learn to sanitise, embroider and manicure, just enough to be able to get away with it and then to pile on the hype. A more charitable viewpoint is that we learn that the data are not only not to be trusted, but that they are mute, the data by themselves are nothing. And they are inherently conservative and that a human being must interpret them, yes, tell a story about them and that it’s okay, within a self-correcting system such as science, to risk an imaginative ornate hypothesis which doesn’t end run around Ockham’s Razor. Something salutary takes place in the writing of an experimental part of a paper for the person who writes it. I have trouble in picking one of my own because I'm a theoretician but once in a while I write a paper together with some experimentalists, so I'm responsible for it. And here it goes, there’s a reference here, in a 25mL reaction flask was placed 0.050g (0.094mmol) each of Cp2 *Th(12CH3)2 and Cp2 *Th(13CH3)2. The vessel was evacuated and then 10ml of Et2O was condensed into the flask at -78.C. The suspension was stirred at this temperature until all of the material had dissolved. Basta. You see a report of what was done. Almost an iambic pentameter, without trying. Not the average run but the best that was done to be sure. It’s there, this experimental part of a paper, why is it there? It’s there for historical reasons, as evidence that it was done, that it can be done with details reproducible by anyone. Well, maybe. But why give the evidence? Isn’t there trust in the community? Aren’t we all ethical, aren’t we all gentlemen? Well, 38% of us in the United States in chemistry are gentle women. Inciting another’s experimental or theoretical work, there is a similar wrestling match on. To cite is an act of trust, which can be also viewed as an act of mistrust, because if the material in a citation turns out to be wrong, you are a little bit protected if someone else did it. This is the essential tension of which Thomas Cohan wrote between trusting and not trusting. I think the writing of an experimental paper, of an experimental part of a paper, or reading it in someone else’s text, not once but many times, is an ethically productive action in which both subconsciously and overtly, the issues of trust and mistrust are negotiated by chemists - the important word here is ‘negotiated’. The web of habitual description and of citation, subconsciously and explicitly, forces the creator to confront another human being or a community of human beings. It is an inherently social web built out of real and imagined interactions, that’s where ethics comes from, from interactions, from talking to other people. I see two other places, let’s talk about first time narratives where in an interesting way ethics, and now I'm going to get more poetic about this, that emerges from normative science. The first is the responsibility that’s taught to us by what I call ‘first time representations’. Let me give you a case study, or what I remember. I remember the day, for instance, when Fred Hawthorn, who is now at UCLA, about to leave there, in 1961, when I was a graduate student, and I remember it to this day, came by the Lipscomb laboratory and told us how he had made this molecule as a potassium salt. B12H12(2-), a molecule that has a direct beeline into our soul, it’s shaped like a platonic solid, it’s beautiful. Nothing like it had been made before. He described, Hawthorn did, its properties with evident and appropriate excitement. Hawthorn knew instinctively that there was a story to be told around B12H12 (2-) and that it sufficed to tell it straight. even as it came into his profane hands, in another day, another time. Fred Hawthorn, who is a religious man, would have said it was given to him by the grace of God. In 1961 he had to say it was serendipity. The sacralisation of the chance. There was no more question of Hawthorn making up a lie, a fib around B12H12(2-), than of Haydn writing a dissonant section in one of his piano trios. When you see something for a first time, you don’t know what it is, when you describe it for the first time, language may fail you. You grope for meaning but there is no lie. If only we were given more such moments! Okay, the second thing that you want to talk to you about is this ‘honesty’, this singular object, mysteriously in the title of the presentation. A second experience is one that is shared by scientists and poets, something is seen, something is described, now, not for the first time. But for the umpteenth, but one has thought and concentrated and looked and established a bond with what is being described. Let me give you an example. So love has fled, it hurts to remember what was good. It has happened to others, but that thought doesn’t seem to comfort at all. It happens when there’s somewhere in southern France, in the Luberon in Provence, and in winter one walks out into a vineyard in the morning and it’s sad to face that beauty alone. But then there’s a great cluster one sees on the vines and that cluster is like no other cluster. It must be described, there is a bond between the poet and those grapes. Here’s the poem, I apologize some of you in the back will not see it so I’ll read it. I describe, and I am not sad for a moment. Elsewhere there’s a molecule that I see in a journal. I talk about it to one of my graduate students, it has at its centre a ring which you can see with two thins and two nitrogen’s in it and they are strikingly different. This one is a kind of strange pyramid, this one is approximately a tetrahedron. As a great American philosopher, Yul Bryner, said “It is a puzzlement”. Could one possibly, also could it be due to all the stuff that’s hanging around? So you make all the stuff in the theory, you can do these things, you make them all the same, and it still keeps this strange geometry. You begin to think: What if it went from one of these, like this one which is like that one, to this one, to its partner? What kind of energy would be involved? So Pradeep Gutta, whose name you see worked out part of the international structure of science, an Indian graduate student, post-doc, and I calculate this and we reasoned this out. It is our métier to figure these things out. And we find that it goes in one way and not in another. What science and poetry share, even though they parted company it seems centuries ago, is an honesty to the singular determinate object. We tend to think science is after universals, as Gunther Stent has called it – “The infinitely paraphrasable”. E=MC2, the same in every language, the directions for an aspirin factory, in Japanese the same as those in Portuguese. But science is not one thing, and maybe chemistry is different. We build shaped motion and reaction on specific variably persistent groups of atom, trends matter, general theories less. And individual molecules examined up close, most of all. Craving understanding we circle around the object of our affections in love with particularity, the thinness of this powder, just this shade of turquoise. We study it and we establish a bond with it. Here is what William Blake, who had no place for science, he didn’t like it. He said: But I will read you a poem by Archie Ammons, or at least a part of it, it’s the second part I will read. Does the ethical bent in the language sought, in the precision of the language, in what comes from establishing a bond with a molecule, with a specific molecule, or with a specific leaf here, or a specific grape cluster, does that bond make scientists and poets better human beings? No, no more than it improves those who professionally lead the considered life, philosophers. to quote the title of a book by Elias Canetti. And remarkably enough it can be suppressed by the flush of first creation. That first thing that I said I'm thinking about not ordinary scientists, I'm thinking about the sanest of our profession. And their attitudes to the hydrogen bomb, I'm thinking of Bethe and Sakharov. And in poetry there are analogues of this. Ethical thinking can be awakened, it needs to be a reawakened by thinking about whether a molecule can harm by advances and reproductive technology and, not just in science, by just what one can do, the vilest that one can do to someone by writing a historical play or in whether a poem hurts a lover. Even a soap opera can teach ethics, we should be grateful for these little or big prods to ethical choice. Now I'm coming to an end, just two minutes. The first fruitful intersection of art and science, here, this is something back to our cultural roots. I want to go back to the tree in the Garden of Eden, of our primeval narrative. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I take the etz hadaat tov vera, as it’s called in Hebrew, as the Tree of Ethics, which is not a word in ancient Hebrew. And it’s also the first link between science, narrative and ethics. Let me bypass the question of why God, why a just god would put ethics out of reach. He did. Continuing in this respectful and slightly unrespectful reading, just not necessarily an original one. Is not Adam and Eve’s transgression implicit in the tale? Serpent or no serpent, without that transgression there would be no story of human kind. We’d still be between the four rivers east of Eden. Even before eating of the fruit of the tree and the Rabbi’s debate whether the fruit was fig or wheat or grapes, no apple in sight, no pomegranate in sight, Eve makes a decision. Here is what it says and I'd like you to go back. I apologise for not putting it up in the original Hebrew, but I did find a German quotation last night here. And Eve says, what the bible says is “When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and the delight for the eyes and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate.” The science in my reading of this verse, which is not the usual one, is manifold. The science is there in the knowledge that the tree conveys, of what? Of the wondrous mundane, of the way the tree works - that you’ve heard about in various lectures, not necessarily of the tree – from its cells that you’ve heard about. How they are the same and not the same as our cells, from its remarkable physiology, how it gets water to its defence mechanisms. That tree doesn’t have an immune system exactly, it can’t run away from its predators like we do. These are waiting, these mundane and beautiful things for you young people to discover. But the verse speaks of other things of what is hidden and what is revealed, what will be created. And very, very directly to me the verse speaks of experiment. For this is what Eve hazarded, didn’t she? There was a choice, she saw, she thought and she acted. I would not expect anything of anyone else. She acted on beauty, for wisdom, Kant would have approved. Eve did what had to be done, not to end but to begin a story. Our story, in which curious human beings have the choice every day between Good and Evil. Thank you.

Roald Hoffmann on the connection between curiosity and ethics
(00:32:48 - 00:37:54)

Revisiting the Wisdom of Hippocrates
„Very, very directly to me the verse speaks of experiment“, says Hoffmann and praises Eve: „She saw, she thought and she acted (...) Eve did what had to be done, not to end but to begin a story – our story in which curious human beings have the choice every day between good and evil.“ With Eve’s transgression, paradise was lost but a world was gained.[6] Men and women learned to live together in this world, realizing that they belonged to nature, and not nature to them. Not only in health and disease, but in all their relations with nature, they were guided by physicians, who helped them to stay in balance with natural forces. In ancient Greece, the craddle of Western civilization, Hippocrates of Cos (c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was the most eminent of these physicians. Hippocrates’ boldest statement, as Dickinson Richards quoted it in his lecture on „Hippocrates and history“ in Lindau in 1969, sounds presumptuous to modern ears: „I hold that clear knowledge about nature can be obtained from medicine and from no other source.“ Richards, who shared the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1956 with André Cournand and Werner Forssmann, believes that this is more than a „naive statement from a craftsman trying to advance the prestige of his own trade“, as he explains: „Since man and nature are one, we must seek this knowledge through the study of man and man in nature. This is medicine in its broadest sense, it is in fact humanism, also, in the broadest sense.“ In our modern age, this humanism was more and more replaced though by the conviction that nature is rather the servant than the partner of man. As a consequence of the momentous discoveries and revolutions in the realm of science, „our friend Hippocrates lost out completely“, according to Richards’ historical account:

