Science and Society

Research aspects of science in present-day society

W. Martienssen

Philips tech. Rev. 38, 25-31,1978/79, No. 1

Imagine that somebody asks yOU:'What are the mostimportant and the most exciting results of the naturalsciences?' Personally, I would specify three items. Myfirst point - I am a physicist, so I shall start withphysics - my first point is the fact that there is onlyone universal physics: the entire universe, macroscop-ically and microscopically, is controlled by only one setof naturallaws. They are in operation in the reactionsof elementary particles as well as in nuclear and atomicphysics; they are effective in our laboratory experimentand they finally also determine the origin and the fadingof stars in the huge dimensions of our sky. The detailsof all these reactions and events are multifold. It seemsas if nature uses, with the greatest of ease, all thevarious possibilities which-are considerable in this inter-play. But all these variations are in accordance with thefew rules governing the game. These rules, we are con-vinced, have always been there and have always beenthe same, even a thousand million years ago, and weare fairly certain that they will also be there a thousandmillion years from now. Fortunately, they are com-pletely protected from any human intervention.

In physics, I feel, this uniformity is the most excitingresult. In chemistry - that is my second point - it ismore the opposite, it is the multiplicity of matter whichstrikes us. To put it into an allegory: take three caskets,fill them up with small balls, the bails in each casketwill be all the same, but different in the three caskets.Now, create the world out of it, out of just those threespecies, which may be called protons, neutrons andelectrons; create a variety out of them, which is com-parable to our world. Is not that phenomenal? Yousimply find it almost impossible to believe that theflower of a rose, the influenza virus and the semicon-ductor in an integrated circuit are all made out of thesame particles, just three species, protons, neutrons andelectrons. Different substances are produced when theyare differently arranged.

Coming to my third point: it concerns the discoverythat all living beings on Earth have the same geneticcode, that they are all governed by the same computerand are all programmed in the same language. This isperhaps the most fantastic fact which has ever been

25

revealed in nature. It not only strikes our intelligence,but also arouses our feelings. Are we - the trees, thebirds, the mushrooms, and us ourselves - all inter-twined together? You see, mankind is not alone; ratherhe exists in harmony with the other inhabitants of theEarth. Certainly, then, man is no longerthepre-eminentcreature on Earth. Perhaps, however, this global com-munity of seemingly infinite entities could comprise thesupreme creature - die Krone der Schöpfung - in theuniverse?But, you may ask, what has all that to do with science

and society? To put it briefly, what I mean to say isthat science is always, first and foremost, a spiritualadventure. The driving force in this adventure isenthusiasm. There is no scientific progress withoutenthusiasm. Please take a look at the EVOLUON; youwill recognize how much enthusiasm helps, even if theavailable facilities may be limited.

Motivation of scientists and progress of science

Research is what keeps science young. A researcheris a man who raises, investigates and eventually answersnew scientific questions, who interpretes scientificresults and who unveils new applications of scientificfindings. Most rewarding to a scientist are the momentswhen he:- observes what has never been seen before,- discovers what has never been dwelt upon before,- invents what has never been conceived before.It seems to me that understanding of the world

around us and recognizing the role man plays in thisworld - the old questions about the nature of theworld and about the purpose of life - are really themost obvious aims which engage the intellectual capac-ity of man. Along with our task of surviving, we arefree to think. The imagination that each one of us bearswithin ourselves, about the world and mankind in it, isthe most real expression of' our existence and of theintellectual freedom which characterizes the individualhuman being.Progress in science is approached in numerous ways.

Sometimes the discovery of only one fact or the under-

26 W. MARTlENSSEN Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1

standing of only one interrelation demands centuriesof research. Take for example, the never-ending researchtowards the discovery and the unification ofthe six dif-ferent forces which serve to keep our world togetherand which prevent it from collapsing, namely celestialand terrestrial gravity, electricity and magnetism, theweak forces and the strong forces. The discovery andunification of these forces started at the historialmoment when Isaac Newton, sitting in the shadow ofan apple tree in his garden, noticed a falling apple. Itwas at this very moment that the Goddess Athene toldhim that celestial and terrestrial gravity were one andthe same thing. But research on this subject has beencontinuing for over 300 years and the unification of thefour non-gravitational forces with gravity to producethe most general type of interaction, recently namedsupergravity, is one of the hot subjects of theoreticalphysics nowadays, with a large number of scientistsworking on it.

