244
PARTISAN REVIEW
I have another question, with regard to science. I would Like to know
whether you think that science should be or is in fact value-free, particu–
larly concerning questions of morality and of choices that have to be made
which affect millions of people. In this century we have seen that scien–
tists, willingly or unwillingly, have lent their hands to decisions that have
had frightful implications, that have led to mass destruction, from two
world wars to the threat of thermonuclear weapons. It's not a question of
blaming science, but of asking what is the responsibility of scientists, and
whether any code of human values is applicable here or not? What is the
relationship between science, ethics and politics? Is there anything in sci–
ence itself that can contribute to elucidating that issue?
Edith Kurzweil:
On the one hand, I would say, globally, that psycho–
analysis has changed the culture. Certainly, Freud could not expect that so
much of it would filter down in one form or another. On the other hand,
psychoanalysis itself has changed as a result of its broad acceptance and
proliferation. Diagnoses are changing, there are defenses against psycho–
analysis which have evolved all along. Freud would not be satisfied, I
believe, because psychoanalysis is not really able to fulfill wishes for per–
manent cures. But it's hard to tell how many people are living better lives
as a result of having been analyzed, or how much worse they might be off
if they hadn't had therapeutic treatment.
Leon Cooper:
Scientists are not value free. Many of us would hesitate to
work on harmful or destructive applications. But the context is important.
In a wartime situation (World War II for example) when it was feared that
the Germans might be ahead of us in the construction of a nuclear bomb,
we worked frantically to deny Hitler the possibility of threatening us with
this new weapon before we had it ourselves. When it comes to funda–
mental research, we scientists are no better than others at foreseeing the
consequences of what we do. We don't have a crystal ball.
We are occasionally presented with a romantic image of the scientist
(Diirrenmat or Hollywood) on the verge of the momentous discovery that
can lead to Limitless evil who says no-I will not go on. Perhaps
Oppenheimer encouraged that image. But mostly scientists grope along
wi th no clear indication of what the consequences will be. I see no direc–
tive within science that can guide us. We, as citizens and humans, must
decide.
.
I agree with you that we would be better off sharply limiting the num–
ber of nuclear weapons right now, but nuclear weapons were created under
the pressure ofWorld War II and were made possible by scientific advances
that date all the way back to the beginning of the century when most sci–
entists wouldn't have dreamed that nuclear weapons would be possible. In