Dickinson Richards (1969) - Hippocrates and History

Thank you very much. Count Bernadotte, Nobel Laureates, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great pleasure to be present on this occasion and an honour to have received an invitation to participate. That someone who is only a physician, with severely limited classical as well as scientific background, should venture to bring once more to your attention the time-honoured theme of Hippocrates and history. It is the result not so much of new discoveries concerning Hippocrates as it is of certain new and massive and to some extent rather frightening trends that we find in present day physical and biological affairs, including medicine. What I shall try to show is, first, the position originally taken by Hippocrates regarding man and nature. Second, how this position has waxed and waned in its validity and acceptability over vast centuries of time. And third, the urgency now for a new consideration of what may fairly be called Hippocratic doctrine. We need to know about Hippocrates himself as well as his ideas and must first establish that he was a man and not a fable. Like every great man all kinds of fables gathered around and about him, but these must be recognised and discarded. There are 2 clear references by Plato, Hippocrates' contemporary. In the Protagoras one of Plato’s characters, also named Hippocrates, is going to Hippocrates of Kos, the Asclepiad, to be instructed in medicine. And Asclepiad was a term apparently used to describe the general guild of physicians. In the Phaedrus of Plato it is recorded that Hippocrates, the Asclepiad, teaches that an understanding of natural events is the necessary approach - not only to medicine, but to all knowledge. Aristotle in his politics has an interesting comment. When one says the great Hippocrates, he writes, one means not the man but the physician. From this brief but authoritative statement one can deduce that Hippocrates was a man; that he was well known to Aristotle; and that then, a generation after his death, he was already a great figure. Some have even thought that there is here an implication that Hippocrates was a man of small stature. But this seems debatable. The pertinent question is raised, however, what indeed did Hippocrates look like? This question has occupied archaeologists for more than 3 centuries. The first evidence that was found early in the 17th century was a Roman coin of the first century AD on which were depicted a head in profile, the Greek letters iota pi, hip and a serpent staff. The head was rounded, bald, with a short beard, the nose large with broad nares. The design is of course crude, but gives a definite idea of the kind of head and countenance the man had. There was much interest through the latter 18th and 19th centuries in finding an antique sculptured head or other portrait which would be sufficiently like that on the coin, so as to call the head Hippocrates' On the next slide is one familiar in the Capitoline Museum in Rome. And here of the same person, that in the British museum. The fit, as you will see, is not good: the face being much narrower than that on the coin. Half a century or so ago with much additional evidence this head was identified as that of the stoic philosopher Chrysippus and not Hippocrates. There was then at this point no accepted representation of Hippocrates except the coin. In 1940, in the excavation of a burial ground near Ostia Antica, the ancient seaport of imperial Rome, there was found within the family tomb of a distinguished Greek or Roman physician of the first century AD, a pedestal, on which was an inscription beginning, ‘Life is Short’. Near the pedestal on the ground was the sculptured head or herm of an elderly bearded man, the right side of the face much damaged. The contour of the head and details of the face were found to correspond closely with those on the old Roman coin of Kos. This with the inscription ‘Life is Short’ and other evidence have lead most archaeologists to believe with some confidence that the head is indeed an ancient representation of Hippocrates, a fine Roman copy of an earlier Greek original. This is the side view. This is from one side and this from the other. It is seen to be a head and countenance of great power, its expression a curious blend of strength and sorrow. The Hellenistic style places the Greek original at about 280 to 300 BC or somewhat less than 100 years after Hippocrates' death. What were the enduring creations that came out of the life of this remarkable man? As in all history there are not many certainties, and we must deal with records of greatly varying probability. One certainty is the Hippocratic corpus. The whole mass of medical treatises, some 70 or 80 of them still surviving, that were gathered over a period probably of some 400 years and that have survived over a period of 24 centuries. This in itself is an astonishing product. We have, of course, writings on religion collected over much longer periods, and still with us. But where else in either ancient or modern times have we a collection of objective and interpretative writings in a scientific field assembled in one man’s name, so sedulously protected and so earnestly studied and used over so great a span of time? Plato, Aristotle and, of course, Galen wrote more extensively, but within 1 or 2 generations they and their schools had completed their work. The stoics continued teaching and writing for centuries, but their works were scattered, never held together by one dominating personality and in great part lost. It is fairly certain that there existed a school of medicine at Kos before Hippocrates the Great: his biographer, Soranus, mentions his grandfather, Hippocrates the First, and at least 2 of the writings in the corpus have been dated before Hippocrates. What were the truly fundamental contributions to medicine of Hippocrates himself? The evidence is largely internal, and authorities naturally vary as to which treatises are genuine – meaning by this: either written by himself or his immediate students or associates. I believe that by reference to a few of these one can reach the primary features of his teaching. One of the severer critics, Deichgräber, admits only one, the Epidemics, books I and III, as surely by Hippocrates himself. These, as I suppose everyone knows, are simple in form. They consist first of a brief discourse on constitution - that is the meteorological conditions – and the kinds of disease occurring in a particular season. And second, 3 series of most detailed and exact descriptions of individual clinical cases. These are, moreover, complete; there are no single visits to a prestigious patient by a prestigious consultant. The physician here sees every kind of patient, from the wealthy aristocrat to the artisan, the domestic, even the slave. And he follows the patient from the beginning of his disease to its end - whether recovery or death. And whether the disease lasts 2 days or 4 months. He is concerned about the patient’s mental and emotional state as well as the physical strains or excesses that led up to his illness. I venture to state that this kind of exact description was new. Here is an exact and accurate observer of natural events, here is no philosopher proving a system. As Hippocrates himself insists over and over again: he is a practitioner of his 'techne' or craft. And craft is probably a better name for Hippocratic medicine than the traditional word art. What further does he think and do in the broad field of medicine? There are a number of other works which are considered by most authorities to have been written by Hippocrates or one of his colleagues associated in contemporary practice and teaching. The treatise Regimen in Acute Diseases indicates the broad principles of therapy, using the means then available: diets, purges, emetics, bleeding and general daily regimen. The prognostics give the evaluation of symptoms and signs 'favourable' and 'unfavourable'. The surgical treatises on fractures, dislocations and wounds of the head are an extraordinary group, detailing most accurately the anatomy and signs of these various injuries: when to use the knife; how to reduce the fracture or dislocation; precisely how to dress or bandage the injury; what will happen on succeeding days and how to deal with these events. Significant here is that Hippocrates included all branches of medicine and surgery on the same terms. There was no downgrading, for example, of surgery - this came centuries later. In the chapter on airs, waters and places Hippocrates reaches out further and endeavours to place man in relation with his environment – man and nature, as it were, together: what kind of human beings develop in such-and-such a climate or ecologic state as well as what diseases they will have. While he describes accurately malarial climates and the chronic malarial state in man, other sections are wide off the mark, as we would interpret them now. But the point here is the breadth of Hippocrates' conception of medicine and the identification of man, both in health and disease, as a part of nature. Hippocrates’ attitude, his philosophy at the foundation of his medical art or craft, is perhaps best set forth in a very early chapter called ‘Ancient Medicine’. In this he begins by stating that medicine has no need of hypothesis. Here one must distinguish, as W. H. S. Jones notes, the ancient from the modern notion of hypothesis. In the modern, a hypothesis is a postulate which once stated can be investigated. Not so in ancient times; then a hypothesis was a thesis, a declaration of underlying truth to be accepted and thereafter used to explain phenomena but never questioned. To such a hypothesis Hippocrates was opposed. He does not accept for example Empedocles’ proposition that in order to know nature one must first know the origin of man, how he came into being and out of what elements. Medicine is concerned, says Hippocrates, with the sufferings of ordinary folk and does not require ultimate cosmologic theory. He admits of certain general processes and forces, which can be derived from the study and observation of man himself. As one would expect, these are not especially original, but relate to a number of philosophic generalities current in the 5th century BC. The state of health is one of harmony or balance of forces. An acute disease, for example, with sharp acrid discharges is caused by an imbalance of forces to be restored by coction, the Greek word 'pepsis', into thicker, more purulent secretions that lead to healing, and this through mixture or blending, the Greek word 'crasis'. The so-called humours in this early era were recognised but numerous and of various kinds; the fixed doctrine came later. In all cases the basis of medical care is to understand nature, the Greek word 'physis', that is the natural order. The function of medicine is to assist nature to restore this balance of forces, which is the state of health. It is necessary now to define our terms even more precisely, if we are to know what Hippocrates is talking about. The Greek word 'physis' or nature comes from phylon: to grow, spring forth, come into being. And so physis, as Hippocrates uses it, means both nature and the natural order in the large, and also the nature or constitution of man himself. The term differs from the Aristotelian epistemei, which is to know how or understand, and thus denotes man’s own definition of scientific knowledge. Neither one includes the notion of experimentation as a planned action to demonstrate a process. It should be noted, however, that Hippocrates was very much aware of the experimental aspect of medicine. The word 'pira' or trial, which he uses in the first aphorism, shows that for him every therapeutic effort in medicine is an experiment - as indeed it is. The other word of importance is 'iatrica', medicine or the art of healing, and this too is very broad. In Hippocrates' conception it signifies the guidance of man by the physician in health and disease, and in all man’s relations with nature. In this same treatise, that is ancient medicine, Hippocrates makes the boldest and most inclusive statement of all. This is presumptuous indeed. It may be no more than a naïve statement by a craftsman trying to advance the prestige of his own trade, perhaps. But I believe that it is more than this. Since man and nature are one, we must seek this knowledge through the study of man, and man in nature. This is medicine or iatrica in its broadest sense. It is in fact humanism, also in the broadest sense. I am inclined to think that Hippocrates had this large concept in mind, though the language was not then available to give it more precise expression. I should mention the Hippocratic aphorisms. These terse statements, some 400 of them, are of variable quality and origin: many brilliant clinical observations; many obscure and hard to interpret; many of post-Hippocratic and some of pre-Hippocratic origin. They were revered and memorised in later ages by scores of generations of Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Arabic and medieval physicians. We must examine one more Hippocratic or early post-Hippocratic treatise: that on the sacred disease or epilepsy, in which he contrasts medicine with religion and magic. The name 'sacred disease' for epilepsy came out of the tradition of some past age. But why this, asks Hippocrates, more than any other? All diseases are divine, he insists, and all are human. Each has a nature and proceeds according to its natural order. Hippocrates is opposed to non-rational magic but not at all opposed to religion in and for itself. While thus not denying religion he holds as absolutely to the mechanical order in his description of nature as Democritus himself. Incidentally while there is multiple evidence that Hippocrates and Democritus of Abdera were friends over many years, Hippocrates did not use, or appear to need, atomistic theory in all its detail. He might have been interested in Aristotle’s biology but not his cosmogony. Plato’s idealism was the opposite of Hippocrates' primary concern with objective living events. Least of all would he have accepted the Judaic belief of man under a beneficent Jehovah as Lord and Master of created beings, both living and non-living. Man belongs to nature, according to Hippocrates, but nature does not belong to man. We shall come back to this later. So much for Hippocrates, the man and the physician and his teaching. It has been a long introduction. Now to pursue the adventures, misadventures and distortions of himself and his doctrines through the course of history, we must keep separate at all times 2 main features of this teaching - one is the actual clinical instruction in practical medicine, the other is the larger philosophical scheme of man in nature - because they have very different histories. Let us examine first the course of Hippocratic medicine within his school itself, as more and more medical writings came to be added to the collection. These were from many sources and with many different philosophic backgrounds: Pythagorean, Aristotelian, Epicurean and so forth. The whole, as we have it now, is actually probably a part of a library of the Hippocratic school. As is so often the case with a leader of thought, the wide-ranging philosophy of Hippocrates became increasingly restricted and dogmatised as time went on, to end eventually, and unhappily, in that rigid rubric which continued down the ages as the Hippocratic doctrine of the 4 humours, combining these with the 4 elements and 4 forces or powers. These, as we have noted, Hippocrates himself had been at much pains to denounce as the wrong way by which to approach the art and science of medicine. This figure, familiar I suppose to all of you, gives the pattern. We have the 4 elements: fire, earth, water and air. And associated with them the Hippocratic humours: yellow bile, black bile, phlegm and blood. And acting upon them the 4 dynamis or forces are: hot, dry, cold and moist. Like so many theories, it is so neat that it ought to be true even if it is not, and therefore was thought worthy to be perpetuated. Even more, perhaps, than his scientific attitude, Hippocrates as a man was stripped of his human qualities and made into a figurehead if not a semideity. He was solemnly pronounced 19th in lineal descent from Asclepius and 20th in lineal descent from Hercules. He was set up as an actual disciple of Asclepius, as for example in the so-called Hippocratic, actually post-Hippocratic, Oath, when in his life he scorned the use of magic in medicine and in his own writings never once mentioned Asclepius name. In the later works of the Corpus, if one leaves aside the medical philosophy and looks only at the medical and surgical observations, one finds that there is much of value and of the widest range. This solid foundation of practical clinical medicine is what continued to be valued by successive generations of physicians, and what therefore held the corpus together as a sort of text book on a grand scale. The long list of commentators provides abundant proof of this: Aristotle comments on one. His student Menon lists a number of the writings. Herophilus, the anatomist of the Alexandrian school around 300 BC, was a commentator, and more extensively his student Bacchius. Eoritan, in the time of Augustus, listed the works known to him. To complete our story, the renaissance compiler and editor Anutius Foesius assembled over 250 commentators on the works of Hippocrates, most of them Greek, Roman, Hebrew or Arabic. But it was, of course, Galen at the end of the second century AD who truly and authoritatively brought to life again the major writings of the Hippocratic School. It is extraordinary how absolute the devotion which this arrogant and overweening man paid to the father of medicine. To be sure, if Galen did not agree with the Hippocratic writing, he either reinterpreted it to suit himself or else discarded it as a miscopying or a later interpolation. He wrote commentaries on or mentioned over 30 chapters, including all but one of those that we now accept as 'genuinely' Hippocratic. But Galen also accepted, and made his own, that same rigid humoral philosophy worked out in a post Hippocratic period. And he successfully passed this on to later Roman and medieval times. We can skip now over vast centuries. With medical theory and philosophy fixed and with experimental enquiry as yet unborn, practical medical knowledge was derived largely from the ancients and even this in fragmentary form. Some of Galen’s medicine and physiology survived: much of his materia medica. Greek medicine was delivered largely through Arabic sources, though Hippocrates' Aphorisms, Prognostic and Dietetics were available in Latin translation. These sources formed the textbooks in the better schools for 1000 years. Surgery declined to the level of barber surgeon practitioners. Medicine as a practical healing art was reduced to empirical formulae mixed with astrology, superstition and magic. Its total impotence during the ravages of the Black Death from the mid-14th century on diminished its standing still further. Medicine was late in joining the revival of learning, slumbering on in Galenic tradition for nearly 2 centuries after the first flowering of art and literature in Italy. This was only partly because of the stubborn adherence of medical leaders to Galenic doctrine, partly because other science was late in starting, and partly also because the full texts of the medical knowledge of the ancients arrived from the east only toward the end of the 15th and early 16th centuries. The Hippocratic corpus was a part of this new or newly restored knowledge. The first editions of the corpus with Latin translations were published in 1525. This was a time of great events, in which, as it turned out, Hippocrates and his doctrines played a diminishing role. Let us consider again the 2 aspects of this doctrine: on the one hand the clinical descriptions and teaching, and on the other the broader ideas of medicine and philosophy. In the former, as one would expect, it was the clinicians who seized avidly upon the newly discovered writings, whereas the anatomists and physiologists such as Vesalius and William Harvey stayed with Galen and Aristotle - at least as long as they could. Outstanding among the clinicians were Ambroise Paré of France in the 16th century, Thomas Sydenham of England in the 17th, and Hermann Boerhaave of Holland in the early 18th. Paré, the surgeon, contemporary of Vesalius, was a man of humble origin and no learning. He has been thought to have hired some assistant to put into his writings Hippocratic quotations, but actually Paré did more than this. In his great textbook of surgery, the section on fractures and dislocations is modelled exactly after the Hippocratic treatises, in fact reads like an extension of these. Paré was a true disciple of the father of medicine. Thomas Sydenham went further. Not only did he follow in his textbook, Processus Integri, the Hippocratic method of exact clinical description, but he accepted also his broader ideas of health and disease in the natural order, and made explorations in the field of epidemiology. These, however, were not taken up by his successors and were soon forgotten. But these more or less isolated events in clinical medicine over this 2-century span were small indeed beside the momentous discoveries and revolutions in the whole realm of science. I realise that these are familiar to all of you. But I must look at them briefly in their relation to medicine, both looking backward to the ancients and also forward as they transformed all science, philosophy and society in the generations ahead. The dominant force, of course, was the discovery and elaboration of the methods of experiment, which had been absent from the work of almost all in ancient times. In the physical sciences in this brave new world, man was all but overwhelmed by his own success. A. N. Whitehead has said that the Middle Ages were the age of faith based on reason, the 18th century the age of reason based on faith. It was faith in science and its limitless possibilities. It was faith also in man and his limitless capability. There was a resurrection of the old Judaic and now Judeo-Christian doctrine of man under a beneficent deity as Lord of Creation. Sometimes the deity was called providence, sometimes he was dropped out, but the principle was the same. Man was the master, nature in its limitless profusion was his servant. There was something also of the crusader added to the conception. Man conquering the infidels of a baleful nature, or at least of the baleful and antihuman features of man’s environment. In any event, the prospect was pleasing. By taking thought and exerting himself, man would soon learn to live forever in prosperity and peace. The immense achievements of science and technology through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries could not but serve as proofs of the validity of this conception. In the new scheme of things, it is only fair to say, that our friend Hippocrates lost out completely. As emphasised recently by Galdston, whatever was left of the Hippocratic idea of medicine assisting nature in the restoration of health gave way before the experimental approach and its consequences. Diseases became specific entities with etiologic agents, cures and preventions. And in the ever-strengthening anthropocentric philosophy of our age they came to be looked upon as enemies, to be put down and stamped out under the foot of the Lord of Creation. Each discovery was another battle won in man’s total conquest of nature. One by one infections, deficiency states, metabolic defects have been brought under control by miracle drugs or other agents; even persisting chronic diseases alleviated. In our environment pests unfavourable to our food products, animal or vegetable, have been destroyed by powerful poisons, predatory animals wiped out. Heredity in plants and animals have been rearranged to man’s benefit. And even in man, heredity is about to be placed under favourable control - at least in the minds of some. Man has, in fact, all but reached his goal as Lord of Creation. Even 2 world wars with their insane and ghastly devastation did not disturb the dream still resting in the confident scientific philosophy of the 18th century. Then, at first slowly, afterward with increasing momentum, something happened. God disappeared from his Heaven and all was not right with the world. It began to be apparent that the world no longer has a physical frontier and never again will have. It has changed or has been changed from an open to a closed system. One physical event can reach around the world - there is no place to hide. This is something altogether new in history - at least so far as the small species, homo sapiens, is concerned. Some things have happened by slow degrees, others suddenly. One is reminded of the moment in the life of Niels Bohr, that great and good man, when he awoke to the sombre realisation that the true and the good are not the same, that the true in fact can be appallingly evil. I refer obviously to the explosion of the first atomic bomb. There is no need to continue this story. The subsequent distruction, all the radiation that up to now has been loosed upon the world, the grim threat of annihilation – but the list piles up: we have the ravages upon our forests and mineral resources; water pollution, air pollution from many sources – the most overwhelming from all the effluent of the burned carboniferous fuels produced by our flourishing industries; pesticides with their lethal track down our streams into the sea, taken up into animal, aquatic and bird life, destroying countless millions, if not whole species - and so back into man himself. Most ironical has been the progress in medicine. Simultaneously with the conquest of disease has come the enormous increase in population. The statisticians telling us that the world population, if not checked, will double in 35 years, with its inevitable threat of increased starvation and the rest. Our death control, as someone has said recently, has been admirable; our birth control, when looked at over the whole world, small indeed. In our wanted conquest of nature it appears, as so often with other conquests, that the conquered and even the means of conquest return to plague the conquerors themselves. If one proposes to be Lord of Creation, one must think of everything and one must not forget. And the trouble with man is, he has not thought of everything and he does forget. It is a sad reflection on our miscalculations to consider now, if we are to survive, how much of our time will have to be spent correcting our own mistakes. In all of this, where does Hippocrates come in? He comes in most vigorously. You will remember some 24 centuries ago, his general position that man belongs to nature, but nature does not belong to man. Although the context has changed, it seems reasonable to suppose that Hippocrates would argue that man must now abandon the notion of conquering nature and become once more nature’s servant. Nature must be protected more than exploited. And this must be man’s primary concern. This argument is set forth by Galdston in his paper, which I have already referred to, in which he claims a resurgence, or perhaps one should say a hoped-for resurgence, of Hippocratic medicine. There is nothing new, to be sure, in this general proposition about the world today. You will say, as Horatio said to Hamlet, ‘There needs no ghost, my Lord, come from the grave to tell us this.' But the question is not one of novelty but of urgency. It is true that remedial measures are at hand if we will use them, and on a large enough scale. Birth control is possible and feasible. Mineral and forest sources can be conserved, fuel consumption reduced, air and water pollution controlled, metabolisable pesticides discovered and applied, the nuclear arms race stopped, and dangers from radiation curbed. It is true also that in some countries, as in Europe and Japan, much of this control is exercised, but the world picture is disturbing. In the heavily industrialised United States, politics and industry are in command, and the military pressures by the one and the primary urge for profits by the other prevent essential reform. Over the world at large, population control is of course the most urgent of all considerations. But the ignorance of the people and the incapacity or unconcern of most governments leave little to hope for and everything to be done. Yet if man is to survive, somehow these huge obstacles must be overcome - and soon. There is much to do and not very much time. As I listened yesterday to my friend and colleague André Cournand - this remark, by the way, is not in my prepared text – as I listened to Doctor Cournand, it occurred to me that I might at this point call in the prophet Daniel, as he did, and invoke his aid. But then I realised that Daniel was a prophet. And this is not prophecy but only history. So I shall rest with Hippocrates. Hippocrates also had the right word to describe where we now are: The art is long, he said, and life is short. Applause.

Dickinson Richards claims a resurgence of Hippocratic ideals
(00:27:48 - 00:32:06)

Humankind’s hope that it would be able to regain paradise by the means of science did not fulfill. On the contrary, science helped to build the highway to the disasters of the 20th century. Shouldn’t we better hope for a resurgence of the ideals of Hippocratic medicine, if we want to survive? asks Richards. Do we not have to find our way back to a new humanism? Similar questions are put forward by his co-laureates Cournand and Forssmann, who frequently spoke about ethical issues when they lectured in Lindau, six and seven times, respectively.

The Loss of Our Spiritual Centre
Referring explicitly to his profession as a medical doctor, whose exclusive obligation is to protect life, Forssmann in 1974 diagnosed mankind with having lost its „spiritual centre“. Greed for material goods and well-being governed the world, a fog of brutal egotism concealed the beneficial potential of science and technology, and instead of complementing each other to overcome this situation, science and humanities disconnected at an increasing pace. Scientists tended to display a certain hubris, neglecting the immense, world-changing power of ideas, which cannot be expressed in numbers or equations. „Or does not Karl Marx’ „Capital“ keep the whole world in suspense until today?“ We are, says Forssmann, in desperate need of philosophical and religious thinking to conquer the frenzy of power, which is caused by the success of science. Intensive educational efforts are necessary to bring the human spirit back into a healthy balance.

Science and the humanities need each other, says Werner Forssmann
(00:01:58 - 00:05:37)

To form true democrats in Forssmann’s sense, who are able to place the common good above their own advantage, was a major concern of André Cournand, too, when he in 1981 - at the height of the arms’ race between East and West - considered whether there is a scientific code of ethics, which can „serve as a basis for the development of a human ethic appropriate for the management of the planeterian problems of our time“. Because scientists are „bound to their colleagues by shared tradition and by their common effort to promote scientific knowledge“ and because they increasingly become aware of their social responsibility, they can foster mutual understanding between nations and help to distribute the fruits of knowledge in an equitable fashion[7]. To whom should science adress itself to promote its ideals „of intellectual honesty, tolerance, objectivity, disinterestedness and submission to a communal order“? asks Cournand. He bases his answer on two principle creators of modern science, Francis Bacon and René Descartes.