There are scientific results, on the other hand, whichhave been discovered in the glance of a moment, whichseem to have fallen from the sky. For example, I shouldlike to remind you of the way in which August Kekulédiscovered the valency of the carbon atom, therebyestablishing structural analysis in organic chemistry. Herelates LI] that on a nice, warm summer evening in 1854he was sitting on the roof of a horse-drawn bus, drivingthrough the rather empty city of London. In a revealingdream, carbon and hydrogen atoms appeared, firstforming sets of pairs, then groups, and finally linkingtogether to constitute long chains. Then all the atomsstarted to turn around in a whirling dance. This dreamwas the dawning of the carbon chain and carbon ringmolecular structure in organic chemistry. It was a veryfertile and effective dream indeed.

Not only do the time scales in which scientific resultsare revealed tend to be different, but the level at whichprogress is achieved, can also vary considerably. Themajority of today's scientists work in a fairly continu-ous fashion, dealing with problems which have alreadybeen dealt with by others, but which, due to lack ofexperience or'lack of equipment, could not be solved.Only very few scientists are truly able to penetrate theboundary in order to forge ahead and to establish anew research field in a previously unknown realm.

Three of the most famous names in this context areAlbert Einstein, who in the first decades of this centuryestablished the modern understanding of our physicalworld; Charles Robert Darwin, who in the middle ofthe last century published his book 'The origin ofspecies by means of natural selection', in which he de-veloped the hypothesis that natural selection is the keyto evolution, and last but not least, wehavePythagoras,who established mathematics two and a half thousand

years ago. We also owe a great deal of the conceptualbasis of our philosophy of science to him. (It is said thatPlato concluded from Pythagoras' work that God mustbe a mathematician.)For the most part, scientists, as I mentioned before,

have always been quite eager to bridge the gap betweenthe newly established fields and the more traditionalones. Rather than breaking through, they cause agradual shift with regards to the boundary of know-ledge and experience: they apply, generalize and inter-pret scientific results. When I talk about scientists in thefollowing, I mean scientists within this majority.

The scientist's place in society

Let me now turn to the second part of my talk.Scientists are not alone, they are members of a society.Like other people, the scientist is a (;éj)ov 1loÄinle6v asAristotle put it - a political being. Scientists servesociety; society supports scientists.Scientists enjoy a fairly high degree of social esteem.

It is felt that scientists are educated to cope with bothtechnological and other daily issues by using theircritical judgement. From there, it is sometimes de-duced, that they should also have a clear-judgementabout problems concerning social life. This belief, Ithink, is dangerous. Nature's behaviour is quite differ-ent from that of social groups. Consequently scientistsmay not reach their goal in this new field. Continuingalong this same line, it is believed that scientists couldbe of assistance in time of need. That is, chemists maybe able to purify the gases pouring out of a smoke stackwhich pollute the environment. Biologists may becapable of growing bacteria able to absorb oil whichcovers the sea and the beaches in the wake of a super-tanker disaster. Physicists may eventually find newmeans of uncovering new sources of energy. Scientists,on the whole, may be able to contribute to solving theunemployment problem. Last not least, it is felt thatthe scientist's role in society is to do something new,something of interest.Although they enjoy this esteem, academic scientists

are frequently criticized for their self-centred interests;because they offer little in the way ofviable solutions tothe everyday dilemmas of ordinary citizens. Further-more, scientists are reproached for their remotenessfrom reality. This is sometimes a strong accusation, butsometimes the criticism surfaces in a less direct manner.As a matter of fact, it happened to the very first scientistof whom we know: Thales of Miletus. Legend [2] hasit that he was rebuked for his state of poverty. If hecould not meet his own basic needs, then how couldscience and philosophy be of any use? Through hisskill in reading the stars, however, he knew that there

Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 27

would be an abundant harvest of olives in the comingseason. (This was more likely the result of his know-ledge of weather forecasting, of course.) So, having alittle money, he put down deposits for the use of allthe olive presses in Chios and Miletus, and hiredthem at a low price, because no one bid against him.When harvest time came, and many were wanted all atonce, he hired them out again at any price he chose andmade a great deal of money. Thus he showed the worldthat scientists and philosophers can easily acquirewealth if they choose, but their ambition is of anothersort. Such is the legend told by Aristotle in his work'Politics' .Let us turn to more pressing problems: 'what factors

exert the greatest influence on the research activitiesbeing carried out today? Should the scientist himselfand no-one else determine the choice of his researchsubjects?' You have answered these questions in theinquiry. I was pleased that nearly half of you gave apositive answer to the last question: only the scientisthimself and no-one else should determine the choiceof his research subjects. Nevertheless, I am rather sur-prised that nearly 50% of you disagree with this state-ment. I am with the first group. My reasons are as fol-lows.1. Only the scientist himself can decide whether hisinterest, ability and experience will be sufficient for asuccessful approach. Also, the scientist himself must be. the one to judge the limits of his laboratory facilities.2. I should like to repeat a statement which one ofyouadded at the end of the inquiry: 'if the scientist is notfree in the choice of his subject, he cannot generateenthusiasm and interest'. This is quite in line with myway of thinking. Since research is a manifestation ofintellectual freedom, the scientist should make full useof it from the very beginning, even in selecting hissubject.To make myselfunderstood, I wish to emphasize that

free choice of the subject would by no means call forexempting it from control. There is a natural and veryeffective controlon research activities by the authoritieswhich grant financial support. Very·few scientists aresufficiently financially independent to bear the costs oftheir research themselves. They have to apply for finan-cial aid and then, of course, they have to give anaccount of their progress. Besides this 'official' onethere is yet another kind of control: scientists are eagerto communicate. At least, they want to publish theirresults, but most scientists want to discuss their workbefore publishing or even before they actually start. Ascientist isolated from everybody and not communicat-ing with anybody is a contradiction in himself. Who orwhat is he working for? So it is also the scientific com-munity which automatically controls the research acti-

vities, not so much on a legal basis, but on a moral andhuman basis which in the end would be even moreeffective. Again, I should like to stress: scientists'servesociety and society supports scientists.

In connection with the free choice of the subject ofresearch it might be worthwhile to drawattention toanother aspect of great importance in the daily lives ofresearchers. Most scientists no longer work alone, theywork in a group and cooperate in a group. That isespecially true in the experimental sciences. Moreover,groups have to cooperate in such a manner as to fulfilcommon aims of the research institution that they be-long to. This co-operation, of course, restricts the free-dom of the individual to some extent. In reality, it is thesubject matter. What I would like to emphasize, how-ever, is that each member of the institution who isactively contributing to the research programme shouldalso participate in discussing the choice of subjects.Another interesting issue in the inquiry is raised by

the statement: 'scientists should feel responsible for theuse and abuse oftheir research results'. More than 75%of the Young Scientists have reacted favourably to thisstatement. Personally, I would check the double plusblock too. I feel that this attitude is a 'must' afterhaving voted for the free choice of the scientist'sresearch subject. Greater freedom automatically entailsgreater responsibility - at least this is my under-standing of liberalism.:Again, however, the statement, as it has been given,

needs some interpretation. We have to keep in mindthat nearly every scientific result - even in the field offundamental research - will sooner or later lead tovarious applications, beneficial ones as well as hazard-ous ones. 'Feeling responsible' in the above statementdoes not mean that a scientist who discovered some-thing twenty years ago should be persecuted becausesomebody else starts to misuse his earlier results. Whatis meant here is that scientists who choose their researchsubject should always keep in mind the possibility thattheir results might be put to harmful use. If that werethe case, they should diffuse as much information aspossible on the potential risks which are involved. Iflarge-scale dangers are to be suspected they should doeverything in their power to eliminate them.There are only few questions in the inquiry which

have been answered so unanimously. This reflects ageneral attitude of today's scientists: most of them arequite aware of the dangers of applying scientific resultswithout reflecting on the consequences. Let us hopethat this attitude will be effective in the future as well.The same demand, of course, holds true for the other

[1) Richard Anschütz: 'August Kekulé', Berlin 1929.[2) Bertrand RusselI: 'History of Western philosophy', George

Allen and Unwin Ltd., London 1961.

