The full humanity of everyone

When we talk about science (and engineering) in the classroom, in seminars or in research studies, we take one of two positions. We either talk about science as a journey of discovery, and scientists as part of the long line of humans who, from the very beginning, are fascinated by the world around them and find immense pleasure in figuring out the mysteries of nature and the universe. The second position is that science and engineering is a force for good – building new technologies, discovering new therapies, solving problems of the society through research and discovery. There is, of course, plenty to celebrate and be inspired by.

But we know that this is not the complete story. The bombs and missiles, raining fire and fury on innocent people we read about every day, did not grow in fields. They were developed by scientists and engineers – optimised through an iterative process involving researchers at nearly every stage. The pagers and phones that blew up in Lebanon did not malfunction; they were a result of technological development. That technology came from the work of individuals who designed it to harm others. Drones that destroyed lives and livelihoods in parts of our own country are a result of sequential process of technology development. Surveillance technologies used for racial profiling and incarceration of innocent millions are a direct result of scientific progress. Weaponisation of science and technology to harm for political purposes, or power, is not new. The list is long, deeply troubling, and continues to grow.

It would be grossly incorrect to say that there is no discussion of weaponisation of technology in the academic circles or in the classroom. There is indeed robust and thoughtful discussion, but a lot of it is not happening in classrooms of science and engineering. It is happening in social sciences and humanities, but not in STEM disciplines. These disciplines often do not talk to each other.

Scientists and engineers – when confronted with this question about why there is no serious discussion in classrooms about ethics and the exploitation of discoveries – would often respond that this is not a question for scientists. The issue of impact is beyond what happens in the lab. Science is neutral, they would say. I believe that this is hypocritical. Because when it comes to the positive impacts, no one says "please do not mention it, we do not care about the impact or the good on society, because we are neutral." Instead, they would be the first to claim credit and talk about the great virtues of science. There is no question that technological advancements have made profound positive contributions, and they should be celebrated every day, but assuming that science and technology only leads to good is both inaccurate and deeply problematic. We have to recognise that conflict and misery as a result of it is fueled by technological advancement.

The question then becomes: how should we think about it? The point here is not to demonise science and technology, but to think deeply about our ethical obligations to one another – in our own society, and across the globe. This requires scientists and engineers to confront the reality, to acknowledge the risks of their work and do so with honesty and a deep sense of humanity. Curriculum in disciplines of science and engineering – whether they are in the US or Europe or Pakistan or anywhere else – needs to confront history, and reflect on what makes technology a source of societal welfare and progress and what makes it a tool to harm and maim. There is nothing cool about a technology that kills innocent children, men and women.

Some of this discussion in the classroom will be uncomfortable, but learning ought to be uncomfortable at times. Progress will only be possible, for us and for those who find themselves on the receiving end of injustice shaped by technology, when not just ethicists and philosophers, but scientists and engineers, will stand up to recognise the full humanity of every individual. Exploitation of science will not end in a day, but giving in to status quo should never be an option.