Andrè Cournand (1981) - Science, Scientists and Society

Meine Damen und Herren, this is about the only German words that I will pronounce here for this audience. My speech is mostly addressed to the young people in this audience because I do not doubt that the senior members of this audience are very familiar with most of the idea that I have in the course of the last fifteen years brought together since I retired from investigation of respiration and cardiovascular function. I had, since that time, the opportunity to become acquainted with the French philosophy of Gaston Berger and to learn about the prospective attitude and method. I have also had occasion to reflect on my own experience as a scientist to apply to those reflections the penetrating insight of my friend Robert King Merton on the conduct and method of science. In all of this I have sought to identify certain integral linkages between the ideas of Berger and Merton and to consider their bearing on the overriding problem of our time. That is the creation of a rational world order for a world gone awry. The goal of the prospective method to present it briefly is to create alternative images of a future that will serve the process of decision making in the present. Creation of these images is the result of an analysis in depth of situation, identification of facts or events pregnant with future possibility and anticipation and projection of their possible and desirable development. In this sense it is somewhat akin to the creative process of natural science, the process by which different hypotheses are devised and then submitted to experiment. The crucial difference of course between scientific and prospective method is that a testing of hypothesis arrive through the prospective method with regard to the future lies only in the ulterior judgement of history. Now scientific knowledge, whether fundamental or applied, evolves within the framework of a model that a physicist historian Thomas Kuhn in the structure of scientific revolution has called the “scientific paradigm”. This model holds scientists within the limits of a theoretical conceptual methodological and practical order. At work within the accepted order scientists exemplify three different types, the investigator discoverer, the verifier consolidator and the revolutionary who denounces the witnesses of the prevailing paradigm and ultimately goes beyond its limit to create a new model. Until the beginning of the 20th century classical mechanics ascribed mainly to the genius of Isaac Newton and elaborate by a number of physicists defined the paradigm of natural science. The model physical content relied upon the postulates that on ether field the universe at that time was absolute. This paradigm made possible tremendous development of scientific knowledge as investigator discoverers aided by the verifier consolidators pursued their research. At the beginning of the 20th century however the discovery of fundamental theoretical incoherency and of paradoxical experimental results jeopardised the model defined by classical mechanics. The first experiment of quantum behaviour of life namely the discontinuous emission of energy found my Max Planck in 1900 to account for the black body radiation effect revealed some mysterious known sector of the physical world that could not be analysed in the context of classical mechanics. The momentous change in scientific thought occurred in that period through the genius of Albert Einstein. His revolutionary all-embracing ideas about the nature of the physical world completely changed the prevailing paradigm. Einstein’s ideas was involving two stages, first the concept of absolute time was rejected and replaced by that of relative time. And the second consists of postulating the discontinuity of interaction between light and such constituents of matter as atoms. Simultaneously experiments regarded as paradoxical under the old concept of the continuous nature of light, became interpretable. And the basis for the development of quantum mechanics came into existence. In these ways Einstein established a new paradigm with a new representation of space time and the new description of the interaction of light with matter. Working with this framework De Broglie, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and Paul Dirac among others construct mathematical consistent models of physical system. Together, with experimental discoveries such as radioactivity these models led to our present interpretation of nature at a microscopic as well as the cosmological level. In order to explain the mechanism of this true mutation in scientific thought Henri Poincaré has proposed that the revolutionary scientist experiences what is tantamount to a vision. Although the vision frequently occurs in scientists in their early, to scientists in their early twenties, it has always been preceded by prolonged period of preparation and incubation. Einstein for example recorded the profound influence of Ernst Mach’s book “Philosophy of Science” which he read when he was a school boy. The vision is similar to a religious revelation in more than one respect. It is sometimes favoured by moral moratorium. The term used by Erik Erikson in his biography of Martin Luther to describe the temporary abandonment of traditional practices and believe in the course of a religious conversion. As with the creative process in the artists the beauty of the new creation is proof for the scientists that this new concept of reality is valid. The revolutionary is not necessarily the one who verifies it on his own discovery. Recognition by other scientists of the validity of a new paradigm comes but slowly. It is achieved through the result of observation of all experiment performed by the investigator discoverer and the verifier consolidator and pursued within a framework of the new paradigm that substituted self for what went before. When faced by new fact and idea the investigator discoverers must ask themselves questions prompted by their curiosity. This curiosity is particular, it is sustained by a heuristic function, which leads the discoverer in their quest for a truth that no ....scientist (inaudible 8.52) now can be only relative. Both the revolutionary vision and the investigator discoverer’s spirit of inquiry contribute to the constant renewal of scientific work. The mental process through which the savant pursues his or her creative mission has been the subject of a profound analysis by Michael Polanyi in his book “Personal Knowledge”. According to Polanyi, scientific investigators are not neutral witnesses to their own discovery. In fact for the savant there is no knowledge other than personal knowledge. His intelligence and passionate participation create an intimate contact beyond comprehension itself with what he or she perceives and conceives as reality. But even Polanyi insightful analysis and recognition of the special character of scientific curiosity are not sufficient to account for scientific renewal. The scientist’s mental processes are supplemented with consciousness of a role, consciousness based on a set of moral values in a phrase – a code of ethics. The principles specified by this code assert the number that should underline and direct the scientist objectives in research and in his or her conduct towards others within the institution of science itself. I have discussed this code of ethics on a number of occasions and have analysed the modification imposed by time, numerous external pressure and a growing interaction between science and society. I will limit myself here to a few comments on one or two of those principles of the code. Namely the disinterestedness in the sense of belonging of scientific community to a scientific community command to the scientist the notion that his own work is but one facet of a vast enterprise that is regulated according to the ethics of science formulated in 1942 by Robert Merton. In that he is bound to his colleagues by shire tradition and by their common effort to promote scientific knowledge. The idea, no the second element of the code is a new one. It is the recognition of social responsibility acknowledged by a growing number of scientists which marks an important step in their spiritual development and constitutes a strong response to the detractors of science. The idea of involving science with social action has recently taken an active institutionalised form in France, initiated by the organisation of the universal movement for scientific responsibility, short MURS. The original and specific aim of this movement is to bring together under various forms of assembly scientists who develop new knowledge, political leaders who hold the power of decision making and representatives of the public which provides moral and financial support to science. Thereby our created platform and opportunity to discuss solid topics, concerning new scientific and technical discovery, their potential social benefits and their risk and other problems of common interest. Also in the course of those the politicians and the public would become acquainted with the way the scientists are thinking. The scientific code formulate something different from Merton statement, raises two new questions. First, can the code serve as a basis for the development of a human ethic appropriate for the management in the future of ... problems (inaudible 13.23) of our time. I shall deal with this subject in a little while. Industrialised nation have plunged head-long into applying the technique of science thus accelerating a written of social and cultural revolution and determining or intensifying changes that effect people’s consciousness and hopes. More recently the underdeveloped countries have embarked on a course that although not identical with that of the developed nations raise the hope of their leaders that they will succeed in upgrading the human potential through a course to modern technology. But these countries do not always respond to the most urgent necessity such as the establishment and consolidation of an economic system that meets the needs of a particular country or the satisfaction of even the most basic nutritional requirement of its people. In both industrialised and underdeveloped countries change comes about in a manner that is unequal and unbalanced. This was characterised by Pierre Massé as “blind emergence”. Instead of a harmonious system that would provide efficiently for the needs of all, an unbalanced world economy emerges subject to the wildest fluctuation. The inequality between the have and the have-not increases simultaneously with uncontrolled technological growth. Left to itself this blind emergence presents a direct contrast to what should be humanised emergence. This would introduce order into chaos, protect the individual and at the same time organise the collectivity, a great utopian to satisfy. Finding the means to control a process of emergence in a matter favourable to the survival of humanity is an urgent necessity. To this end the industrialised nation need to develop a new and effective ethic that should constitute a model of development for nation, regions and ethnic groups in order to favour the maximum humanisation, the most appropriate application of technology according to basic needs and positive project for the future with as a fundamental objective a decent way of life for every human being. In recent years several suggestions have been made regarding an ethic where science will play a crucial role. Two of these suggestions are fundamentally opposed: The ethic of knowledge proposed by Jacque Monod and the ethic of development proposed by Pierre Massé. Monod’s characterisation of an ethic is founded on the sole principle of the objectivity of knowledge. In his own term, the only goal sovereign good for man is not his happiness, his temporal power or comfort, nor the socratic know thyself. It is objective knowledge itself. This is a rigid and constraining ethic which respects man as a supporter of knowledge, nevertheless defines a value superior to man itself. Admirable though, it may be in proclaiming that science is by definition an ethic doctrine. The authoritarian character of this ethic constitutes a return to what is kind of science, accessible only to qualified scientists. Consider in this manner scientific technocracy, technocracy would create a new aristocracy whose ideal would be far from liberal and would in gender abuses without necessarily contributing to an improvement in the welfare of human society. Pierre Massé rejects such a science proposing instead an alternative solution, the ethic of development to serve mankind. He stresses compromise, harmony and conciliation, quality derives from the phases that biological survival of the individual as well as the species depends upon accommodation between rigidity and plasticity between the imperious nature of genes and the ability to adapt to environmental pressure. He believed that the sheer adventure of the species should be extended to human society. In refuting the impeccable mechanism of emergence as ruthless and un-merciless for the individual this ethic will enrich society by adding a dimension of justice and love. This appeal to the sentiment of love reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s comment during an interview in 1957. Even though this great English logician, mathematician, philosopher remained in that phase to the end of his days, he affirmed his adherence to a code of conduct in the following terms. I quote the interview: fearing the smiles of the original of cynics who consider themselves wise men. The word I wish to use to define it and I beg you to excuse me is love, Christian love in some compassion.” The role of Massé’s ethical development should inspire us to discover a solution to the urgent problem of our time, to promote abundance more equitably, to become conscious of our responsibility vis-à-vis other nation and individuals and to distribute the fruits of knowledge in an equitable fashion. I come now to the second question raised by the code of behaviour by which scientists govern themselves. To whom should science address itself? At the beginning of modern science the major concern of its two principle creators Francis Bacon and René Descartes have been the fate of the world with the necessity to develop a universal audience receptive to the achievement of science and the formulation of an ethic. Bacon wrote in “Valerius Terminus”, published 1603 /04, in the following term: that he places that knowledge at the service of the state and society. It will, if not all forms of knowledge must become evil and serpentine.” Descartes’s answer to the question to whom should science address itself spoke of the law that obliges us to reach out for all that is in us, that is the general good of mankind. That’s the end of my quotation of Descartes. The point of view of these two founders of modern science reinforces the thesis I have proposed: The need for applying a scientific code to the establishment of an ethic for our time. To this code proposed by Massé are they not complimentary. Does not the possibility of the unification suggest in turn the possibility of creating a universal order based on the cooperation of both scientific investigators and of a public that includes all mankind? Does not this code preach the universality of science? Do not the norms of intellectual honesty, tolerance, objectivity, disinterestedness and submission to a communal order favour the condition necessary for obtaining this universality and for establishing a harmonious balance in human relations? This goal I’m afraid may seem utopian but as a French poet, Valéry, has written – “Man’s true worth lies in his ability to surpass his own highest achievements. If my own view of shaping your future is any guide, this goal should be reached by emphasis on the prospective type of education which encourages us to adapt to circumstances of an ever changing world, to acquire an open mind in the intelligent capacity to analyse all subjects in depth and in their potential interrelation, to be ready to act in order to efficiently obtain what is desirable, to invent ways of communication and dialogue that promote understanding among people and nations and to develop above all a genuine deep-seated feeling for human being.” This speech now has come to its end, and it does represent what an old investigator long past his time has to offer to the younger generation. That is the hope that of course eliminating the possibility of atomic war, which we should try to satisfy in the future. Thank you.

André Cournand considers a code of ethics
(00:20:38 - 00:24:10)


Science as a Bond Between Nations
„Men’s true worth lies in his ability to surpass his highest achievements“, Cournand quotes the French poet Paul Valéry to express his optimism that scientists will be able to live up to the stretch goals he formulates for their ethical conduct. Even more optimistic was Isaac Rabi, the father of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1944, when he spoke in Lindau in 1973 about science as a bond between nations and described his involvement in organizing and conducting the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva in August 1955, not only in his eyes „perhaps the most important diplomatic event in the fifties“, which lead to the foundation of the International Atomic Energy Agency two years later.[8]

Isidor Rabi (1973) - Science - A Bond between Nations

The others are Cooper and Schrieffer, particularly Cooper went off on an entirely different field, hoping to get a new Nobel Prize perhaps in neurology and subjects of that sort.(laughter and applause) And so on with others - I wish him well - so on with others. Now I have an excuse for going to this subject. And it might interest you to permit me to make some personal remarks. When I was a boy, during the time of the First World War, I was intensely pro-German because of the great eminence of the Germans in science. By the time of the Second World War I was just as much anti-German because of the suppression of science, amongst other things. And then when war came, indeed well before the war came, I was very eager to do something about the problem. And well before the United States entered the war officially, a number of colleagues got together and we started a war laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts devoted to radar, which was then a very serious problem, particularly for the British - I’m talking about 1940. Well, we were still not at war, but we were able to get a certain amount of money from the government to develop certain elements in microwave radar. And by the end of the year, that’s to say by the end of 1941, I felt I had put in enough time. And was going to go back to Columbia. I’d interrupted my career. At the time things were going very well. When arriving in Boston from New York, I saw the headline that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour. That put all such thoughts aside. And it was clear we were in the war, and in the war very heavily. I feel that when the scientist changes from science to the practical applications of science, with its war and anything else, he has to change completely and move in the most efficient direction for achieving the objective. In this case the movement had to be of 2 kinds: One, in the direct working on specific things. Secondly to keep in mind the idea that you’re there to win the war. Which meant that the instruments of warfare which you had to develop, had to suit the purpose of winning the war – not what the military people told you, who are mostly quite ignorant of the higher developments of technology. So you had to enter into the thinking of being at war, or whatever you’re doing. And secondly, you have to learn to know those people whom you are trying to convince to use your particular products. You can call it salesmanship, whatever it is. Which means you had to think about war in a military kind of way. What is the correct direction? Where will the war go? - They can’t tell you, you had to outguess them. What to develop? So as you see in this way there would be a conversion. I don’t mean everybody has to do it but at that time I was already an elder statesman, and it was part of my job to help direct this laboratory in the direction which would go for the purpose of winning the war. To do this you had to first find out what the possible policy would be. You’d have to make an anticipation of what the advance of the war would be. And you had to find ways and means of persuading people, who are not accustomed to being talked to in this way by civilians, that you mean well and you are friends and that you appreciate their abilities; and you want them to appreciate your abilities. This was the main job there, and on the whole it was very satisfactory. We developed very close relations with the military. We understood after a time that they were very often very sincere people, trying to do their job. They had their limitations. But there were things that they could do, we couldn’t do and vice versa. By learning to understand them, by being together with them, drinking with them, all that sort of thing, you finish that you can work harmoniously. My relations through this radar development, and also to some degree through the atomic bomb project, gave me many connections with different levels in the government - the military and certain other kinds. Well, this went on for 5 years. In 5 years one becomes a changed man. A person out of the laboratory and engaged in these broader problems for 5 years is no longer the man he was at the beginning. The most important thing that happened to me, however, was to be present at the first test of the atomic bomb at Alamogordo. I won’t describe the thing to you; many poetic descriptions have been given by those who were present. But at the end of that morning, when the test took place, I realised that people who had seen this, who had felt this, who realised what it meant for the continuation of civilisation, for the continuation of science, for the continuation of things which we held most dear: family, offspring, country, civilisation, the race; that you had to testify and do what you could to bring this under control in some form. Furthermore one realised very quickly - as soon as I entered this war work - that human beings are very frail. And the power of science is such that human beings, the whole human race, lay at the mercy of the human race. The developments for killing people, for destroying the artefacts of civilisation, could grow immeasurably and perhaps it was most fortunate that in the past there was no close relation between the scientists and the military. Perhaps we would not be here to give a talk on this subject. In any event, by the end of the war this recognition of the power of science was deeply in the mind and spirit of the people in the government, particularly the military. And most of my friends in the military had a feeling of the sort which I described. It was the period right after the war when, although in a certain sense flushed with victory, there was a great sadness because of the new thing which had come into the world. Therefore feeling this I could not escape, nor did I want to escape, some kind of official, semi-political involvement. This concerned various things, like the setting up of the US Atomic Energy Commission, which I became a member of the general advisory committee. Oppenheimer was chairman, Enrico Fermi was a member of this commission, and other names which would be well known to all of you. The development there was to be along the lines of peaceful development, but also the development of bigger and better and more efficient atomic weapons. With my feeling that the way to influence general policy in government was to be inside. In the first place, there you could know with exactness what was going on. There you could know where policy was being made, who was making it, what the forces were. And by contributing to the thing you had a certain standing. And we had many very important struggles, and some of it has become public, like the very great struggle with this general advisory committee on the one side, and the group around Edward Teller on the other side about the development of the thermonuclear bomb - things of that sort. But my own objective in being in this was in the direction of doing what one can to perhaps remove this from the arsenal of the world and to use the positive side, the peaceful uses of atomic energy, to bring a greater cooperative effort and understanding between the nations, since they could no longer exist indefinitely with a build-up of atomic stockpiles. So I had various positions of this sort within the government. And my direction was always in this direction: to utilise science and the products of science to make connections between countries. I am not going to suggest that science can do a very great deal to bring peace. We’re in the hands of politicians in the first place. We have 2 problems. One, the education of the politician. And secondly, what is actually happening to make him feel, not just information, but to have him feel this viscerally. And the other problem is to persuade him that the direction of development is not in becoming stronger and stronger, but in trying to come to some accommodation. And in this way a group of my friends were able to persuade the United States government, about 1946, to put out a plan for containing atomic weapons and combining this with the development of the peaceful uses of atomic weapons. This failed utterly. And the result was that the arms race continued, became hotter and hotter. The cold war became hotter and hotter as time went on. And there were various proposals to see what direction one can do to slow down this arms race. President Eisenhower made a proposal before the United Nations: that we have some central deposit of fissionable material, where the nations could give certain amounts which would be taken out of what they had and this to be used for peaceful purposes; the general idea was to divert this material from the weapons. It produced a very favourable impression at that time, in the newspapers all over the world. And then a few months later it was forgotten. Well, I felt this was a very interesting proposal, not very practical, but since it had received great recognition, we should carry on. And what we did, I did and my friends, we conceived of the idea of having a conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy, where you could get the nations of the world to get together and to talk about what they had and what they knew about the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Well, the peaceful uses of atomic energy, as you know, are not so terribly separated from the military uses, because the peaceful uses of atomic energy mean that you have to use fissionable material and make fissionable material in amounts which could be very large. But in any event a conference devoted to this direction and there, in the midst of the cold war and the arms race, to talk about the peaceful uses seemed to be a wonderful opportunity for a change of pace. The big problem was, how to get this to come about? Well, it was very, very difficult, because, naturally, intelligent people were very sceptical about this sort of thing. But by going around and persuading we finally received a certain amount of agreement. To set this up I thought we should be representative of the nations of the world. So we tried to get a geographical distribution and something which took a certain amount of weight off the state of advancement of the country in atomic energy. We set up an international committee to begin with, this was 1954, consisting of the USSR, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, India, Brazil - you can see we’re going from continent to continent. Well, there were 7 altogether; Canada was another one. Canada, although a small country, was in because of their great deposits of uranium which they had. This committee met. It was very fascinating. Bhabha, great Indian scientist, unfortunately dead, Sir John Cockcroft – I hate to recite the names because so many of them are gone. And it’s when I first had a direct political international experience of this sort. This conference, we decided, must be non-political, a scientific conference, non-political. So we had to set up certain rules of procedure, of how to pursue this. There were 22 rules of procedure. It took 8 days of negotiation for the 22 simple rules of procedure. At the end of that time I became an experienced diplomat in international conferences. Those of you, who have had experience in dealing with the Soviet delegation in something as political as this, will appreciate it. But if you haven’t, it’s very difficult to appreciate it. You get a suggested change in text, purely change in text; then you analyse it and then you find there’s a great deal more to it. It took a long time, let's say 8 days, to do this. And then to set up the conference itself, which had something like 30 sessions with a lot of different papers, only took 2 days. When we got down to the science as such, away from the politics, it was all very easy – which shows me that international relations would be much simpler if scientists were given the job, and if they took the time to do it. I must say this for the Soviet delegation at the actual conference: they were completely loyal to the rules; there was no attempt at the propaganda. Once we’d worked the thing out, there was no difficulty. This conference was perhaps the most important diplomatic event in the decade of the 50s. And there for the first time you had a massive Soviet delegation, and important delegations from other countries. But for the first time we met Soviet scientists and others, the officials, in considerable numbers, and the result was most astonishing. It was the most friendly kind of meeting. And to show you the feeling which they had, I will quote to you from a broadcast which was made from the Soviet Union, and it was beamed to Hungary. And the man who was speaking was no other than Academician Veksler, who was the Russian inventor of their Cosmotron. This was an internal broadcast amongst the Soviet states. This is an intercept by an American listening station of a broadcast from Russia to Hungary by Veksler. It describes the conference better than I could. was not only the first truly great international conference in the field of physics. We certainly can claim, as regards scope and significance, that it was a conference of scientists unique in history. The figures characterising this conference, the scientists of 73 countries, have been published on several occasions; I do not wish to engage in repetition. Not only physicists, research workers and theoreticians went to Geneva, but also biologists, scientists of chemistry, medicine and eminent engineers and technicians. The circle of topics discussed was therefore very wide. Yet it centred on one principle problem: How to turn the vast source of energy, like in the nucleus of the atom, more quickly and more productively to the benefit of mankind. It was of paramount importance that at the great conference an atmosphere was created which was at once friendly, free from superfluous officiousness, and characterised by objectivity worthy of such a serious scientific gathering. The debates were not confined to sessions of the special groups. In my opinion very fruitful conversations were held in the lobbies and in private within the narrow circles of experts from various countries. At the conference sessions the debates were very active and friendly in tone, which, however, did not preclude critical observations. It has been noted with satisfaction that the scientists of the world easily found a common language. The significance of this fact is inestimable. The participants of the conference paid constant and great attention to the contributions of the Soviet delegates. In the course of our conversations my foreign colleagues repeatedly declared how impressed they were by the new data concerning the construction in the USSR, of the vast accelerator of charged particles which is nearing completion and is intended for the production of protons in the 10 billion electron volt energy. The press on several occasions reported on the foreign scientist’s appreciation of the Soviet’s scientific and technical achievements in the peaceful application of atomic energy. While noting with satisfaction the recognition accorded Soviet scientists at the Geneva conference’. And here is the interesting thing: were less significant or interesting than ours, on the contrary they were most successful. The value of the conference laid precisely in that it fostered the enrichment of knowledge on both sides, in theory as well as in the field of experiment and technical practice. The vast scope of the conference, the variety of its subjects, and the multitude of the contributions heard there, make it impossible to present an exhaustive survey of even the most interesting parts. Thus I speak of the subject nearest to me, the accelerators of charged particles. I want first and foremost to point out the outstanding report presented by Ernest Lawrence, the eminent US expert on high-energy accelerators, a new trend in this field. Our scientists and engineers were unanimous in their praise of the report of the US scientist Doctor Zinn on the boiling water reactor. Although various critical observations were made with regard to its application, my Soviet colleagues have valued that report highly, together with many others. Most noteworthy were the exhibitions staged by the Western countries, and the US exhibition in particular. To sum up there were many most valuable and interesting things for all experts, the material of the conference worthy of the greatest study. Altogether I consider this Geneva conference a tremendous success. It opened up splendid perspectives for the peaceful utilisation of atomic energy. The conference stood at the centre of world attention. It strengthened the atmosphere of mutual understanding and good will born in every country following the 4-power conference. The official support and the messages addressed to the conference by the leaders’, and so on. Now does this sound like cold war propaganda? There it was, right in the midst of the cold war. I can assure you it was most difficult, if not impossible to make some of our leaders, and I suppose on both sides of the iron curtain at that time, appreciate the fact that there was enormous good will within the socialist countries, what was regarded as the enemy, as well as within our own country. And at that very time this conference, which was such an important political event of bringing people together around this important subject; it was a great success. And then, when I came back after the conference and said we’ve had enormous success with this, what do you propose to do? What lessons have you learned from this conference? How would you go further? And there was no answer. The governments were not prepared. Either the US government, or the Soviet government, or the UK government, they were not prepared to build on as great a success as this conference was. Of course it remained a landmark, and there were successive conferences. Now to come a bit closer to my theme rather than recounting this: what made it successful? It did lay certain foundations. The world afterwards was not the same as it was before. We in the United States, in order to make a showing at the conference, had declassified a great deal of important material. And the same was true in the Soviet Union. So we were a much more open world; the directions lay in there. And most important to the thing was that it was a conference of governments, where governments had to contribute, where the sums that were spent had to go through the normal processes of the treasury of the governments, the cabinet and this sort of thing. So this is essentially the basic theme of what I am going to talk about - not just the interaction of individuals, but it’s the use of science to bring governments into closer interaction. Clearly, if governments are in close interaction, such as the United States is with Germany, science is there anyway; it won’t have very much additional influence. But when you are in a situation where there is practically no contact, then the extra amount which can be brought about through science, and through the value of science, means a great deal. I’ll come to another theme in which I’ve been interested, but again along the same lines. And this was at the UNESCO conference in Florence in 1950, where I was a member of the American delegation. UNESCO was at that time - and still is - a very strange organisation. It was mostly devoted to literature, the arts, things of that sort. And science was in there just for completeness, I guess. And the meetings and the delegations, the US delegation, the other delegations were mostly people of that kind; there was a great concession to have a scientist to be a member of the delegation. Well, I thought most of the proposals which were made, certainly by our delegation, were rather off the point and rather silly, and none which had real meat. Some of it concerned education, really elementary education. Now it would be obvious to any thinking person that no country is going to allow an international organisation to have a great deal to say about their education of their young people. They want to make their young people their nationals and not international. So to give this some bite and to have some kind of monument, something tangible, I proposed at that time. I made a proposal, in a very diffident way, for an organisation to be set up which would in some respects be like the organisation we already had in the United States at Brookhaven; some organisation which allows the countries to contribute to build a scientific instrument, an accelerator in this case, which would enable the European scientists to have facilities approaching those which the American scientists had. This was an outrageous proposal at the time, although it’s so well realised. I had to convert myself to be a politician, to try to persuade various delegations to support this. I think the greatest asset I had was my lack of knowledge of French. Because I could go to the members of various delegations - I discovered there that French was just as important as English in these international conferences - and say, now look if you think this is a good idea and I can’t talk to these people, my French is non-existent, won’t you talk to them. I got a wonderful Swiss to work on this and of course there was professor Auger who was in NATO. I even persuaded the British delegation to vote for it. In any event, the resolution passed; and the result of that resolution, and the terrific efforts of Professor Auger in UNESCO, was the establishment of the laboratory at Geneva, CERN. Again, along the line which I mean: This is a great laboratory. It is devoted to high energy physics. It is supported by governments through their treasuries, in other words on sound political foundation, sound governmental foundation; there is a governmental treaty on this. And the sums it spent are large enough so that the governments have to think about it; there is a relation between governments. Its greatest characteristic, I think, which comes closest to our theme, is the fact that it’s a laboratory of pure science. I was asked once whether they should make a reactor. I said, for God's sake, stay away from anything practical. That would destroy the organisation because you begin to come into the national competition of business. Do it for pure science, and its pure science which has the actual appeal to the imagination of people. The present revulsion which exists against science is this confusion. The misapplication of technology is one thing, pure science for ennobling and enlarging human horizons is something else again. I regard this as a tremendous success and it has done a great deal to bring the European countries together. And I am proud of the fact that this was built without a cent of American money. I could have gotten the money for it, but it would have spoilt the 'ganze Stimmung' (the whole atmosphere) (laughter). Then it’s a gone concern. There is one other thing which is perhaps more difficult to talk about and more misunderstanding exists than anything else; but is of tremendous actuality and perhaps, if the idea is followed out, a very great promise for the future. I’ll give a little bit of a history. We were very happily pursuing the cold war, when in 1957 there was the dramatic announcement of the first Sputnik, first Russian satellite. This produced an enormous effect all over the world, and particularly in the United States, that the socialist... the Russians were the first to put up such a thing. The general feeling was that we had vastly underestimated the Russians; and instead of regarding Russian capabilities rather lightly, suddenly they became 12 foot Russians, 4 metre Russians. What to do to encounter this enormous force? One had the same depressing feeling when this was announced as you read every day - I mean for Americans – as you read every day of the fall of the dollar; suddenly there’s this very great revolution. I happened to be at that time the chairman of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, and we were called in by President Eisenhower, what do you advise, what to do in this situation? Because people described the Russian system of technical education as being so wonderful: the enormous number of scientists they made, how well educated they were, and so on. And that this race was such that we would be left enormously behind. Well, one thing we learned during the war was that 2 people cooperating results in not just twice as much but almost more nearly 4 times as much - a sort of N-squared effect. So I suggested, can’t we somehow organise, for example the NATO countries, in such a way that by cooperation we could overcome this difficulty? You can’t make do scientists so quickly, but if we learned to cooperate in this way that would help a great deal. That seemed to be a good idea. Such proposals had been made by others, but President Eisenhower, going to Europe at that time for heads of state, put that through. It was organised at that time the NATO science committee, and the first chairman actually was a well-known American physicist, Norman Ramsey. Well, we very soon discovered that the military certainly didn’t care for our help. They were very happy with what they were doing, or if they were unhappy they didn’t want us to try to make them happy, and get into their affairs and get into their hair, to use the expression. So there we had the science committee and some funds. Now what to do for the purpose? It was very clear after you left that off, what had been lacking in the organisation of NATO. There are 2 sides to NATO: One is the military side, which is really an organisation where the different countries put up the money for their own military installations. There is no NATO money in that, it’s the national. Then there’s a certain small sum of money for the NATO organisation which... NATO means the North Atlantic Treaty. When this was set up it was meant to be a military organisation on one side, a cultural organisation on the other side, to bring the NATO countries in closer agreement culturally, spiritually and otherwise. This second side had been forgotten, but which we in the NATO science committee revived. And we set up a system of NATO fellowships for advanced people, and paying well, for people to go from one NATO country to study in another NATO country. Now when we looked into it at that time there was a tremendous number of relationships between the United States and every one of the NATO countries. But on the other hand there were very few cases of Germans going to France or Frenchmen coming to Germany, across the lines. These fellowships made an enormous difference with respect to that. And that’s operating to this day. Now they’re more important than ever, because the national fellowships have gone down in number. Then we had a system of research sums to facilitate cooperative research of scientists from one NATO country with a scientist of another NATO country. And, lastly, was a system of summer institutes. Schools which may go on from a few weeks to a much longer period on elevated subjects, important subjects of science in all ranges. These schools have proved to be of tremendous importance for the level of world science. When they were first set up most of the lecturers were Americans, and the audience were mostly other people from the NATO countries. I’ve been to a number of them. The situation is now very much changed; you will find that most of the lecturers are from the NATO countries – the whole level has gone up enormously. These schools worked in a very serious way. When I attended last year, people start at 9 o’clock in the morning and sometimes won’t finish till 11 o’clock at night, with time off for meals and swimming, things of that sort. So here you have a real interaction. And I think that between CERN and some of these schools NATO in general had a not inconsiderable effect in building up the general importance of the European community. And here I have run into a fantastic problem which is very discouraging as far as I’m concerned. I think this invention of the NATO science committee, these fellowships, these schools, this cooperative research in that sense, was a very positive thing. But to my astonishment the young people, the younger people, who come to these schools, especially those from Europe, and of somewhat say leftist tendencies, are tremendously opposed to this. And I have not yet been able to find out why. We had enormous struggles. It turned out that they were in favour of the school, but they didn’t like the label NATO – which they bitterly resented because they didn’t want to receive money from a military organisation. But the money which they received came from their governments, not from a military organisation. The money did not come through, let’s say, the department of defence or something of that sort; it came from their government. But because it was labelled NATO, they were against it and, in some places, made demonstrations to make the school impossible. These were physicists. And this has astonished me - maybe the young people here will explain to me later in the afternoon – that a label put on a subject, where you don’t look at the text, you look at the title of the chapter, could be so confusing. And they say, why can’t some other organisation give this money? Well, certainly another organisation could. But what is the other organisation to be? Are you going to go into every one of these countries and persuade them and raise the question all over again? Where the question could be raised such as Herr Ehmke did, ‘What is the use of this thing?’ Here it is, it's doing a good work. And I felt somehow or other that there was a subordination of the actual object itself, to the label under which it marched. I no longer believe, as I did at the beginning, that if you gave the scientists more of an opportunity to run world affairs, that they would be more objective, more reasonable, more understanding, could separate the significant from the insignificant – which I thought we had taught them in school, in graduate school. When you teach a subject, what is important, what isn’t? How do you take care of order of magnitudes? What is your objective in the end? This, I thought, would carry over. And these people could become important citizens of their community and through the universal quality of science keep in some way pressing to make this a better world. Now I believe in it much less than I did before. But maybe we’ll be able to persuade them. Maybe we’ll be able to change the label, paste something over this. But I for one believe in confrontation. When something is unclear you want to not compromise it, because the situation remains as before. I’d like to confront this with the fact to make it clear. And to put this at its darkest: I have suggested to members of the Academy of the Soviet Union, and in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary and in Poland, that we extend this idea. And utilise this marvellous cooperation between scientists as shown by the NATO fellowships, by various cooperative elements and the summer institutes to make contact with the socialist countries. They have an organisation, I don’t know its details, it’s the Warsaw Pact. If we could confront these and turn it into something which would be positive, so that in that case too there would be a cooperation with the socialist countries. Not just having people from the socialist countries visit the summer institutes, they come there; but to have their governments actually contribute to the support of this thing; to make an actual contact which works through the governments, through an instrumentality, utilising the attraction of the scientific spirit, scientific advance and the whole idea of the universality of science to help through this, to bring one more strand to make one world, in the direction of one world out of this. Here again I have encountered scepticism, which is natural, which I expected to encounter. But I do think there is value to the idea. If we could press on with this - and I hope others of you who have such contacts would in your own governments or in talks with scientists and officials from the socialist countries press on in this direction – so as to begin to make an organisation which has the blessings of the government and really cooperates. It is very unfortunate that in many of these things the socialist countries refuse to cooperate. The value of having an organisation where the governments cooperate is that a person going from let’s say a socialist country and going to one of these laboratories or to accepting one of these fellowships and so on, in that sense has never left home, because his own country is contributing. It’s in this sense that I’d like to see it go. I would like to see further efforts of this sort for, let’s say, a European university, or an extended European university or a world university. But it would have to be not just a place where one teaches, but also where one issues certificates. So that when a student goes there, supported by the government - again he has never left home in that sense – and he would get a certificate or something which would be universal for the different countries; and in these various ways to nibble away at the barriers between the different countries. It’s in that sense I meant to use science which is so universally respected - at least people think about it – as a means, as a solid means of bringing closer relations between countries. Now here we’re hindered vastly. And we have greatly departed from an ideal which existed in the past. I have always believed in looking for the future fulfilment and not of a golden age of the past. But let me read 2 things to you to show what was in the past and what we hope to work for in the future. And this was during the course of our revolutionary war, where the United States had not yet been formed as the United States, but was at war with England. On March 10th, 1779 Benjamin Franklin who was in the government addressed a document which reads in part: acting by commission from the Congress of the United States of America, now at war with Great Britain. Gentlemen, a ship having been fitted out from England before the commencement of this war to make discoveries in unknown seas, under the conduct of that most celebrated navigator and discoverer, Captain Cook. An undertaking clearly laudable in itself as the increase of geographical knowledge facilities the communication between distant nations, and in the exchange of useful products and manufacturers and the extension of arts, whereby the common enjoyments of human life are multiplied and augmented, and science of other kinds increase to the benefit of mankind in general. This is to recommend to you that in case the said ship should happen to fall into your hands, you would not consider her as an enemy, nor suffer any plunder to be made of the effects contained in her, nor obstruct her immediate return to England.’ And the recognition of Franklin’s service, that Captain Cook’s expedition won the gold medal, struck an honour, and Captain Cook was presented to Franklin. Now you will recall that Franklin, in addition to being a great scientist, was also a great statesman, and perhaps the greatest diplomat the United States ever had. There is another incident - can you imagine if this had happened recently? In October 1813 Sir Humphry Davy obtained permission from Napoleon to pass through France for a tour of the continent with Lady Davy and his assistant, Mr Michael Faraday. They arrived in Paris on October 1813. And on November 2nd he attended a meeting of the first class of the institute of France. On December 3rd 1813 he was elected with practical unanimity as a corresponding member of the first class of the Institute. You can see how far we have degenerated; our governments have, in respect for the intellect, in respect for science. So this is part of the problem for all of us: how to overcome these handicaps which the rise of nationalism has put in the way of the development of science, and of the development of a world community in science. There are these enormous areas, enormous populations of the world, of very gifted people, where communication is very difficult. I refer to the socialist countries, I refer to China; they are the 2 great exceptions. And we have to press on and look to utilise whatever we can of the attractiveness and the power of science to bring these 2 vast countries into a greater communication, and a greater cultural or other unity with the rest of us. In these 2 cases science can be of very great utility. At the time after this conference on peaceful uses of atomic energy, which was made under the aegis of the United Nations science committee, in which I represent the United States. This committee for a period, when the cold war was at its hottest, this was one of the very few connections which we had with people from the Soviet Union. The other one perhaps may be the Pugwash Conference, where it happened to be supported by the Soviet government and people who were delegates to that conference then could go home and describe the conference. And could tell of what had happened, and say things for which they would have been put in jail otherwise. This is the sense which I mean the importance of making such organisations. Now I hope that in the future, which belongs to the people not here in the front but in the back, the students, that you will try to carry forward in these directions. That to realise basically that science is not a profession, it’s not a technique - it’s much more than that: it’s a great discovery of the human spirit that is universal. And that we must use this basic concept of the universality to approach the various varieties of cultures which exist. Because I think it can turn out that science will be the highest culture of all, when properly understood, and the greatest expression of the human spirit. Perhaps we can develop it in such a direction that to misuse science in one way or the other, when properly understood, will come to be regarded as a sin, a sin actually in the religious sense, and perhaps punishable as such in one way or another. We have no other form that’s common to humanity, no culture common to humanity, which would serve to develop a goal for human cultural evolution, that’s comparable to science. And I feel we must use it in all its facets. Thank you. Applause.