28 w. MARTlENSSEN Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1

branches of human intellectual activities, outside thenatural sciences, as well. It is especially relevant in thedomain of the social sciences, where the object ofscientific research is man himself and his behaviour insociety. We can only hope that such an inquiry amongstyoung social scientists would result in a similar un-animous accord.

Coming back to the general question, as to whichfactors exert the greatest influence on the researchactivities that are carried out, I should like to mentiontwo additional factors whose importance is frequentlyunderestimated. On the one hand, we have what iscalled tradition. Tradition and continuity certainly playan important role in the choice of research subjects.Predicting what the scientist will do is much the sameas making a weather forecast: if you say that tomorrowthe weather will be the same as today, you will be,roughly speaking, 80% right. If you say that next yearthe scientist will still work on the same problem as he isnow working on, you may be even more accurate.

On the other hand, we have what is called fashion.Fashion plays quite a big part in the scientific com-munity. There seems to be a strong tendency to focusone's research along the same lines as one's colleagues.Ifyou need to apply for financial support, don't forgetto mention that scientists in other countries - forexample in the United States or in the Soviet Union-are planning to do work in the same area. It will helpa lot. Scientists, in doing their research today, are notas self-confident as they might have been during the19th century. They are searching for moraljustification.The most elementary one, of course, is the statement:other people do it, so why can't I?

A look into the future

We live in an industrial and technological age. Scien-tists have acted as instigators in bringing about theenormous technological developments of the last fewdecades. Since the Second World War the total in-dustrial production has been increasing at a breath-taking rate. It has been estimated that the industrialproduction of the entire world within a period of fouror five years is now larger than the total industrialproduction of mankind during the period dating fromAdam and Eve until 1945.

But it is not only the quantity of the production whichimpresses us, it is the level of sophistication whichdraws our attention even more. For example- man invented the computer,- man developed the synthetics industry,- man learned how to handle antibiotics.We have every reason to be proud. Science and tech-

nology have enabled us to understand our physical

world and to control nature. Science and technologyare at the roots of our economic well-being, therebydetermining life's wealth and versatility. In short:science and technology have made our lives comfort-able.Yet there are serious doubts as to whether techno-

logical progress has always been for the good of society.Three reasons for these doubts have been analysedextensively by the British economist Ernst FriedrichSchumacher [3] in his book 'Small is beautiful'. Inshort, they are.1. The enormous increase in manufactured goods en-tails an enormous waste of raw materials. However, asyou know, the supply of raw materials is limited. It isdiminishing much faster now than had been expected.Our economic well-being is based on exploiting theEarth's resources. We take the raw materials withoutpaying for them. Continuing to do so at such an alarm-ing rate will leave our children deprived of necessitieswhich we, in this century, have taken for granted.Furthermore, if we live from the resources, would itthen not be fair to share them with the world's popula-tion?2. We are able to control nature, but at the same timewe are spoiling it. The enormous industrial productionis overshadowed by an alarming increase of pollutants.Our means of coping with it are limited. The most com-mon procedure is to dilute and to distribute them oversuch large volumes that people no longer perceive them.Although this procedure does work on a small-scalebasis, since nature has a way of purifying itself, it nolonger works when the quantity of refuse becomestoo great. One thing is certain: the disposable volumeof clean air and water is limited. Of course, there isagain the additional question ofwhether this procedureis fair to our fellow-citizens; let us confess, it is nothingelse than the age-old practice of throwing the junk overthe hedge into the neighbour's garden.3. We feel that our economic system and our way oflife not only spoil our environment, but spoil our basichuman values as well. We no longer understand our-selves as an intrinsic part of nature. We have come tothe point where we are able to govern nature. As aresult, we presume that it is our right to consume nat-ure. Man has never been so unrestrictedly convinced thathe is the pre-eminent creature in the world as he istoday. This pretentious attitude against nature goeshand in hand with the decline of values in today'scivilization. Modern people tend to disgard nearly allvalues, religious and political ones as well as ethicaland educational ones. Our philosophy has become very

