[fusion_builder_container type=”flex” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” overlay_color=”” video_preview_image=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” padding_top=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” padding_right=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” center_content=”no” last=”true” min_height=”” hover_type=”none” link=”” border_sizes_top=”” border_sizes_bottom=”” border_sizes_left=”” border_sizes_right=”” first=”true”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hue=”” saturation=”” lightness=”” alpha=”” content_alignment_medium=”” content_alignment_small=”” content_alignment=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” sticky_display=”normal,sticky” class=”” id=”” margin_top=”” margin_right=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_left=”” fusion_font_family_text_font=”” fusion_font_variant_text_font=”” font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” text_transform=”” text_color=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_color=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_delay=”0″ animation_offset=”” logics=””]
The story told about the birth of the atomic age in Los Alamos is, at best, one of zealous overconfidence in progress and misguided dreams of global peace. At worst, it is a story of abdication of responsibility and callous indifference. Regardless of the frame of discourse, the common perception is that scientists were on a hamster wheel, unable to get off until seeing the bomb’s completion through, as depicted strikingly in Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. However, not everyone stayed.
Joseph Rotblat, a Polish and British physicist whose work on fast neutron fission earned him the “privilege” of working at Los Alamos, was the most famous deserter of the Manhattan Project. He had only agreed to develop the bomb for fear that Hitler might acquire nuclear weapons. When General Leslie Groves let slip the purpose of the bomb was to “subdue the Soviets,” Rotblat seriously began to question his role at Los Alamos. Shortly afterward, upon learning that the Nazis had abandoned their nuclear program, Rotblat left the Manhattan Project, although not without the government attempting to paint him as a Soviet informant.
Rotblat’s story highlights the choice all weapons-research scientists can and should make. He identified three reasons why other conscientious physicists stayed: (1) “pure and simple” scientific curiosity; (2) trying to save American lives, coupled with the resolution to ensure the bomb would never again be used after the war; and (3) worrying about their careers. But according to Rotblat, those with a “social conscience” were a minority—most were content with others deciding how to use their research. In war, most people’s mindsets hardened, and the unthinkable during peacetime became a matter of course. But Rotblat was not the only physicist from the Manhattan Project to reject the atomic bomb. For example, Leo Szilard drafted the Szilard petition, advocating for the bomb to be demonstrated rather than detonated in an attack on a city, and I.I. Rabi, who refused to join the Manhattan Project, dedicated much of his life to promoting peace and the limitation of nuclear weapons. However, the US government was largely indifferent to their efforts, at least in part due to a lack of a unified front.
A common view is that scientists cannot be held responsible for the weapons they develop, if military leaders are the ones calling the shots. Indeed, a disregard for the political ramifications of research was on display in the covertly taped Farm Hill discussions between eight German scientists, including Werner Heisenberg, as they reacted to the news of the Hiroshima bombing. The physicists, despite nearly unanimously rejecting the principles of the Nazi regime, had worked tirelessly for the Nazi nuclear project largely in the name of pushing science forward. Thus, their first reaction to the news from Hiroshima was to ask questions of how the Amerians had succeeded where they had failed. Only afterwards did morality enter the conversation. But in reality, scientific work benefitting a political regime is inherently political. One cannot hide from accountability under the guise of progress.
A sociological study of the physicists at Lawrence Livermore, a federal nuclear research laboratory, found similar perspectives. Although employees are heterogeneous in religion, politics, and ideology, the laboratory subtly resocializes nuclear weapons researchers to become consequentialists with a deep confidence in deterrence. Moreover, the ethics of nuclear research are largely undiscussed, leaving physicists to weigh the morality of their research in private. Beyond ethical considerations, Livermore is an attractive destination for physicists due to the intellectual and research freedom it affords its employees, mirroring the best parts of graduate school for many. The icing on top? Salaries are substantial, without the competitive nature of a university. This is a reality all those serious about physics must face. Even as a lowly undergraduate, I learned the truth of grant applications in universities, the supposedly “pure” research centers. While working at a quantum gasses lab, my supervisor ruefully remarked that the best way to receive funding was to mention his research’s potential to be used in future weapons systems.
So what can scientists do today? In reality, even fundamental research may someday find an application. Thus, scientists have a duty to steer the applications of their work toward humanity’s betterment, not its annihilation. Moreover, both historically and technically, physicists have had a unique relationship with nuclear weapons. As experts they still have influence, particularly with the general public, and they serve as key researchers in the military-industrial complex. However, some senior scientists believe that engaging in either public outreach or policy and advocacy signals that one is not a serious scientist. That perception, coupled with Americans’ declining trust in scientists following the Covid-19 pandemic, necessitates that physicists take a different approach. To fight for disarmament, they must create a unified front through grassroots organizations, take responsibility for the weapons they create, and engage with the concerns of the public to rebuild trust.
Rotblat’s impassioned plea to scientists in his 1995 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech puts it best: when the “destiny of the whole of mankind may hinge on the results of scientific research,” scientists must remember their “responsibility to humanity.” Rotblat rejected the ivory tower mentality, because scientific neutrality was annihilated in Hiroshima. Today, inventors have a responsibility for their creations to do no harm. Nuclear weapons have only the potential for catastrophe.
[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]