Isidor Isaac Rabi shares his diplomatic experiences
(00:12:55 - 00:16:43)

Science is not just a profession or a technique, Rabi stresses in his talk, much more than that it’s a proof that the human spirit is universal. The physicist’s opinion partly differs from and partly complies with the physicians’ opinions we heard of before when Rabi remarks: „I think that it will turn out that science will be the highest culture of all when properly understood and the greatest expression of the human spirit. Perhaps we can develop it in such a direction that to misuse science is a sin in the religious sense and perhaps punishable as such. We have no other form that’s common to humanity which would serve to develop a goal of human cultural evolution that is comparable to science.“

A Decalogue of Human Duties
Undoubtedly, the development of a world community of science will help to counteract the handicaps that derive from nationalism and facilitate the solution of vital global problems – and international conferences of scientists on ethical issues may help in this regard. An important step towards this objective was initiated by Roger Sperry (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1981) and Rita-Levi Montalcini (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1986). In 1972, Sperry had published an article on „Science and the problem of values“[9], in which he stated „that the world we live in is driven not solely by mindless physical forces but, more crucially, by subjective human values. Human values become the underlying key to world change“. Sperry expressed the wish that „science becomes a source and arbiter of belief systems at the highest level“. 20 years later, in 1992, a conference at the University of Trieste, organized by Sperry’s long-term friend and colleague Levi-Montalcini, took up his impulse and worked out a draft version of „The Magna Charta of human duties“. The final version, entitled „A Declaration of Human Duties“ was agreed upon in 1994. It was meant to be a corollary to the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights and sent to the UN for review and consideration.[10] When Rita Levi-Montalcini came to Lindau in 1993, she dedicated her talk to introducing „The Magna Charta of Duties“. She asked her young audience to „take action“ and come to the follow-up conference in Trieste in November of that year. After heaving read long passages from Sperry’s article, she finally presented the decalogue of duties every human being and every scientist should fulfil to maintain the quality of life on this earth:

Rita Levi-Montalcini proposes a „Magna Charta of Duties“
(00:28:06 - 00:44:29)

Under Pressure: Tempted to Rationalize Evil Deeds
The code of ethics and shared responsibilities that Levi-Montalcini presents is impressive – but is it practicable? Doesn’t it contain rules of conduct we may reach out for without ever having a chance to adhere to them? Maurice Wilkins was skeptical at least about the possibilities of realizing the „ideals of science and medicine“. When the physicist, who had been a colleague of Rosalind Franklin and shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Francis Crick and James Watson in 1962, lectured about this topic in Lindau in 1987, he partly deconstructed „the myth of the scientist who struggles to obtain truth and to overcome ignorance and superstition and of the doctor who struggles to restore health and save life“. On one hand, Wilkins whole-heartedly appreciates the expectation „that the scientist ought to be honest, unprejudiced, open-minded, uninfluenced by self-interest, even they say, scientists ought to have humility“ and refers to many heroic deeds of scientists. On the other hand, he extensively elaborates on how endangered scientists are to exert and justify horrible deeds under the pressure of governments and states, „in whatever part of the world that is – human beings are basically the same in all countries“. He specifically mentions the preparation of Anthrax bombs by the Churchill government, the fatal vivisections on American pilots by the Japanese, and the cruel experiments of German doctors in the concentration camps of the Nazi regime. When pressed by political power, scientists obviously tend to overcome their moral feelings by rationalizing evil deeds, Wilkins argues.