[3] Ernst Friedrich Schumacher: 'Small is beautiful. A study ofeconomics as if people mattered', Blond and Briggs, London1973.

Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1 29

The Chairman of the Jury with the winners of the five Awards. From left toright: Alistair Wolf, Paul Brown, Donaid McDonnell, Prof. Dr. J. Volger, SophieValtat, Norbert Brunner, Martin Trüssel and Clemens Trüssel.

30 W. MARTlENSSEN Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1

restrained. The only generally accepted aims in lifeseem to concern:- more money,- more social advancement,- less work.

What can be done, and how can scientists help over-come this situation? The two first-mentioned problemsbelong to the domain ofworld problems, which will bestudied extensively this afternoon in the talk by DrPannenborg. The third one is part of the educationproblem, on which Dr Dixon gave his talk this morn-ing. But all three problems are interdependent. I amnot at all in a position to give an exhaustive answer,but I should like to contribute to the discussion byspecifying two aspects which in a way are in between'education' and 'world problems'.My first point is to criticize the belief that economic

expansion is absolutely necessary. In the past techno-logical progress has mainly been measured in relationto its contribution to the increase in the gross nationalproduct. Economic growth has been a sort of a magicformula for our way of life. This inbred belief is in factthe basic stumbling-block separating us from a morerealistic outlook on the world around us. It must beclear to each scientist that the idea of an unlimitedeconomic growth is very short-sighted. As specified be-fore - it is neither possible nor desirable to changethe whole Earth's surface into a great industrial maze.In long-range terms, the only economic system whichguarantees lasting stability is a system which ap-proaches self-consistency. This is a system which tothe greatest possible extent makes use of recycling pro-cesses such that the waste of raw materials on the onehand and the pollution ofthe environment on the otherare reduced to the lowest level possible.

Politicians claim that economic expansion is neces-sary in order to maintain political stability and full em-ployment. It is obvious that the recycling practicewould initially be unwelcome, because it entails higherproduction costs which in turn will make all productsmore expensive. On the other hand, it is not necessarilytrue that restrietion of economic growth would ag-gravate unemployment. On the contrary, recyclingwould tend to increase the work force as a whole, sincenew tasks will require new jobs.It will take a lot of persuasion to change the overall

outlook of people in this respect. For the time being,people think along quite different lines. Let me giveyou one example. When you visit an automobile dealerand observe people buying cars you can see that theyare quite willing to payout an extra 1000 guilders forsome extra gadgets. But have you ever heard a pur-chaser arguing that he wants a special engine whichwould be less damaging to the environment and that

he would be willing to pay an extra 1000 guilders forit? Or have you ever heard of a purchaser buying a newcar and leaving the old one at the dealer's with an ex-tra amount of money for its dismantling and recycling?

This leads me to the second aspect I wish to mention.Technological progress has made us prosperous. In away, however, it has also made us poor. We have con-centrated so much on all the fascinating avenues whichhave been opened up by it that we have lost track ofwhat we are doing. In order to illustrate what I mean,I will give only one example: go to an international air-port during the holiday season and ask people why theyare planning to fly such a long distance for their holi-days. Most of them will answer that they have alreadybeen to all the nearer places, therefore they want to goelsewhere this time. No more. It is really necessary tospend so much precious fuel for that purpose?

