This blog post explores what values scientists should pursue amidst the benefits and threats that science and technology bring to humanity.
Entering the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the advancement of science and technology has brought many benefits to humanity. Unlike the era when people sustained their livelihoods through hunting and gathering, we can now cultivate and harvest food directly. When traveling long distances, we can move quickly and safely using various modes of transportation rather than sweating it out on foot. Unlike the days when we wandered in darkness at night, the invention of the light bulb and the spread of electricity allow us to enjoy bright nights. Machines that replaced human labor have progressively evolved to resemble humans, and humans who once gazed at the sky, yearning for the moon and stars, can now explore those places directly. Furthermore, to realize the dream of extending life, various disease treatments and medicines have been developed, and we live connected lives where we can check on each other’s well-being anytime, anywhere through smartphones.
Thus, historically, the advancement of science and technology has enriched human life and brought continuous change up to the present day. However, this progress has not always moved in a beneficial direction. There have been instances where development has endangered humanity. For example, the development of nuclear weapons, beginning with the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, has led to many nations possessing nuclear weapons today, forcing us to live under the constant threat of nuclear war. Furthermore, Fritz Haber, who developed a method to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen, also created poison gas using nitric acid during World War I, claiming countless lives.
These examples raise two questions. First, should science pursue only beneficial values? Second, if science had pursued only beneficial values, could we have avoided problems like the danger of nuclear war or weapons of mass destruction? To find answers to these two questions, we need to understand the nature of science in relation to its practitioners, the scientists. And through a discussion on whether scientists should pursue beneficial values, we will consider the values science should pursue.
Many philosophers of science have discussed the nature of science. First, Karl Popper proposed inductivism and falsificationism as methods for defining science. Inductivism is the method by which scientists observe various natural phenomena and, based on this, generalize common theories or operating principles. Falsificationism, on the other hand, posits that scientific theories derived through inductivism are merely probable inferences; therefore, to make them more certain, it introduces the possibility of falsification. Falsifiability refers to the possibility that a hypothesis can be disproved through experiments or observations. Based on this, Popper argued that scientific theories develop through a process of conjecture and refutation.
Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, described the stages of scientific theory development as ‘Normal Science 1 → Emergence of Anomalies → Crisis → Paradigm Shift → Emergence of Normal Science 2’.
Here, normal science refers to research activities grounded in past scientific achievements. This research is conducted based on accomplishments that a particular scientific community relies upon as a foundation for scientific progress over a certain period. Kuhn viewed science as developing not through continuous progression, but through revolutionary overthrows of existing paradigms. Both Kuhn and Popper saw science as being carried out by actors—individual scientists or groups of scientists.
Synthesizing these views, science can be defined as an intellectual activity conducted by a specific group—scientists—to explore general principles of natural phenomena. That is, science does not operate autonomously; it is performed by scientists as agents. Scientific research consists of two stages: topic selection and research inquiry, with the scientist’s role being crucial during topic selection. Scientists are key agents who determine the direction and nature of research.