Maurice Wilkins (1987) - Ideals of Science and Medicine

Countess Sonia, State Minister, Mister Mayor, organisers of the Kuratorium. Students of medicine and biology whom I should possibly have mentioned first on the list, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here. Ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honour and a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to you here at Lindau. I want to talk about the ideals and values of science and medicine with a view to using these ideals and values to help us to deal with various difficult problems today which are associated with the development of science and medicine. For example the problems of science and war, which was a problem which concerned Alfred Nobel himself very, very much. The problems of the environment which have come out of new technology. And problems of medical ethics which have arisen out of new developments in biology and medicine. And in that connection it’s good to see that tomorrow Professor Arber is introducing a discussion on the scientific, social, ethical and legal aspects of genetic technology. In order to get clearer the ideals and values of science and medicine, I shall consider the scientist and the doctor in the role of a hero. And I’ll take some examples of scientists and doctors, heroes at different times in history. The idea of the hero, today it is more commonplace, someone who is successful, maybe a film star or a sportsman. But the old idea of the hero from the ancient world of Greece, the classical world, this archetypical hero underlies all our ideas today of what we feel is most valuable and important in our lives. Of course today the whole world is obsessed with the idea of being successful. But probably most of us will agree, or probably all of us here will agree, that success in obtaining money and material possessions or in advancing our careers as careers, these are not really the most valuable things in life. But if we scientists and doctors consider what we do in our work, as distinct from merely being successful in our careers as career advancement, do we not then feel there is something very special in that work? And is there not something in the nature of that work which is like what the hero does? Let us first mention some examples of the heroes of the ancient world. There you had Hercules/Heracles, he had superhuman strength and he struggled through his enormous labours. And eventually, after he died, he became an immortal god. So a hero is a little bit like a god, a bit superhuman. Then we have the example of Orpheus who loved his wife so much that when she died he followed her into hell in the hope of bringing her back to life. Well, he didn’t succeed in that but he himself became immortal. Now Christ may also be regarded as a hero. For love of humanity Christ struggled and suffered and by dying on the cross he achieved immortality. And he offered immortal life to all people. So this is the general idea of the hero, is that he faces and struggles with great challenges. The greatest challenge of all of course is to overcome death by life. And the hero myth symbolises man’s - and when I say man’s I also include women of course - the struggle of men and women to transcend the limits of normal ways of living. Go higher, to a higher form of living, make themselves better, improve themselves by attaining some higher state of being. And the story of Christ may be regarded as a living myth which is active throughout history and today in the Christians struggle to raise themselves up. And in a similar way scientists have the myth of the scientist, who struggles to obtain scientific truth and to overcome ignorance and superstition. And the doctor of course struggles to restore health and save life. And so the moral value of his work - and again or her work of course, lots of lady doctors - this is quite obvious, because the doctor fosters life. In the case of scientists the moral value of their work is not quite so obvious. But if we feel that the scientist's truth is good and ignorance and superstition is bad, then we could say that the scientist, like the doctor, fosters life. Except that the scientist is concerned with the life of the mind, and the doctor is with the life of the body. Now such an argument, though plausible, may not seem quite enough to establish that there is an intrinsic value in scientific work itself. Let us therefore consider the nature of the scientist’s truth for a minute, the nature of scientific knowledge. Now the history of science shows clearly that the scientific knowledge of one era is very largely replaced by the knowledge of the next era. And therefore scientific truth is never final or absolute. And I also agree with the current sociological analysis of science which claim that scientific thinking, like all other kinds of thinking, is conditioned and modified by cultural and social influences. On the other hand it is clear that the whole process of uncovering scientific truth over the centuries has made enormous changes in how we understand the world and how we understand our own human nature. And therefore, I think it is unavoidable that scientific truth is not just a matter of things changing and passing fashion. But it has an aspect, there is an element in it which is permanent. Or you might even say has a certain eternal quality to it. One of the most basic characteristics of science is that it forms a unity, brings things together. That it puts unity into knowledge which covers a wide range of general phenomena. That science gives general knowledge, but it always aims at universal knowledge. But of course it can never actually attain the universal. And because of this unity that is really why science works. That it predicts, it correlates, it’s useful. Why it gives us power to explain things and power to control the natural world. Now these examples of unity in science are many. That physics has got lots of examples: the atomic theory of Democritus in ancient Greece; Newton’s theory of universal gravitation; Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves. And physics today has all kinds of new unified theories. And in biology of course you have Darwin’s ideas which showed that human beings have a unity with all other living things. And in molecular biology it shows there is unity at the molecular level. And also that molecular biology unifies the physical and the biological sciences. Now there’s also unity in the way that scientific knowledge itself comes into being and develops. But every scientist knows that his or her new contribution to scientific knowledge, that it depends on and derives from great many studies which have gone before by earlier scientists. And one of the reasons scientists get satisfaction from their work, it means something to them, is that they know that their own new results, the new knowledge which the scientist gets, may in its term be used by other scientists afterwards to build up a larger and larger body of organised knowledge. All the knowledge being organised and interconnected and unified. And because of this, of course, scientists feel the need to share their knowledge, bring it together at scientific meetings and so on. And to a large extent that scientific knowledge only has meaning when it is shared. And it’s interesting to note in this way scientific knowledge is quite different from property, wealth or power. Because people don’t like sharing those things. But scientific knowledge they like to share. And thus there’s a strong force bringing scientists of all nations together and all ideologies together into one great international scientific community. At least that’s the way it is in theory, which is very good. In practice of course things are not quite so good as that. That the international community of science has got military, political pressures on it, so that it splits up. And when there’s war the scientists of course are fighting each other, often like the other people in society. But the ideal is there nonetheless. Now in the middle ages the alchemists who studied chemical transformations, and they were really interested in spiritual salvation rather than chemistry as such, they believed that they couldn’t obtain the knowledge they needed unless they lived virtuous lives. Now most scientists don’t really think of themselves as being very virtuous people. But to some extent this is also true for scientists, because the ideal at least is that the scientist ought to be honest, unprejudiced, open-minded, uninfluenced by self-interest. Even they say a scientist ought to have humility. I won’t talk more about that; it wouldn’t be a demonstration of humility if I started talking too much about scientists' humility. Now in practice of course scientists don’t attain these ideals. And if they fall too short of the ideal they won’t succeed in their work. But there’s another point, is that the observations and ideas of all scientists should be examined disinterestedly. That all scientists are in a sense equal. That the youngest student who gets a new experimental result, all the scientific community must look at that result as seriously as they ought to for a Nobel Prize winner. In practice again of course it’s not like that. But this at least is the way it ought to be. That one student’s results may upset the whole, all the theories of the important scientists. So in that respect science is basically a democratic process. And so the unifying and democratising effects of science indicate there is moral value inherent in the scientific process itself. Now the hero, the classical myths. Through his great struggles, as I said, he transcends the nature as man. And in the myth even overcomes mortality and death. Now the ordinary scientist when he or she is working, even on a very modest scale, is struggling working towards an ideal which we would say, I would say contains something very, very special. This building up this vast body of scientific knowledge. And so that even in the most modest work, scientific work, there is some element of what you might even say was sacred or holy or eternal. Thus following that reason we could recognise in every scientist, however modest, some trace of the ancient archetypical hero. And also we could say that something of the scientist’s spirit lives on in his or her work. And in that sense a scientist does attain immortality in that particular sense, like the great heroes of mythology. It’s easier to see the doctor as hero, because he is the one who heals, and healing means making whole, making healthy. And so the doctor helps to establish unity in the patients themselves and in the relationships between the patient and the surroundings. And apart from this healing the doctor also, like the scientist, is struggling and working to perfect his techniques, his art. And to create knowledge and add to the eternal truth in the way that the scientist is to some extent. The first example of a scientific hero I would like to mention. It’s a little bit before, some people would say, real science. That in ancient Greece we have Pythagoras, famous for his theorem in geometry. I would say he was a real hero. Because he wanted both to save people’s souls and also heal their bodies. And to do this he enquired in a scientific way how best people ought to live. And therefore he investigated the world in which we live. And one discovery he made was that the strings of a musical instrument gave notes in harmony. Harmonious relationship when the lengths of the strings on the instruments were in simple number ratio, like 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. And he thought, Pythagoras said that these ratios gave harmony in all aspects of life. For example he said that the planets moved with the music of the spheres. And he saw music as the great healer - like music therapy which is sometimes used in medicine. And that these harmonious relationships enabled people to live together in groups, in communes where men and women worked together as equals. Studying mathematics and medicine, astronomy. And then looking forward beyond this life to eternal happiness in the afterlife. And to me at least Pythagoras represents the ideal where science, medicine, art, religion, all came together. In contrast to the present world where these are very much divided and separated one from the other. The ideas of Pythagoras on harmony and number, they probably helped the great teacher of medicine Hippocrates to develop his ideas. Because Hippocrates saw much of disease as deriving from disharmony or from lack of balance of what he called the 4 humours which filled the whole human body. And his teaching emphasised the importance of close observation of the patient in a careful analysis of symptoms. And in that way he laid the basis of scientific medicine. And his influence is still very strong in medicine today, also because in the Hippocratic Oath he stressed that doctors should preserve life and not destroy life. And as a venerated teacher he was called the father of medicine. Hippocrates has of course been a hero to students of medicine for thousands of years. Well going on to the renaissance. We have many heroes then. For example we have Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo. And after the renaissance that leads on to Isaac Newton. And the main thing that they did in their work was to show that the heavenly bodies, the planets and the moon were not divine, that the planets and the Moon were basically of the same nature as the Earth itself. And so this together with Newton’s theory of universal gravitation gave an extraordinary unity to the way people saw the whole universe. You didn’t have the great separation between earth and heaven. And Newton was seen as a great hero, national hero. And when he died he was buried as a hero in Westminster Abbey in London. And about the same, a little before, Francis Bacon had emphasised that much of the value of science should derive from applying science, so that man could control the natural world and obtain material benefits. So the emphasis was going more on the material side and less on the spiritual side. Newton was a devout Christian and he regarded his scientific laws as the laws of God and part of God’s creation itself. But after Laplace had developed Newton’s theory, the whole solar system was seen as a vast mechanism moving around, which was quite automatic, which didn’t even need the merest touch of God’s finger just to keep it moving correctly. And in that respect God really seemed no longer necessary. And so as a result of these scientific developments people began to think about the possibility of living without God, and science began to displace religion. Then of course the geologists and biologists came along and they studied all the different forms of living things. And they studied these in the fossils and in the rocks. And they came up with the idea that living forms had gradually evolved after millions of years. Which directly contradicted what the bible said about creation in terms of merely 6,000 years. But Charles Darwin certainly was a great hero of science. Because it was he who placed the idea of evolution on a firm basis with clear ideas of how it worked with natural selection. And he travelled the whole length and breadth of the world collecting data on the forms of rocks and of living things. And for almost 30 years he laboured like a hero, like Hercules, arranging all the detailed evidence for the natural selection. And he had fairly continuous illnesses so he could only work 4 hours a day. And he did all that. And Darwin was very slow in publishing his results. And actually Copernicus had been similar. But when Wallace sent to Darwin similar ideas - which is not quite the thing scientists do today when they have all these career pressures. He sent this to Darwin. Then Darwin said, ok I’ll publish my results and your results; we'll publish them together. Which was a very nice sense of unity in the scientific community. But of course Darwin’s work was a bombshell. It’s really from the religious point of view, that whereas Newton had shown that heaven and earth were one, Darwin now showed that man and animals were one. And of course the idea that man had been created in the image of God according to the Christians, now had evolved from animals, was a most unpleasant idea to the Christians. And towards the end of his life Darwin lost his Christian faith. And yet he did get some sense of moral feeling out of the evolution. That he wrote that man having risen to the very summit of the organic scale. Instead of just being placed there aboriginally, you know put there initially, the fact that he’d worked his way up. That this he said may give him hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. And so Darwin saw his ideas of evolution leading towards the growing domination of man’s cooperative potential would come to the top, whereas the selfish instincts of the animal would be pushed down. And Wallace also with his ideas of evolution was thinking rather the same way when he became a Christian socialist. But in the times of Newton there was a direct connection between religion and science and the protestant scientists in Britain then, they used to say in doing their work, their scientific work, they said we read the book of God - in the sense of studying the natural world, which was part of God’s creation. So they had the bible to read. And they had the natural world to read. And so at that time science was in effect a form of religious worship. But after Newton, and more so after Darwin, the whole influence of science was to weaken the influence of religion. And people began to use humanistic values instead of religious values. And the social Darwinists claimed that Darwin’s ideas justified social and economic injustice - you know the strongest would come to the top, the weakest would go down below -, so that the fittest would use their power over the less fit. Many western countries, I’m afraid, say yes make more money. And the poor will stay down there. We’re going back to the middle ages in some respects. But Darwin’s ideas were used for many to justify many social economic thinking. And you get the, it was used to justify capitalism, socialism and Nazism. They call claim to derive support from Darwin, although Darwin himself seemed to have his heart in the right place. By the end of the 18th century there were strongly differing views as to whether the development of science really was of human benefit. But on the positive side you had useful applications in agriculture and navigation and general approaches to public health, which came rather before scientific medicine. And you also had the democratising effect of science which influenced say thinkers in France and getting rid of the aristocratic power in France. But the so-called romantics, they were very upset by the brutality and bloodshed in the French revolution. And they criticised science for developing what they claimed was a cold-blooded analytical materialism. For example the poet Wordsworth, the English poet, who went over to Paris because he felt the French revolution was a good thing. But when he saw it going, getting all bloody and murdering, he then came back to England. He said about science, he said, ‘we murder to dissect’. Science is chopping everything up into bits and destroying life was the meaning. And Goethe tried to develop a new science which was less analytic and more holistic, joining everything together and more spiritual. But during the 19th century, however, science and technology went on developing, and there were increasing beneficial applications of science. And there were many great heroic scientific and medical figures in the 19th century. And this strengthened the idea that science really did have intrinsic value. Pasteur of course was one of these, who built up the germ theory of disease. And his fame was increased greatly by the dramatic way he injected one of his research assistants with the vaccine for rabies to test the safety of the vaccine. And so he was rather a theatrical person. And the French began to see Pasteur almost as a god - this type of thing in the 19th century. And Germany of course you had Koch as a great man in a similar field. Now the idea of the scientist risking his life, as Pasteur’s assistant did, to obtain scientific knowledge, this is an important part of the image of the scientist as a hero. And a well-known example of course is that of Doctor Walter Reed fighting yellow fever. That some of his research assistants allowed themselves to be bitten by mosquitos which were carrying the yellow fever disease, in order to test that the disease was in fact transmitted by the bites of mosquitos. This was extremely dangerous and one of them actually died. So that’s heroic, one would say. And I think this whole idea of experimenting on yourself is an interesting one. And one J. B. S. Haldane was one of these figures, a great biologist, mainly genetics, that was in Britain that I happen to have the privilege of knowing. And he was much concerned with social welfare and justice. And he was opposed to using animals for scientific experimentation. He said you should use human volunteers only and the animals cannot volunteer. So you shouldn’t use them. During the First World War he damaged his lungs testing gas masks on himself. And after that war there was a great submarine disaster in which 90 sailors drowned because they couldn’t get out of the submarine low in the sea. And to find out what was going wrong, Haldane with other volunteers, they sat in iced water and breathed carbon dioxide under 10 atmospheres pressure until they were unconscious. I think one burst a lung and it was really a quite dangerous thing to do. But Haldane was full of fun and he enjoyed doing things like that. He was a real character. I met him shortly after World War II in Cambridge when we were experimenting on gas-proof rooms to protect civilians if cities might be attacked by poison gas. Of course of all the heroes of science Einstein was probably the greatest. He had broad semi-religious philosophical views. And he saw moral truth as closely connected with scientific truth. He was a bit like Pythagoras in that way. And all his life he was just as much concerned with problems of war and social justice as he was with problems of science. And his scientific theories of course brought remarkable unity into physics. But Einstein was bitterly disappointed that physics led to the making of nuclear bombs. And that the political leaders of the world would not agree to sharing the knowledge and having international control of nuclear energy. So in that respect there was no unity and that continues, sadly, in the world today. Another result of this, he said that if he had his life over again, he would not choose to be a scientist. Now Niels Bohr, the atomic physicist, he was rather like Einstein; he was also a great hero of science. And he was very concerned about the possibility of nuclear war. And he spent many years working, working, working trying to solve that problem. But after the war the whole world of science rather changed. So that heroes of science are not so likely to appear today - these are not very heroic times I am sorry to say. That after the war science was increasingly institutionalised. Einstein particularly regretted that. That research became more expensive and there were fewer opportunities for scientists, especially young scientists, to explore in new directions which were not very much controlled by grant-giving committees. You know grant-giving committees are very good people and so on, they’re doing their job. But I mean the nature of the structure is such that it is difficult for them to say, 'oh here’s a few million dollars or something. Go and try your luck.' They have to play safe. However, after the World War II, in the first few years after the war research had not settled down very much into an established pattern of work. And there were possibilities of creating new interdisciplinary research which had not yet been fully explored. And that was the position in relation to molecular biology in 1951, when James Watson came to Europe from the United States to find out about DNA. Now he knew a lot about virus reproduction and gene replication from American work. And he discussed with me, we had quite a lot of discussions about the possible structure of DNA. Because at that time in our laboratory we were making X-ray diffraction studies of the DNA structure, Rosalind Franklin, myself, Alex Stokes and others. And the discovery by Watson and Crick of the double helix of DNA, it was a remarkable success for the 2 sort of young scientists. If I remember rightly I think James Watson was only 24 then, maybe I got, anyway within a year or 2, very young. And this is possibly the most important biological discovery of this century, so people often claim. Now how does James Watson fit into the hero category? In his book called 'The Double Helix' Watson presents himself as a kind of hero of science. But he very much stressed the competitive attitude in research. And even seemed to have a conscious aim in doing the research that he might possibly obtain a Nobel Prize. And this competitive element was illustrated by how when Linus Pauling had failed and got the structure wrong, Watson and Crick went out to have a drink in the pub to celebrate. Not really a very ideal thing for scientists to do. Well, unity there. And he also made himself appear somewhat as a trickster hero of folk stories. You know in the old folk stories there’s always a naughty man who goes and plays tricks and is not very honest. Watson sort of built himself this kind of image. And I think that he did a disservice to science by emphasising the self-centred aspect of the scientist. Because of course all scientists are self-centred to some extent; they’re bound to be because they’re human beings. But I would say science is much more cooperative than the way Watson portrayed it in his book. But it’s interesting that after his great discovery Watson worked very differently. He concentrated on the cooperative aspect of science by writing really very high-quality text books of molecular biology that were a great help to developing the whole subject. And he edited journals. And he was very successful as a director of leading research laboratories of molecular biology. So he clearly felt a great responsibility to encourage and to build up this new field of research which he had himself done so much to create. But I would say that Watson is hardly a hero of science quite like Einstein or Niels Bohr, partly because the world has changed. And I think that today although we have many very brilliant, very successful scientists, I don’t think any of the people today have quite the same stature of those great heroes of the past. I think it just isn’t possible in our present day work. And in fact some people would say that the problems associated with science today have become so acute - all these environmental problems and biological medical ethics and war and so on - that these have become so acute that they would see the hero of science or heroism of science taking really the form of the antihero. That they’d say well look at Robert Oppenheimer or Andrej Sacharow you see. They wanted to stop the atom bombs. First they made them and then they changed their minds. First they were hero and then antihero. But of course they’re more political in some ways that scientific. And I think it would be a sad thing if the heroes of science today had to become rebels or dissidents against the established body of scientific knowledge. But I wonder if this is really true. Is it wrong to be a rebel and a dissident against the existing established science? Because what about Galileo? Wasn’t Galileo our great hero now? They say he was a rebel and a dissident against the established Aristotelian science of the time. So maybe we do have to look at things a bit differently. Possibly we do need to turn our backs on some aspects of science today and reinterpret the ideals of science. Certainly there are some areas I think without any doubt we should turn our back on. And I would like to finish by describing some rather unpleasant biological science, which developed in World War II in various countries. And which is continuing to develop in weapons research in chemical biological warfare right now in many countries in the world. First of all take the example of Britain. Being British I better talk about the horrible things the British did first. We all did, everybody does horrible things. The British did them. Britain had signed the 1924 Geneva protocol banning the use of biological weapons. But in 1944, when London was being attacked by the German V1 rockets, Churchill, the Prime Minister, planned to retaliate with Anthrax bombs, Anthrax spores, bacterial spores, on Germany. And he didn’t care about the moral and legal aspects of it. That in a private discussion he said the following, he said the bombing of open cities, that was in World War I, he said this was regarded as forbidden. It was contrary to international law. He says now everybody does it as a matter of course. We all bomb open cities. He says it’s simply a matter of fashion changing as it does between long and short skirts for women. And so he intended that biological warfare, which people call public health in reverse, that this should become the next fashion in war. It’s really rather horrifying. That’s what happens you know after you get into wars, people get more and more barbarous as the years go by. And in Britain Churchill found biological scientists and chemists who were persuaded to work and develop these weapons. And they were going to drop anthrax bombs against Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Aachen, Wilhelmshaven. And they estimated they would kill over half the population in all those cities with the Anthrax spores. Fortunately, the anthrax was being grown in special plants in the United States. And there were production delays. And because of that Churchill was not able to launch that attack. But I think there’s little doubt that if the Americans had overcome the production difficulties, that would have taken place. Well next example of what the Japanese did. They probably did the most extensive research on biological weapons that anyone did, because they began in the late 1930s. And they tested the weapons in the war against China. Mainly they worked in unit 731, near Harbin. And the unique feature of their experiments were that they used live people without anaesthetic. And they killed about 3,000 prisoners of war in their experiments. These people were mainly Chinese and Mongolians, but there were also some Americans and Russians. And the individual people were sacrificed, killed at various stages as disease proceeded and autopsies were performed. They made experiments also on freezing living people. Freezing their arms until they fell off. Destroying people’s livers by X-rays. All kinds of experiments. And a Japanese Professor has written a book where he claimed that they did fatal vivisection experiments at Kyushu Imperial University in Tokyo on American flyers, airmen who had been shot down flying over Japan. Well, presumably the Japanese doctors and scientists felt that they were morally justified in carrying out these experiments - the process of rationalisation as one would say. But in order to make it seem more acceptable they didn’t regard the experimental subjects as proper human beings. They referred to them as logs of wood, you know something you’d throw on the fire to burn, not as human beings. This made it easier for them to do it. But after the war the American government experts, they were very impressed by the unique nature of the Japanese results which had been obtained on live human beings. They say we Americans, you know, we’re better people, we can’t do experiments on live people. Therefore this is important to have these results. And an official wrote the following; he said, the value to the United States of Japanese biological warfare data is of such importance to national security as to far outweigh the values accruing from war crimes prosecution. So what did they do? It was arranged, secretly, that the Japanese hand over all their data to the United States, secretly. And in return the Japanese were, nothing happened to them, they were 'spared embarrassment' was the term and allowed to work after the war in universities and other places in Japan. And all this information was obtained from official United States papers and was published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in October 1981. So the Americans don’t really come out of it very well, really, or the Japanese. So all nations get up to these horrible things. And so now if you will forgive me, I shall now refer to the work of the Nazi doctors. And my information on this, I am no expert, it’s largely derived from the recent book ‘The Nazi Doctors’ by the American psychologist Robert J. Lifton, published last year. That apparently soon after Hitler came to power in 1933 coercive sterilisation was legalised. The basic idea was that the life of certain people was unworthy of life. And this programme actually was quite in line, similar to what various states in the United States were already doing. That they were sterilising, compulsory sterilisation of handicapped people. These were mainly people with mental problems. And then you see, having done that you go a little bit further. And you say, ok we will now have euthanasia. We will kill the children in the mental hospitals who are, you know, barely human, you would say 'life not worth living', we’ll kill them. Then they went on to adult people, grown-up people, not just young children. And eventually it got on to the whole genocide programme much later in the war. Now the Nazi doctors claimed that their medicine was based on Hippocrates. And it’s interesting to look at the Hippocratic Oath and see that Hippocrates does not, from what I can see, say that mercy killing is a bad thing. Anyway that was their claim. And that euthanasia of the incurable sick or insane was a humane merciful, medical treatment. And I was very interested to see that the German public at that time thought that killing the adults, the grown-up mental patients in institutions, was wrong. It had to be done secretly in gas chambers with carbon monoxide gas and false death certificates being issued. But as the scale of the killing got bigger and bigger, the secrecy didn’t work well. The relatives of the patients got to know what was happening and the church leaders began speaking up, in particular also the catholic church, but many. And as a result of this the official programme had to be stopped in 1941. That’s what Lifton says in his book. And after that, although the killing by doctors continued on a smaller scale by drugs and starvation because there was great shortage of food then. But it’s interesting that there was a basic humanity in the German people then which stopped that programme, which I find very encouraging. Now the Nazis attached great importance to biological theory. That Rudolf Hess in 1934 said that National Socialism was nothing but applied biology. And doctors had a very important role. That they were to be not the caretakers of the sick, but they were to be cultivators of the genes. But it was, as well as the mercy killing idea, it was also claimed that humanity was being no longer genetically selected by a hostile environment - Darwinian ideas. Because of this, human organisations must select people to prevent humanity degenerating genetically. This theory is not really very sound scientifically, but it is plausible. That the German people formed an organism, the health of which depended on killing the diseased part of the body. Like if you have some gangrene in part of your body, you have to take it out to save the life. That was the theory. And this idea together with anti-Semitism led to the idea of killing the whole Jewish people, the so-called final solution of the Jewish problem. And this was also, it’s interesting to note that this was justified on the basis that it was accepted practice for states and governments to say it is right to kill healthy young men in war, therefore why not kill these rather subhuman people. Why, what is so different about it? It’s interesting the way it makes you look at war rather differently as an old established tradition. And so in secret in the concentration camps the SS doctors healed the German people by killing the Jews, the gypsies and the other non-Arians. I didn’t know this, apparently the reason they had the gas chambers was that the 'Einsatzgruppen' shooting people face to face was too disturbing psychologically, particularly shooting women and children. It would upset, these people were fundamentally decent human beings deep down and they couldn’t take it. You had to kill in a gas chamber where people wouldn’t see them dying. That I think is also encouraging. That even the, and the SS doctors had much difficulty in what they called healing by killing. They drank heavily, had all kinds of difficulties in carrying on the work, but they did it of course all the same. And they made some experiments on live prisoners for military or anthropological purposes. Now I have discussed how scientists and doctors have been inspired to do heroic science and also how they’ve done some very terrible inhumane things. So how did they come to do these horrible things, whatever country of the world it is. Human beings are basically the same in all countries. I think the main thing is that under pressure from governments and the state they have to find a way of overcoming their moral feelings. That one way they do this is by intellectually rationalising their position. Now this wasn’t very difficult for euthanasia of adult mental patients because there’s no clear-cut logical distinction between that immoral practice and the traditional custom of encouraging very defective newborn babies to die, very old tradition. So, you know, on a logical basis there’s no sort of difference, but morally it seems to us clear. But logically you cannot draw a line. So rationalisation was easy. But it is more difficult on genocide because you had to appeal to spurious biological theory. And of course one depended on inner fears and hates which all human beings have to some extent. I think the terrible things that happened in the war then can happen to any of us. They come out in one form in one country, another form in another. Basically there are inner fears and hates in every human being. And scientists working on weapons of mass destruction, they have to rationalise their position. Because there is no simple logical proof that the theory of nuclear deterrents or of chemical weapons deterrents. You can’t prove that logically that that theory is wrong. And so in all cases intellectual processes do not provide sound moral barriers. And therefore I believe it’s most important that scientists and doctors reinforce their intellectual work by moral feelings. That we must be guided by the heart as well as the head. And this is what in the past was difficult for scientists and doctors, often, to remember. And also the scientists and doctors, they do terrible things because they get absorbed in the intellectual challenge of the technical aspects of the work. They become remote from the horror of seeing people dying. And so the scientists we have today designing weapons or strategies of mass destruction, they don’t see people dying. And you have the staff sitting in the nuclear weapons silos with these nuclear weapons. These people don’t see the cities and all the people who would die, the weapons are targeted on those cities. They are remote from it. But I think direct contact with casualties would release the instinctive moral revulsion. Hippocrates made clear that the strength of science depends largely on its emphasis on the need for direct contact with concrete reality and the careful observation of that concrete reality. That for scientists ideas in the head are very, very important. But unless you have firm contact with reality you may not remain sane or be able to keep your moral sense. You must have both. And as scientists and doctors I think we need to be properly aware of the human dimension in science-based war. When all these nuclear weapons and chemical weapons that Germany is full of, and that we’ve got stacks of it in Britain too. We have to think about where are the human beings in this thing? They’re not just technical things. And I believe that war is directly opposed to the ethics of science, the ethos of science. That the essence of war is disunity between nations; war needs secrecy; war needs deception. Whereas science is based on unity, openness and honesty. So I think it is fundamentally opposed. So I think that all the weapons research is, you’re not being real scientist, I would say, if you do weapons research. (Hesitant applause) About the ideals of science. I hope that ideals will continue to inspire people. Because if we don’t have ideals we cannot raise up above ordinary everyday sort of mediocre life. We must have ideals to inspire us. But we must also remember that ideals can be dangerous things. That we know that the very good ideals of religion sometimes led to religious wars and hatred. And of course national ideals have often led to terrible things as they did in with the Nazis, with the genocide. But it’s happened in other countries. The Turks and the Armenians with genocide there and many places in history. I think we must therefore make very sure that our scientific ideals have in them very strong moral feeling. Quite what this means is not very easy to explain and I don’t really know. It’s something we need to work on. But Alfred Nobel felt very strongly about that. And we should be very clear that scientific ideals do not automatically make scientists superior human beings, far from it. All of us human beings, scientists, doctors and others, we all have weaknesses and failures. And we often use our ideals as scientists and doctors to cover up our own moral failures. We have to be always working on that. We must see the ideals of science and medicine as a great challenge to us as human beings. Something to live up to. It’s not an easy way of being good people. It means very hard, difficult work, like the work, the labours of a hero, to live up to those ideals. And in facing this challenge we need to be inspired by the moral stand that people have taken in the past. For example in Britain the British Medical Research Council in World War II, it refused to help Churchill with Anthrax bombs. There were some other scientists who did it but not, officially, the British Medical Research Council said no, we’re medical. Now in Japan we know that there were many, many Japanese Buddhists and others who opposed their nation’s military policies. And as I’m speaking here in Germany to an audience consisting largely of German medical students, I think it is appropriate that I refer to what you well know already: the medical students at Munich who organised the White Rose movement in 1942 and sacrificed their lives in opposing Nazi policy. So I think we should be inspired by the fine examples of the past, so that we can face the many very serious problems which exist in all parts of the world today. Thank you.