So, beyond all the technological innovations,. we havelost touch with the essentials: what is our life good for,what is the purpose of our being? All over the worldthere is nowadays a strong tendency to do everythingin a more scientific manner. School teaching, forexample, is supposed to be much more scientific thanit was before. A much larger-percentage of the popula-tion has the opportunity to participate in high-schooleducation. But it seems that the growing scientificeducation is paralleled by a growing helplessness in themost central branch of knowledge, philosophy, whichformed the true beginnings of science. During thelast meeting ofthe Nobel prize winners at Lindau/LakeConstance the physician and biochemist Sir HansKrebs, talking on juvenile delinquency and unwilling-ness to work, referred to the fact that antisocialbehaviour grew worse during the very period in whichthe social sciences were being heavily promoted. Onecould continue by saying that the assurance on whatto do and what not to do got lost during the veryperiod in which scientific education was being in-tensely promoted.A solution to the technological crisis cannot be

'ordered by law. It demands a change of consciousness.That will take a long time. What we really need is aphilosophy of work, a philosophy which brings hometo us that work actually has an importance attached toit, that we do have an obligation to work. In the longrun the essential goods on this Earth cannot be takenfree of charge, we have to work for them. Work is notonly a burden, work has a meaning of its own. It is thebasis of our material and also of our spiritual well-being. Work will help us to combat the widespreadsocial diseases of insecurity, loneliness and frustration.The loss of a proper relation to work has been

strengthened by far-reaching centralization and specia-lization: children cannot see nor can they understand

.,

Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1 SCIENCE AND SOCIETY 31

what their parents do professionally; industrial workersdo not know what the end-product is for which theyprepare specialized components; physicians lose theirgoal when they concentrate entirely on single organs.So it might be necessary to reconsider the organizationofwork. Besides the specialized work in large organiza-tions we need a renaissance of the 'home-made' typeof work. One concept is that of 'Eigenwork', a termintroduced by Christine and Ernst.von Weiszäcker [4].

Eigenwork is meant as work for oneself; it allows forfull self-expression. Work and success go together andare experienced as one unit. It can be work in thefamily, in the community, in clubs; it can be manualwork, agricultural work, education and training. Scien-tific research, for example, even in the second half ofthe 20th century, is still yery close to the concept ofEigenwork, inasmuch as it is planned and executedby one and the same person, bringing to light hisfreedom of initiation and his satisfaction in accom-plishment ..There are fields where Eigenwork has been the usual

form of work at all times; house-keeping is a typicalexample, but it should be possible to transfer the con-cept to industrial manufacturing as well. It then willneed a special technology, a human technology, which

[4] Christine and Ernst von Weizsäcker: 'Für ein Recht aufEigenarbeit', Technologie und Politik, Bd. 10, Rowohlt 1978.

does not alienate the worker from his own product. Itshould be a technology which is oriented towardshuman satisfaction rather than economic expansion.

Whatever the future development of science andtechnology may be, it has to be judged on a humanscale and it should be able to bring man back into har-monious relation with nature. The longing of scientistsfor this type of awareness was demonstrated most im-pressively to me during a Young Scientist's Fair inMainz in 1972, when Neil Armstrong, who togetherwith Edwin Aldrin in July 1969was one ofthe first mento walk on the Moon, reported on their trips. Neil Arm-strong did not give a scientific talk, nor did he give atechnological report, but he told a beautiful fairy-taleabout man and the Moon, sublimating all his scientific,technological and psychological experience into thisvery human form of poetry. I have rarely at any timeseen an audience so fascinated. The report was per-ceived as a look into an unscathed world, where scienceand humanities again form a unit.

Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to express mygratitude to the Philips Company for the kind invitationto attend the 10th Anniversary ofthe Philips EuropeanContest for Young Scientists and Inventors. This hasenabled me to enjoy with you a glimpse through theEuropean Window, tracing the path of science andsociety in their evolution from the past into a distantfuture. .

32 Philips tech. Rev. 38, No. 1

Dr Ir A. E. Pannenborg, Vice-President of the Board of Management of N. v.Philips'Gloeilampenfabrieken and responsible for Research and Development in the Philipsgroup of companies. Dr Pannenborg is a member of the 'Club of Rome'.