Scientists have to reinforce their moral feelings, says Maurice Wilkins

Necessity to Know or Need to Glitter?
When Heinrich Rohrer, who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986 with Ernst Ruska and Gerd Binnig, came to Lindau in 1991, to give his talk „Science – part of our future“, he reflected on the pressure under which science is put by the interests of different stakeholders in society, economy and politics, and emphasized how important it will be for scientists to come to a mutual and independent understanding of their profession to safeguard the future of science.

Heinrich Rohrer reflects on science beyond the ivory tower
(00:00:49 - 00:04:33)

An aspect of modern science that Rohrer critizises sharply is its „poor signal-to-noise ratio“. The rising flood of scientific papers, he says, is not proportional to the new knowledge it carries with it. It rather reflects the crisis of a system, in whose evaluation procedures quantity outweighs quality, and in which vanity rather than true novelty has begun to play the key role: „The necessity to know has been replaced by the need to glitter.“ Proposing a more modest approach to the communication of innovation, Rohrer reminds his audience of the foremost privilege of scientists: „We are those who may make a work out of their dreams and who are allowed to dream while working.“ Especially young scientists should by guided by their own ideas.[11] Research funding therefore should foster and stimulate original ideas again rather than just planning and regulating research.

Scientific Integrity Requires „the Freedom to Doubt“
Time and again, Harold Kroto, winner of a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes in 1996 and a frequent participant of the Lindau Meetings, has endorsed this demand. Breakthrough innovations more often than not occur in fields, which are not on the radar screen of grant giving institutions. „Stick to the one thing you are interested in“, Kroto encourages young scientists. A prerequisite for this integrity is the „freedom to doubt“, as Kroto pointed out in his lecture on „Science, Society and Sustainability“ in 2009:

Sir Harold Kroto (2009) - Science, Society & Sustainability

Well it’s a pleasure to be back again, and for those who were here the last time I’ve got one new joke I think, and hopefully you won’t even recognize it. But it’s a pleasure to be with young people and for some of you, you may see me again unfortunately in a couple of weeks time if we’re going to this particular Olympiad. Is anybody going to that? Let me just check. Okay well you’ve probably seen yourself flashing then. I’m now going to talk about some issues that I feel are rather serious and that young people, young scientists who have got to face the problems and the mess that we’ve left behind, we old guys, may have to consider. And when I do this, I often use Don Marquis’s quote. I like quotations and this is my, I think, all time favourite, is ‘if you make people think they’re thinking, they love you. But if you really make them think they hate you’ (laughter). And I think probably many of you have felt you’ve been in that sort of situation before. Well how did I get here? Well I did have aspirations and I think it was to be Superman because I found this photograph of myself with the ‘S’ on there but I had to come down to earth. I did gymnastics at school and tennis and one thing really tell you, that you really should be, do other things apart from the sciences and I acted in a school play and I’m the handsome guy on the right in this picture and I always tell people that they should really do science. The guy in front stayed an actor and you notice that he aged a lot more than I did. Ian McKellen and I were in the same year at school and of course many of you may recognize him. A fantastic actor and we met last week because he was in London in ‘Waiting for Godot’. So basically it’s not just science. Science actually, if you are a scientist, it really helps to do other things. One reason that I think I’m a scientist, is that I have Meccano and you take these bits and pieces and you make things and in fact, you can make cars and I thought I’d show you an advertisement from those days. Alright there you go. So that’s the sort of world that I was in, made of nuts and bolts and that’s what a chemist actually uses. He uses his electrons and atoms to put our world together. So it’s a big sort of analogy there. When I was a kid the best thing for me on Saturday was to go down to a travel agent and get the new brochures and I used to love these free brochures. These beautiful works of art and that was my big thing. I would go and pick these things, fantastic works of art, for nothing. And I still enjoy trying to get these. The other thing at school and also at other places is graphics. My real passion was actually art and design and these are some drawings of when I was a kid at school. I’ve censored this one so you don’t know what the rest of her looks like (laughter). These are posters at university and at university it’s a place where you really can branch out and do things. This is what I looked like as a little boy and I used that. My first award was not for science, it was for this design for a book jacket and that’s what I used to look like. Now, many of you are young and beautiful now but you’re going to look old and decrepit like me one day so enjoy your beauty whilst you may, will not last I’m afraid. So these are book jackets for the university magazine. This was a poster on the Underground in London, I’m not sure what that was but (laughter), this is a colleague who ran a rock group and I used to sort of improvise. This is sort of surface diffusion effect, a bit like chromatography. This is my wife Margaret and I do logos and this is my logo for a buckyball workshop down under. I designed this stamp as well for the Nobel Centenary and these are some for various little groups in Sussex, oh sorry, in Sheffield. I also redesigned the Japanese flag (laughter), I was hoping they were going to pay me for that one, but no. I steal from Leonardo to actually do things. Now probably the reason I’m a scientist is that I only got good for my frog at school and I used to get good, very good for my maths and science. But this is a drawing of Stockholm town hall at the age of thirteen when I’d never heard of the Nobel Prize and this wonderful building is where the Nobel Prize was awarded so there was some thought in there. Let’s talk about science first of all. How many of you had this when you were a kid, okay? Wow, really, very impoverished children in this place, (laughter) anyway there was a little kid who shall be nameless who, he, every time he picked up the cube he tried to put it into the round hole. It didn’t matter what shape, it was always the round hole. So his mum said, thought he wasn’t going to really make it to university so she thought I’ll take him to see the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist said, don’t worry, my analysis of this kid is that it doesn’t matter what the problem is, he sees only one solution and there is a perfect career for that kid, and that’s to be a politician, Mrs. Blair (laughter). Okay but let me tell you what science is to me, it’s, patterns, not just in space and images but also in numbers and one of my favourite patterns is this one and it gives the whole of chemistry in basically thirty seconds. We know we use classical mechanics for the earth orbiting the sun. And we use an electron orbiting nucleus, we have quantum mechanics. And though angular momentum is involved and there are orientations with the angular momentum. When J is zero two J plus one is one, when J is one, two J plus one is three. And when J is two, two J plus one is five. And that’s the origin of this. Now how many of you don’t like numbers, mathematics, okay for you I’m going to just throw away the numbers and leave the boxes there. You’re probably physicists, well as far as I can tell. Anyway let’s double them up, move them together, do this, this and this, double that, double this, double that, move this to there and that again and what have we got? Yeah. Fantastic, it’s based on the numbers one three and five. It’s so simple. It explains the whole of chemistry, all of biology, all of life and all the useful bits of physics, if any (laughter and applause). Well of course, chemistry is that massive part of physics, the over arching, but the one that pertains to us and I think that was a revelation for me. The other thing to recognize is that many of the big surprises came, come from left field, totally unexpected and it’s very difficult to convince people who don’t understand science but who have to pay for it, tax payers and politicians, that that’s the case. When the discovery of C60 was made, about six papers came out saying it wasn’t right. It was a very difficult time, that was the same time as cold fusion so you know, you were thinking if you were after committing suicide or something. But anyway I developed a rule. It’s my four out of five rule. If you make an observation, develop a theory that explains it. Then design further experiments to test the validity of that theory. Four observations fit out of five, then the theory is almost certainly right. If only one out of five fits, the theory is almost certainly wrong and the key part of that is almost for a scientist. Okay so well let’s make sure we get some sound okay. Let’s just do that again alright, it should be okay and then (sound effect - bomb). That’s to wake you up because you know, let’s think about modern science. Most people think that genetic engineering is new. But without any knowledge of DNA we’ve been able to make this guy into a Chihuahua (laughter). Now, and we’ve probably, I mean Kurt with his, he may be able to make a human being into a Chihuahua soon right and I have some people that I suggest he does that too really (laughter). But if you want to know what nano technology is, it’s as old as biology itself. Atom by atom, molecule by molecule assembly of a complex or functional system. And by that definition we are actually produced by nano technology, okay. And so when people get worried about it you better tell them this. Another aspect of it is we should with molecular electronics be able to take all that super computing capacity and to put it into a wristwatch. Now that happens to be a Calvin Klein wristwatch and just by Calvin putting CK on it you’re prepared to pay ten times what it’s worth alright. If I put HK on it I can’t even sell it at all and it really irritates me (laughter). But that’s the situation we’re in. We’re in an age of really I think distorted values and I think we need to worry about those. I’ll come to my view of the next century which is incredibly exciting in the sciences. My favourite molecule is not C60, it’s actually this molecule. It looks like a dog to me, I hope it does to you. It’s my dog made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, red nose okay. I used to be a microwave spectroscopist, it was the only subject I really fully understood. And by looking at the spectrum I can show that the dog shakes his head okay, and it looks at its tail alright? Not only that, it undergoes what’s called internal rotation and I think this is really very interesting and something that people haven’t really realized. It’s been drinking too much schnapps so you know when you’ve been drinking up too much beer, the problem is and if you’re walking down the street and you’re a dog, the most important thing to find is a lamppost (applause and laughter). Now, the thing is little kids love that but older kids do too, but the take home message is that molecules are flexible and that is very exciting because, I’m going to show this because it’s really a shame that John Walker isn’t here. I remember going to his lecture and seeing this molecule for the first time and it was just fantastic. I almost fell off my seat. I wanted to start all over again and play around with these molecular machines. As protons go in here and neutralize negative charges on this molecular protein wheel, it turns a rotor in here, opening cavities and making ATP. ADP goes into those cavities. A perfect enzymic catalyst. It’s a fantastic molecular machine developed by life long before Faraday. I think Faraday, I really wish he would be alive to see these things. I think he would be absolutely bowled over. I don’t think he would mind that life had invented electric motors before he did. And unfortunately you’re going to miss a wonderful talk by John probably discussing those machines. And my view is that these machines are the future. I’d think that the drug industry hasn’t even started to use devices as smart as the ones that they’re up against in the body and that’s exciting. I’ll come to the second, probably more serious aspect of my talk. It’s about society and society is something that’s in these people’s heads rather than what’s out there. The big difference between science and society is that science is nature, the way nature works. And if nature, if you don’t like it, it’s just too bad. It punches you on the nose. Society is something different. My wonderful colleague Kappa Cornforth, now 94, is shown in this picture at the age of eighteen when he realized he was going to be totally deaf for the rest of his life, yet he overcame all that to become a Nobel Prize winner. I used to think you had to be as smart as this guy to win the Nobel Prize, I guarantee it’s not necessary now from my own experience. He says: "It may seem odd that a system of knowledge based on doubt could have been the driving force in constructing modern civilization. Scientists do not believe, they check. I’m not asking you to believe anything I say on a scientific matter, only that there is tacit evidence for all of it and I know the nature of that evidence and I can make a judgment of its worth." I’m going to talk about I think the scientist philosopher. I’m not a great fan for philosophers, maybe because I can’t understand them but I can understand this guy. or leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive." instead of being held dogmatically, they’re held tentatively and with a consciousness that new evidence may, at any moment, lead to their abandonment." This is the way opinions are held in the sciences as opposed to the way in which they’re held in theology. I like this one. though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry." Those are interesting things. Another interesting British scientist is J.B.S. Haldane. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I make the assumption that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course, and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." He has another quotation and he goes on: "I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." I like this one. Haldane: "In the unlikely event that there is a god, what would you say?" He seems to be very fond of beetles. There are 350,000 of them, right so there, so that’s where I stand. Another aspect of science for me is really how do you get to the answer, but I like this quotation: And I wanted to find out where this came from, so where do you go, Google (laughter) alright? And what do I find, it’s me. I was looking, it’s me, I mean I know this can’t be right but I’ve five quotations to me. So there you go, so if you change it slightly, I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions, you get closer to where it comes from and it’s Kung Fu, okay. And it’s Cane and of course many of you know about David Carradine, actually I don’t know how many people, he died a few weeks ago, yes a few of you do. So here he is, but it probably goes back to Confucianism. I think it goes to Confucius and it’s very interesting. You have to frame the question and somehow in framing the question the answer falls out many times. Walt Whitman, the great American writer, gave what I think is the best definition of science that I’ve ever come across. He says: "I like the scientific spirit, the holding off, the being sure, but not too sure", brilliant line. This is ultimately fine, it keeps the way beyond open." If you don’t have that attitude, the future, the way beyond is closed off. Don’t underestimate the power of belief in closing you off from real understanding of anything, it’s dangerous. I’ve decided there are three senses. There’s common sense tells us the sun goes round the earth and we watch it, it goes round. That’s common sense. You don’t really need to know it’s the earth turning. It’s basically uncommon sense if Copernicus and Galileo okay, that really works, well something odd here to find out is that really true. The real problem is that nonsense is now common and that’s a problem it seems to me. And let me give you an example. I was invited to Cincinnati and Margaret said "Harry would like to go to this museum", I thought, I do, but anyway, let me show you this wonderful museum, 27 million dollars, just outside Cincinnati. Young children in buses are coming into it. They’re coming to learn that the Grand Canyon is 5,000 years old and was carved by Noah’s flood. Here’s Noah and he’s Scottish, he’s got a Scottish accent. God made Adam and Eve on the same day as the land animals so dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. So we must have ridden, put saddles on them and ridden the damn things (laughter). What did dinosaurs originally eat? Originally before Adam sinned, all animals including dinosaurs were vegetarians, that Tyrannosaurus Rex, I’ll tell you man they, what happened to the dinosaurs that didn’t get into Noah’s Ark? The dinosaurs that did not enter Noah’s Ark were drowned in the flood 4,350 years ago No wonder the kids going here are scratching their heads (laughter), right, they’re told in school, maybe, if they’re lucky, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the Grand Canyon is something like 6 million years in carving and 200 million years older the rocks at the bottom. There’s a problem. And it’s not just the kids. Here’s Louisiana Governor, signed into law the Academic Freedom Bill making sure that teachers teach alternatives to Darwin’s theory. He signed it into law and he was being promoted as the Republican’s answer to Obama. So I thought I’ll give my alternative theory, my favourite alternative theory is Simon the wanderer sole human survivor of the earth travels the universe with a dog, an owl and a mechanical lover (laughter), searching for the answer to "Why are we created only to suffer and die?" At the end of the journey Simon meets a hoary old cockroach called Bingo. We learn that the universe is an experiment carried out by a race of cockroaches and that life and humans evolved from cockroach crap which they deposited on the earth, right (laughter). So here is my favourite, we all live up and for some of us I can certainly believe that. Simon asked: "Why did they do this when it meant so much agony, suffering death to sextillions upon sextillions of living beings?" Bingo asked Simon, answers to Simon's repeated ‘why, why, why’, with "Why not"? I like that one and if you’re in Florida or some of you want to know an alternative, you should see the seminal’s version of the origin of human beings, it’s a bit politically incorrect I might point out. But what have we learned? We’ve learned something wonderful from DNA. That this is one of our cousins, okay, 98% of our, I love this guy, just look at the face. He’s, I mean he’s looking at that because he clearly realizes, it must be a Manchester United supporter being beaten by FC Barcelona in the European Cup. Those are our cousins. I like this one, 70% the same as pumpkins. I love it, that’s what we’ve learned. So from all that learning there’s only one religious leader who really seems to be understanding what’s going on. And Dalai Lama says: "Buddhism must accept the facts whether found by science or by contemplative insight. If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality. Even if it is in contradiction with the literal scriptural explanation that has helped sway for centuries or with deeply held opinion or view." I think we’ve got a problem. This is the way that children are indoctrinated in Christian play schools, in madrases there’s 17,000 in the tribal lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan, spending much of their time from the age of two, three four or five reading the Koran. In Israel, also separated. This area from Poland on the right, I could have been one of these. My grandfathers came from central Poland. And children in, they don’t look any different. Children all over the world are identical. But we have a question: Should parents have the right to bring up the children as they want? Put your hands up if you think that’s correct. Very interesting. Well should parents have the right to teach their children that their classmates will go to hell because they are not of the same religion or no religion at all? It brings it into sharper focus. This is an issue in Britain today because that is happening at the tax payers’ expense. Northern Ireland, an advertisement I’ve had many years. Let’s play Protestants and Catholics. Gerald, “If I were prime minister of Northern Ireland”, he’s twelve years old, “this is how I would solve the problems. First I would split Northern Ireland into two parts and I would put Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other side.” David, 14, “I would pass a law that said any Roman Catholic who set foot on the street to start trouble would be shot instantly and without mercy. I would starve them like rats until there wasn’t one left in Northern Ireland.” That’s the legacy that you have of separating our children, okay. It’s dangerous for the future and I think it’s obvious, all our kids should be taught together. This is my favourite picture of a workshop. These two kids enjoying science and if we don’t sort of change this and get our kids from the earliest possible age, working together and playing together we’ll have big problems in the future. Jefferson understood this. We left Britain when I had to retire to go to the USA and I’m really amazed at how brilliant some of the fathers of the American revolution were. Jefferson said: "Because religious belief or non-belief is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Erecting 'the wall of separation between church and state' is therefore absolutely essential in a free society." This is his tombstone and it’s a very interesting one. First of all the author of the Declaration of American Independence, these are the things he was proud of. The second was a very important one, particularly for Americans and anyone who wants to understand America. The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, a fantastic document and finally the father of the University of Virginia. He was a great guy. Have a look at it, it’s on the web. I do workshops with small children, all over the world, just talking about science and the children are the same wherever they are, okay (plays video). There is no difference between kids of that age, they just love playing around. And wherever I go, they’re just delightful. This is in Japan, in Santa Barbara, in Mexico, in Malaysia, this is by internet to Iceland and then Australia and also in the UK. I show this in the UK, sometimes young women are screaming but unfortunately it’s the bloke on the left not the bloke on the right that they’re screaming about (laughter). This is the only kid who found a use for C60 (laughter), there we go. If someone else doesn’t find something soon I might have to give the prize back. Let’s get to the last parts of what I want to say. Kappa again, this wonderful article which is on the vega website which I shall mention in a minute. He says: "A few hundred years ago, a mere breath of time, a concentrated source of energy was discovered in the fossil fuels. Essentially the energy of old sunlight, trapped by life and buried by the earth. Humanity has exploited this resource with all the restraint of a fox in a chicken house. Among non scientists there seems to be a general vague expectation, if they think of the matter at all that scientists are sure to find some way to rescue future generations from the shit into which the present one is dropping them." He’s an Australian so you know they gather a way with words. It took a million years to create the fossil fuel we have, that we use in one year. and that’s a big if, "it’s in yours". So it’s in your hands, there you go, let me go back to here, sustainability. There are lots of issues. And I think unless we split water I don’t think we’re really going to be able to use energy so voraciously as we have done before. We would need even more efficient solar electricity production and maybe genetically develop a wheat that can fix its own nitrogen. There are hundreds of different things that we can do. Water splitting is just one of them. Well as I told you I like design and particularly I like making, doing logos and in fact this is my favourite animal. And you know what it’s on, yes, elephant crap. If there were no dung beetles Africa would be something like eighty, hundreds of feet deep in elephant crap because they’re recycling it. Well let’s look at our crap. Let’s look at the world and a field in England with a hundred and forty thousand refrigerators. That’s our crap. And we have to know how to recycle it. So here’s my logo for the future, we need to recycle our crap okay, and it’s a difficult thing to do. So I’ve developed an initiative which I call Global Educational Outreach and one reason for that is the following, that it, I’m incensed by the second part, well I’m incensed by all of it. Because after, at the end of, as you go through this Kentucky museum it says, asks, why do we suffer, why do we have to die, is there any hope, am I alone? These are psychological brainwashing. Well let’s look at what science has done, anaesthetics. We don’t have mobile phones in those days but this is actually amputation without an anaesthetic. Just think about it, what it was like in the eighteenth century, just put yourself in that guy’s leg, if you wish. Let’s look at Penicillin, whoops, it’s just moving a little bit or for some reason, there it is. Okay, this is a miracle. This is blood poisoning in 1942. In three weeks cured by Penicillin, there’s hardly anybody in this room whose life has not been touched by Penicillin, either that or your immediate family. I’m so incensed that science and technology is not credited with those sorts of contributions by people. Let’s have a look at our heroes. Who should they be? The problem is this, that can we shake off our mad media image and who is responsible? Here’s the guy who did it, if only he’d cut his hair alright (laughter). But actually he’s an imposter and the reason he’s an imposter is, he was not the guy who did all that beautiful work. The guy that did it was this guy. In fact yes young Einstein. Someone, in fact he was probably younger than almost everybody in this room when he first started to think about what it would be like to travel at the velocity of light. It’s young people. And unfortunately we’ve got this guy and he’s a scientologist on top of it. Darwin, is not this guy, the guy who created this work is young Charlie. Maxwell, this is the old guy, who created probably the biggest breakthrough of the nineteenth century. It was Wee Jamie, Wee Jamie Maxwell, with the little quiff on the top of the head. It’s young people like you who do it. Norman Heatly is totally unknown. But he did all the work on Penicillin, all the starting, all the breakthroughs in Penicillin and he didn’t get the Nobel Prize for it, okay. These are the young people, Jim Heath, Sean O’Brien, Yuan Liu and Jonathan Hare who helped us in the discovery of C60 molecule. So I set up the Vega Science Trust to make programmes for television and the internet. Basically it’s the second revolution because the internet allows us all to broadcast. We’ve got programmes, scientific discussions, we’ve pioneered this new concept, totally new concept in TV debate that participants should actually understand what they’re talking about, okay (laughter). Children’s workshops we’ve got fantastic lectures by Feynman. These are the most wonderful physics presentations. Four one and a half hour lectures by the greatest communicator I have ever seen. We deal with malaria and the fact that the embargo on DDT condemns a million children to death each year. Joseph Rotblat the greatest man I ever knew personally and Max Perutz who developed the structure of haemoglobin. We’ve also got interviews, in fact we’ve got interviews with people actually here, okay and in fact you can see them again. Some were in depth interviews at the top ones and also at Lindau. In fact I have taken this, this is very interesting, Richard, I’m not quite sure what they’re up to but I certainly like it (laughter). These are some of our interviews here and basically the people in white are actually here, you can watch them again. But our world has changed. It’s changed because the encyclopaedia has been revolutionized. How many have looked at the encyclopaedia? This week? How many of you looked at Google this week? How many looked at Wikipedia this week? That’s, you can’t just look at that and not realize that a revolution has taken place. I used to wonder where the images in encyclopaedias came from. And in fact, I call it the GooYouWiki world. Google, You Tube and Wikipiedia have revolutionized our world, GYWW. Well let’s see how they’ve done that. This is an image of C60 in an encyclopaedia. If I go to Google in the image browser what I get are pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages even rotating, (laughter). That’s why encyclopaedias now have been changed. It’s a triple revolution. I want you to understand exactly why it’s a triple one. The first is, Google has found a way of seeking and finding and accessing information. Interestingly, this is the important part, that Wikipedia has fostered the passion to create and make that material available. That is a creative aspect, you understand? It’s an enabling one and You Tube has brought audio visual sort of aspects into it and so I’ve, I’ve now started what I call GYWW 2.0. Teachers all over the world can get access to the internet. If we can put those onto mud huts in Kenya and Nigeria then we can surely get the internet to every teacher all over the world and we give them access to that information. Well what have we done? We set up global educational outreach for science engineering and technology. I call it ‘geoset’ and it’s pretty straight forward. It’s basically a computer, a capture station. I think it’s the sort of new thing that’s coming through and you can have a video and downloadable power point for teachers. I don’t need to be here because most of you are watching that ninety percent of the time. So what can we do? Well I’ve got my young undergraduates to make little movies. Let me show you these to give you an idea of the future. You’re all going to have to think about this very carefully and I think you’ll find it fascinating what our young people, under graduates can actually do. This study was done by John Vucetti and Ralph Peterson with the School of Environmental Science at Michigan Technology University on a population of wolves, a very close relative of the dog. The study was conducted on a small isolated wolf population located at Isle Royale National Park in Northern Lake Superior Michigan. The three packs are comprised of around 24 wolves, all descended from one female and one or two males who crossed an ice bridge from Canada during an unusually cold winter in the 1940s. Since then they have been isolated on the islands that make up the Isle Royale National Park’.) Okay this is the most detailed study over 70 years of animals that have been trapped on an island and let me just go through it because. The number of deformation, deformities, seems to increase significantly during the late 1980s. The photograph on the left hand side is what a normal wolf vertebrae should look like. And this photograph on the right is the defected vertebrae. Again in this photograph you can clearly and compare and contrast the deformed vertebrae versus the one..’). I’m going to stop it there because I’m running out of time and I just want you to see some other things, one on beetles. Kerry Gilmore is a graduate student and next year every student of chemistry will have to make a presentation like this and put it up on the web okay. And this is going to be part of his CV, their CV. I work for Dr. Al Googan as an organic chemist. Now I love organic chemistry because it provides you the opportunity to go through and be an architect, an engineer, a builder, because we can go through and really look at designing molecules, we can figure out how to actually make these molecules and then finally we actually get to go and…). I’m going to stop there because I want to show you just one more. And this is by Steve Acker who is here today using this technology in a highly creative way. You’re going to have to excuse me today, I’m kind of in disguise. I had a meeting with Agent X and he gave me a secret document, there we are. Top Secret. Now the problem is, he gave me all this information X, right before he disappeared. He gave me these two envelopes, A and B. Now according to him it contains a secret message. Okay that’s a secret message written in invisible ink, okay.) I’m going to stop it there but this is one for kids to learn about invisible ink and then Steve goes on to show them how to make that in the rest of it. Okay I’ve got to go on and tell you something else for is, basically assessment is a pleasure. This is me assessing a pile of papers like this and getting pretty pissed off about it, sitting there watching the students make their demonstrations. It’s very easy and very enjoyable (laughter). I’ve got modules on algebra, on maps, on content, we’re setting up a network all over the world, in Japan and Florida and UK and also in Australia and New Zealand. I’m going to finish off with some important key ones. My favourite quotation from Feynman is “The freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and I believe in other fields. It was born out of a struggle, it was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure and I do not want to forget that importance, the importance of that struggle and by default let it fall away. If you know you’re unsure you have a chance to change the situation. I want to demand that freedom for future generations”. That’s for you. ines is an organization that some of us are involved with. It’s an international network. We point out that physics, you shouldn’t be doing physics to create better bombs. We’ve already got 28,000 of them, we don’t need any more. You shouldn’t be a chemist to make better napalm and you shouldn’t be an engineer to make better land mines. Jo Rotblat, I think, the greatest man I ever knew personally, was basically either one or the only scientist of, one of two people who left the Manhattan project when it wasn’t, it was found not to be necessary and before the bomb was completed. In his Nobel address he said something fantastic. Remember your humanity and forget the rest. If we can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise, if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death. The quest for a war free world has a basic purpose: survival. But if in the process we learn to achieve it by love, rather than by fear, by kindness rather than by compulsion; if in the process we learn to combine the essential with the enjoyable, the expedient with the benevolent, the practical with the beautiful, this will be an extra incentive to embark on this great task. Above all remember your humanity.” This is Jo just about a year or two before he died at the age of 97. Here he is, and look at this, can you believe it? How did it stay up, it’s impossible. This is a picture of me, in front of a picture of me in front of a picture of Jo, the origin of the picture over there. Remember your humanity and forget the rest, he goes on to say. Don’t have time for that. I want to, so saving the planet is a global citizenship project, we can’t do it all by ourselves. There are free thinkers all over the world. There are blog sites join them and work together. Recognize that ENRON, what did ENRON do wrong, and Madoff, they promised pay back in this life. My last two slides. Stein, my favourite poster. Said "I’m an alien creature, I was sent from another planet with a message of good will from my people and the message says: Dear earth people when you finally at last destroy your planet and have no place to live, you can come and live with us. And we will teach you how to live in peace and harmony and we will give you a coupon good for ten percent off all deep dish pizzas too, sincerely Bob." Destroying the planet looks like it, I don’t know, our scientists are not sure but it looks pretty bad. Peace and harmony, isn’t it incredible that we elect, by democratic means in general, leaders who can’t solve our problems without sending young people like you to go and kill each other. I can’t understand it. But at the end of the day he’s got pizzas for a sense of humour. Without a sense of humour it’s not worth living as far as I’m concerned. My last bit, I never cease to enjoy this bit of film (plays clip – Enya). Going to finish with one last comment. I spoke to some industrialists a few months ago, people who try to make money some way and I suggested that if their attitude had been not what’s in the best interests of our shareholders and people who’ve got money in them but what’s in the best interests of those kids, I think we wouldn’t have been in the mess we’re in today. Thanks a lot.

Harold Kroto pays homage to Joseph Rotblat
(00:36:29 - 00:38:32)

Krotos reverence for Joseph Rotblat, who was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs in 1995, as „the greatest man I ever knew personally“, is important. Although Rotblat never attended a Lindau Meeting, this reverence justifies to quote some of his thoughts on science and ethics in our context: „The establishment of an ethical code of conduct for scientists is an idea whose time has come. An ethical code of conduct for physicians has been in existence for nearly two and a half millennia, since the days of Hippocrates. In those days - as still today - the life of the patient was literally in the hands of the medic, and it was essential to ensure that he would wield his power responsibly, the care of the patient being his foremost duty. Hence the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors when they qualify. Nowadays, science can be said to have acquired a somewhat similar role in relation to humanity; the destiny of mankind lying in the hands of scientists. The time has thus come for some sort of Hippocratic Oath to be formulated for scientists. A solemn oath, or a pledge, taken when receiving the degree in science, would, at the least, have an important symbolic value, but it might also generate awareness and stimulate thoughts about the wider issues among young scientists.
We should also borrow from medicine another practice, of more recent origin: ethical committees to review research projects.“

Remember Your Humanity – and Transcend it?
These are both wise and arousing words. But is it enough, to just „remember our humanity“, as Rotblat called for in his Nobel lecture? Isn’t it perhaps necessary to transcend it? This is a question, 93-year-old Christian de Duve put forward in Lindau in 2011. In his amazingly inspiring talk, de Duve, one of the founding fathers of modern cell biology, who shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Albert Claude and George Palade, takes an evolutionary perspective on „The future of life“ : Humans are without doubt „the most successful species“ on earth. But at what cost? De Duve’s account encompasses eight items: exhaustion of natural resources; loss of biodiversity; deforestation and desertification; climate change; energy crisis; pollution; overcrowded cities; and conflicts and wars. Yet „it is not a who, it is a a what“ that is responsible for this mess, according to de Duve. This „what“ is „natural selection“. It promotes the emergence of those individuals or groups that are best fit to survive and reproduce. In the course of millenia, it has preferred our species because of two favorable genetic traits: Intragroup selfishness and intergroup hostility. Yet natural selection is blind: It only takes care of the here and now, and is unable to look into the future. And that’s the problem: Our genes have not changed, but the world has. The same qualities that once helped our species to survive in the barely populated African savannah, today endanger its survival in an overcrowded and globalized world where all groups and cultures are interdependent. There is something wrong with human nature, de Duve says, and continues to analyse seven options to tackle this problem:

Christian de Duve (2011) - The Future of Life

It’s a great pleasure to be with all of you here, thank you for coming and thank you for this nice introduction. I should tell you that I have a jacket and I have a tie at the hotel, but I hope you will excuse this informal attire. Thank you, if somebody has a jacket, he’s allowed to take it off. Now, let’s see if this machine works, great. So before talking about the future of life, I would like to spend a little time going back, just a few million years, as you can see this is a scale. Now, I don’t know why you are applauding, but never mind, wait till the end of the lecture. What you see is a scale of time, eight millions of years. That’s a great deal from your point of view and my point of view, eight million years ago, that is 8.000 millennia, But in terms of the history of life, this is just an instant, because the first animals appeared 600 million years ago, that’s about half a mile from here. And the first signs of life on earth were detected in terrains that are almost 3.6 billion years ago, But it’s those last years are particularly important for us humans. And what I'm showing on this scale of time is the volume of the brain, the volume of the brain of the individuals, whose skulls, fossil skulls were found mostly in Africa during those times, and what I want to show is the change in the volume, the size of the brain during that time. There you have on the right the size of the brain of the chimpanzee, which is 350 cubic centimetres and which is about the biggest size for an animal brain, compared to size in the whole of animal kingdom, except of course for humans. Now, something happened around six million years ago or even later, here you have an individual called Australopithecus africanus. He’s a sort of remote cousin of Lucy, you’ve heard of Lucy of course, and Lucy had a brain of about 400 cubic centimetres, and he lived for about half a million years, and then became extinct, so the length of that line shows the time during which fossil skulls of this individual of the species had been found. And so let’s continue, here you see the next one, Paranthropus boisei, and then it goes on, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, who lived, as you can see, Then we have heidelbergensis and then we have neanderthalensis. And then we have you and me with a slightly smaller brain than the neanderthal, smaller but probably more efficient. And so this is the whole history of the brain, and we can connect all these, we see something which is really the most extraordinary event in the whole of evolution, this is this fantastic rise in the size of the brain over just about two million years. Remember it took 600 million years for the brain of the chimpanzee to reach this size, 600 million. And here, in a couple of million years, you see the size growing up fourfold. This is an absolutely extraordinary event, nobody has explained it from the genetic point of view, and I think very few genes can be involved in this, so this is a really extraordinary thing. It’s extraordinary in terms of the size, the fastness, but it’s also extraordinary in terms of smallness. Because just four times as many neurons, four times, makes a difference between a chimpanzee and a human being. Now, the chimpanzees as you know, they do make a few tools from time to time, they can use a branch, remove the leaves, stick the branch into a termite nest and then wait and they pick it out again and they lick the termites off. And that’s how they get insects to feed on. And that’s manufacturing your tools, so there is some intelligence involved in that. But we, our ancestors, with about twice that brain size, we make stone tools. Chimpanzee also, he would use a stone to crush a nut or to crush his neighbours’ head, but our ancestors did much better. They didn’t just pick up a stone, they started carving it and fashioning it into all kinds of different tools, and so they made stone tools of greater efficiency or sophistication. But that’s still nothing against what we have been doing, now, with just four times as many neurons as the chimp, we are sending man to the moon, we are sending messages all over the world, we are decrypting the human genome, we are manipulating life, we are doing all those extraordinary things that, you know better than I do, are being done today, with just four times as many neurons as the chimpanzee. I think this is absolutely remarkable and the neurobiologists will have to explain how, with such a small difference, you can make, I mean there can be such a huge difference in the results. Okay, now I want to look at the end of this story in terms of numbers. So there is another timescale, we are going to look at the population in terms of time. Half a billion years ago - well, there was no census, but it’s estimated that the human population was about 3.000 individuals. It’s estimated that there were about 10.000 human beings. Okay, then 10.000 years ago, that’s when the first human settlements started, when they started cultivating land and raising cattle and so on, five to ten million individuals. Half a billion, that’s quite a lot already. I was almost finished school at that time, I almost entered university, but anyway, doesn’t matter. Two billion, that’s what I learnt at school, we are two billions. So in the meantime it’s changed, from 1930 to 1970, that’s four years before i got a Nobel prize, four billion. Just in one lifetime, from two to four. Today, or yesterday, 2009 six and a half billion, tomorrow maybe nine billion, maybe more, we don’t know. So this is really a staggering increase in population, this is even more frightening when you see the curve how suddenly more than exponential fashion this number has risen. What this means is that we, the human species, Homo sapiens sapiens, we are, among all the living organisms that have ever existed on this planet. We are the most successful species. We started in Central Africa, in small bands roaming Central Africa, we have come to invade the whole of our planet, to occupy almost every liveable corner of this planet. We’ve come to use virtually all the resources that are available for our own benefit, we have really become tremendously successful. But this success has a price. I was explaining how we have become the most successful, by far the most successful species on this planet, but as I said, there’s a price to pay and let’s see the cost of success. You open your television, you open your newspaper, you open your radio and you hear of it. So I just list the price, because everyone knows that the cost of our success is exhaustion of natural resources, almost complete exhaustion. It’s loss of biodiversity, every day species, living species disappear. Deforestation, desertification, we are losing forests in the Amazon at a fantastic rate, the deserts are becoming wider. Climate changes, we all know about climate changes, but we hear only about climate change in the newspapers, but climate change is just a small aspect of this whole tragedy that we have inflicted on our planet. Energy crisis, you know how we all try to find new ways to power our needs because we are using more and more energy. We are using more energy in one day than our ancestors did in a year in the African savannah. Pollution, we are polluting the earth to the point of making it unliveable in certain parts of the world. Overcrowded cities, that’s becoming a major, if you ever travel to Tokyo or Mexico city or Sao Paolo or even go to London, Paris, Brussels, and you will find the effects of too many people living on a too small piece of land. Conflicts and wars, I don’t have to tell you, I’ve seen two wars in my lifetime and today the wars or conflicts are raging all over the world. I don’t have to tell you about that. And of course, the main problem, of course, of our success is that there are simply too many of us. There are too many of us. Now who is the culprit? Who is responsible for this? Well, it’s not a ‘who’, it’s a ‘what’. It is natural selection. I think Dr. Arber has told you about the theory of natural selection and I'm sure you are all familiar with the theory of natural selection. Just let me remind you, with natural selection, what you start with is diversity, variation. Variation brings about conflict, competition between the different variants for the available resources. And out of that conflict there will emerge those individuals or those groups that are best fit to survive and especially to reproduce under the existing conditions. So natural selection is simply the automatic obligatory emergence under certain given conditions of those particular species or individuals or groups that are best fit to survive. And to reproduce, especially to reproduce under those conditions. That is natural selection. Now, we have to remember about natural selection one very important point: Natural selection acts on the immediate, on the here-and-now level. Natural selection doesn’t look into the future, natural selection doesn’t look into the future and calculate the amount of energy that remains available and say natural selection takes care only of the hic-and-nunc, the now-and-here. So, now try and go back to the early history of our species, at that time, say 200.000 years ago, you saw there were about 10.000 human beings. Well, those 10.000 human beings 200.000 years ago, they were not all in one place. They were in little groups of maybe 30 or 50 individuals, and they were roaming around the African savannah or the African forests, and what were they doing? Well, they were looking for food, because their main problem, their main concern was to survive. To survive and make young, reproduce, survive and reproduce, and so they were looking for food, they were looking for animals to hunt, because they also needed some hunting at that time. And so what were the qualities that were useful to our ancestors 200.000 years ago, when they were doing this, looking for food, looking for shelter, fighting predators. Well, I would summarize the quality that was needed at that time was group selfishness, two words. Selfishness because, if you have to survive, you have to take care of your own, you don’t think about the others, you want to survive, you must be selfish, you must be egoistic, you are looking for your own means of survival. But if you are part of a group, then it becomes more advantageous for the members of the group to help each other than to fight each other. Because if they cooperate, they have a better chance of surviving, and so natural selection will privilege those qualities or those genetic traits that were favourable to the survival and/or production of the groups’ concern, that is group selfishness. But, as I said, this was not the only group, there were 50 or 100 such groups doing the same thing, roaming through the savannah or the forest in Central Africa. From time to time they would meet, two groups would meet. And what would happen? Well, they each were looking for the best hunting grounds, looking for the best places to find food, the best shelter and so: Conflict. What happened when they met was conflict, each trying to get the better hunting grounds or the better food, each trying to get the better females, the most attractive females at least, and so on. So in addition to intra-group selfishness, you had inter-group hostility, conflict, aggressiveness. So the traits that were selected 200.000 years ago in our ancestors, because they were useful to them at the time, were intra-group selfishness and inter-group hostility. And look at the world today: Things have not changed. Things have not changed. The groups have changed. They are no longer tribes or families or clans, they are groups of human beings grouped around some thing like a nation, religion, belief, culture and so on. But the fighting goes on, I’ve seen two and the fight goes on all over the world today. Inter-group hostility is still very much alive today, and intra-group selfishness is still alive today, bankers work for bankers, and the scientists for scientists and so on. So I don’t mean that scientists work for humanity, those I know, but in general we all work for our own. And so group selfishness is still acting today, our genes have not changed because over those 200.000 years, there has been no reason for them. There has been no circumstance where it would have been useful to them to change. So things have not changed today, and is there something that we can do? What can we do to try and offset those bad effects of natural selection that has imprinted in our genes? Those nasty traits were useful to our ancestors but are obnoxious and harmful to us today. I think that the fact that there’s something wrong with human nature was already detected several thousand years ago by those wise men who wrote the bible. They of course didn’t know anything about genes, about DNA, about natural selection, but they knew something about human nature and they knew something about heredity. And so they detected the fact that there is something wrong in our human nature, and so they invented an explanation. And so they invented the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent and the tree and the apple and the sin, the original sin, which is responsible for this flaw in human nature that they invented. And so, my latest book is called Genetics of Original Sin, which is an explanation or an attempt to explain what it is. Then I come to the last question: Is there something that we can do? Well, in that latest book, Genetics of Original Sin, I consider seven options. Seven scenarios for the future, so I come to the topic of my lecture and I have five minutes more. First: Do nothing. That’s what we are doing today almost, do nothing. Well, if we do nothing, I think what will happen is easy to predict. Things will only get worse. Things can only get worse, we’ll just let natural selection continue to do its nasty work, things will get worse, and they will very soon get so bad that life will become very difficult on this planet, that the conditions for life will be menaced and endangered more and more, and that we, the human species will progressively move towards extinction. You have seen that all those that preceded us, my first slide, ended by becoming extinct, the neanderthals only 35.000 years ago, why not us, why not we? Well, that’s a good question, but you have to remember that if ten billion individuals have to go extinct, that’s not the same thing as 10.000 in Central Africa. Ten billion all over the world, that means that before we will become extinct, the most unimaginable apocalyptic events can take place, fights and epidemics and what not. If we let things go, there wont’ be enough food for everyone, there won’t be climate to sustain us, so we are doomed if we don’t do something about it. Fortunately, we have received from natural selection a gift no other living species possesses. We of all the living organisms on this planet that have ever existed, we are the only ones who are capable, thanks to this brain that we have received from natural selection - that you’ve seen has grown in the last years – thanks to this brain, we have received the ability to do something natural selection cannot do. We can look into the future, we can make predictions about what will happen if we do something or if we do something else. We can make decisions about the future and we can act according to those decisions. So we can act against natural selection, we are the only living organisms on this planet that have the ability to purposefully, intentionally, willingly, consciously acting against natural selection. And therefore, that is what we have to do before it becomes too late. And so the first thing we can do: Improve our genes. We have bad genes? So okay, let’s do what we do in plants and animals, remove the bad genes and replace them with good genes. We can make GMOs, genetically modified organisms, why not make GMHs, genetically modified humans? Well, technically this is not quite possible, for reasons that we won’t go into, we can do it with animals, but with humans it would be more difficult. Ethically, of course, it’s something that nobody wants to do today, and in any case, suppose it was technically and ethically possible, we wouldn’t know what to do. We simply wouldn't know what to do, because we don’t know the relationship between genes and abilities. We would like to make a new little Mozart, we wouldn't know what genes to remove and what genes to implant to make a new Mozart or to make a new Venus Williams or a new Angela Merkel. We wouldn't know what to do. Therefore forget it, this is not a solution. Next possibility: Rewire the brain. Now, I use the word ‘rewiring’ because that’s a very technical way of putting it, what I mean is education, educate. Because rewiring the brain, I think it’s very important to know about that and, as you know, neurobiologists have made major discoveries in the last few decades about how the brain is wired. We have been told that when we are born, very little of our brain is yet wired, and the wiring takes place under the influence of all the stimuli, sounds and visual stimuli and touch and so on. A baby receives influences from the outside, and those influences will create networks in the baby’s brain. So the brain is wired at a very young age, and as you see, this is important for the point I will make, and so what we need is education. Education of the young, especially. And if you need education, this means that you need educators. So the question is, if you are going to educate, you need educators, but who is going to educate the educators? So we have another question: Where will we find the wise men and women who will do the education of the educators? One obvious answer to that is the religions. The religions have been very much involved in the last millennia almost, centuries, in educating the young and even the adult. They have a whole world network of schools and parishes and meeting halls and churches where they can influence. Some religions, like the catholic religion, can influence one billion people in this whole world, so they have a huge ability or power to do what is needed, the education. And here, I hope you won’t blame me or be too disappointed, I think the religions are not doing their job properly. I think they are more busy defending their own beliefs, their own ideologies, their own doctrines, their own hierarchies, they are much more involved with their own survival than with the survival of the world. They are more involved with lobbying happy in the next world but not in this world. And so I think, unfortunately, I hope there will be a change, and there was signs today that there is a change, I think there should come, from people like you, an influence that goes up to the hierarchy and tell those old men that there’s need for change. I'm glad you agree with me, at least some of you. So, anyway, I think that with you people and your contemporaries in this world, this may still happen, and I hope very much it will happen. In the meantime, there’s another religion which is protecting environment. Now, I think that’s a very important thing to do, we’ve seen to what extent that development of the human species has harmed the environment, and so I think this new concern, because this did not exist when I was young. This started just after the war, this concern for the environment is very recent, and I think this is extremely important, and we should all participate in this job. But here again, I think the organisations that try to defend the environment don’t do it the way they should do or some of them don’t, because they have turned into political parties. They are defending political styles like they are against multinational corporations and they are against capitalism, but anyway, they have become political parties, more than they have become environmental movements. Another problem with the environmental movement is that it has degenerated into some kind of a religion, which is sort of a Jean-Jacques Rousseau kind of religion that is based on the belief that nature is perfect. That you shouldn’t touch nature, because nature is sacred, and anything that is natural is good and we should not interfere with nature, we should not interfere with life on earth and so on. Now, that is ridiculous, because nature is not good, nature is not bad, nature is indifferent. Natural selection doesn’t look at the qualities of the organisms that it allows to emerge, it’s blind. It’s passive and so nature is just, nature has as much solicitude for the mould that makes penicillin and for the virus that causes HIV, AIDS. It has as much solicitude for the poet and for the scorpion. Nature is not good, it’s not bad, it’s indifferent. So again, I think we should protect the environment, but we should try to free this concern for the environment, which is extremely important, we should free it from its political implications and from its ideological implications. Okay, next scenario... Amazing, all the men are applauding also. Well, I'm glad, not amazing, it means they are intelligent. Give women a chance, now listen. This is not, I'm not a social worker, I'm not a politician, so I'm not defending some kind of a feminist agenda. What I'm acting here, speaking as a scientist. In mammals, the females are less tainted by this original sin, by this flaw that I have mentioned because of their biological nature. They are less aggressive, the wars have been raged mostly by men, not by women. Women tend to the sick, they tend to the wounded, they tend to the sexual needs of the soldiers, but they rarely fight, they rarely fight, except in exceptional surroundings. They are not aggressive, except if their young are threatened, then a female can become aggressive. So biologically, genetically they are less aggressive than the males. Also they have much more influence than the males on the early education of the young. They give birth to those babies, this is not going to change in the near future, they give birth to the babies and they nurture them, they feed the babies. And so they provide the very early education to the babies, and therefore I think they are biologically better placed to lead the world. Unfortunately, what we see now - and I always end with unfortunate things - but what we see in the world today is that, maybe in order to gain the power that I would like them to have, women have to behave like men, on the political side or on the tennis court and so on. So anyway, I think it’s important to give women a chance. Now, I can see that my chairman, you know there’s nothing after this, so if I have two more minutes they won’t mind, I hope. I'm not taking anybody’s time. So let’s look at the last option, which obviously is the most important one of all, population control. Because all the ills that I have mentioned are due to one single cause, there simply are too many human beings in the world. You have seen the curve that I showed. It’s staggering, it’s frightening to see how quickly our numbers have increased just in that time, fourfold increase, from the time I was born to today. It’s terrible, terrifying. And so we have to do something about it. Now, you know, Thomas Malthus was an economist at the end of the 18th century, and he predicted this, he said human beings will multiply geometrically, exponentially, the resources can only multiply arithmetically, linearly, and therefore some day the time will come when there will be too many mouths to feed, as compared to the amount of food available. And so he said that there are only two solutions. One is to do what the hunters do, cull, remove the sick, the old and so on, get rid of them. And the other possibility is prevent the extra human beings from being born. So either you remove or you prevent them from being born. Now, we’ve been very good at removing, not the sick and the old, but mostly the young. In the last two wars, I don’t know how many million young men and women have lost their lives before they were able to reproduce. So this has been a rather sickening method of preventing the population from being born. But obviously the most civilised way is to prevent them from being born than to kill them after they are born. So that’s what we ought to do, and for 200 years people said Malthus was wrong, because every time when Malthus was going to be proved right, some new development was made, technique in agriculture, or expanding resources, and so the earth was allowed or made to feed more and more individuals. But today the writing is on the wall. Today there is no place, we can’t start seeding the moon or even Mars, forget about those things. We have to live on this little planet, and this little planet has become too small, or we have become too many. So we really, I think this is the major lesson of this, we have to do something about population control if possible by preventing, by birth control. I hope I haven’t been too long, but I'm coming to my conclusion. I just want to read it because I want to make sure that it’s clear. All is not lost, but the writing is on the wall. If we don’t act soon to overcome our genetic tendency to intra-group selfishness and inter-group hostility, the future of humanity and of much of life on earth will be gravely endangered, possibly leading to total extinction under conditions that can only be visualised as apocalyptic. Here I turn to the young, this is the most wonderful thing about these Lindau Nobel meetings, and as long as I can be physically able to come, I will come back, because here is where we meet the young people of the world. And they are here and I would like to turn to all you young people in this audience and say to them, I want to tell you: My generation, our generation has made a mess of things. It’s up to you to do better. The future is in your hands. Good luck. Thank you, thank you so much!

Christian de Duve scrutinizes seven options for our survival
(00:22:32 - 00:38:12)

Christian de Duve presented his lecture in free speech. When he came to its conclusion, however, he preferred to read it. He wanted to avoid the risk of diluting his message: „All is not lost, but the writing is on the wall. If we don’t act soon to overcome our genetic tendency to intra-group selfishness and intergroup hostility, the future of humanity and of natural life on earth will be gravely endangered, possibly leading to total extinction under conditions that can only be visualized as apocalyptic. Here, I turn to the young people of the world in the audience. I want to tell you: My generation, our generation has made a mess of things. It’s up to you to do better. The future is in your hand. Good luck!“

Footnotes:
[1] Immanuel Kant. The Critique of pure reason, Project Gutenberg Ebook, p. 361, and, in the original German version: Theorie-Werkausgabe Immanuel Kant, Frankfurt 1968, Bd. IV, S. 677: „Alles Interesse meiner Vernunft (das spekulative sowohl, als das praktische) vereinigt sich in folgenden drei Fragen: 1. Was kann ich wissen? 2. Was soll ich tun? 3. Was darf ich hoffen?“
[2] Roman Herzog. Global impulses for the 21st century. In: Ten years foundation Lindau Nobelprize winners meetings at Lake Constance. Lindau 2010, p. 31.

[3] Roald Hoffmann. Remembering, Returning, Forgiving. International Herald Tribune, August 25, 2006.
[4] Roald Hoffmann. Ethics in Research? Hoechst Future Magazine, 1996, p. 66-69, 68.
[5] All following citations from Hoffmann’s lecture „Honesty to the singular object: Some reflections on the potential of ethics arising out of science”.
[6] As John Milton 1674 beautifully expressed it in the final verses of Paradise Lost:
„The world was all before them, where to choose their place of rest, and providence their guide: They hand in hand with wandering steps and slow, Through Eden took their solitary way.“
[7] Here Cournand refers to an interview with Bertrand Russell from 1957.
[8] „The Conference was indeed a landmark in the history of science, the first intergovernmental conference ever held to illuminate progress on a new technology“, David Fischer writes on p. 31 of his book „The history of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The first forty years“, accessible on http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1032_web.pdf
[9] Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Autumn 1972, p. 115-130.
[10] For more details of this story, see „Roger W. Sperry“, Biogr. Mem. Fell. R. Soc. Lond. 43, 461-470 (1997).
[11] „My final wish is that you will belong to those scientists who are paid for what they are doing and not those who do what they are paid for. Then you forge the future with your visions, passion, and devotion and the presence simply fades away“, Heinrich Rohrer (1933-2013) said in his „Five wishes for young scientists“, which he first expressed at a meeting in Stockholm in 2012. This legacy is documented in full length on page 23 of the Annual Report 2013 of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings.


Cite


Specify width: px

Share

Cite


Specify width: px

Share