Science, citizenship and conscience

I am currently working on a chapter on citizenship education for a Maryvale Institute PGCE coursebook. Reading around, and following one's intellectual nose rather than actually focussing on what is relevant, led me to look again at Joseph Rotblat. He was the only physicist engaged on the American project to design and build an atomic bomb who then left the project. Amazon.com duly delivered a book Joseph Rotblat: Visionary for Peace. The book contains a collection of essays in appreciation of the life and work of Joseph Rotblat; an appendix contains some of his key writings.

In one of the articles in the appendix, Joseph Rotblat describes why he first became involved in the atom bomb project and then why he left it. His initial involvement was justified on the basis of the possibility of the Germans developing such a weapon, and that the holding of such a weapon by the Allies would prevent the Germans using any weapon they might develop. When he realised that the Germans had abandoned their project, that the war in Europe was going to be over before the bomb was developed, and a casual conversation had revealed that the political aim of the project was a bomb to use to subdue the Russians in the period after the war, Joseph Rotblat asked permission to leave the project. Joseph Rotblat asks in his article why the other scientists involved did not make the same decision, even though the German factor was a key one to their involvement in the project. Though he was not at the time allowed to discuss the question with his colleagues, Joseph Rotblat put together the following account from his knowledge of them at the time, and from much later conversations:

The most frequent reason given was pure and simple scientific curiosity - the strong urge to find out whether the theoretical calculations and predictions would come true. These scientists felt that only after the test should they enter into the debate about the use of the bomb.

Others were prepared to put the matter off even longer, persuaded by the argument that many American lives would be saved if the bomb brought a rapid end to the war with Japan. Only when peace was restored would they take a hand in efforts to ensure that the bomb would not be used again.

Still others, while agreeing that the project should have been stopped when the German factor ceased to operate, were not willing to take an individual stand because they feared it would adversely affect their future career.

The groups I have just described - scientists with a social conscience - were a minority in the scientific community. The majority were not bothered by moral scruples; they were quite content to leave it to others to decide how their work would be used. Much the same situation exists now in many countries in relation to work on military projects. But it is the morality issue at a time of war that perplexes and worries me most.

The emphasis is mine. And, reflecting on issues of citizenship in present day developed nations, how many professional spheres are there in which the same judgement can be applied?

In the medical profession, on questions of abortion and contraception.

In the teaching and health care professions, questions of education about human sexuality and, frankly, the promotion of a sexually active life style, be it heterosexual or gay, outside marriage as a normal part of living.

In the advertising and film industries, questions of the portrayal of sexuality and violence.

In how many of these spheres are professionals expected, through codes of practice or publicly funded policy initiatives, to simply "go with the flow", put aside their own personally held convictions, and implement programmes which conflict with their moral convictions?

Sadly, I suspect that most people combine the lack of moral scruples with a wish for career progression that Joseph Rotblat identified in connection with the atom bomb project and just give in to the public policy line on whatever affects their professional competence.

But the exercise of moral responsibility in civil society - and this is what responsible citizenship is - demands exactly the opposite. It needs people of conscience, people who will act in society in accordance with their personally held convictions. In the British educational scene, this has very uncomfortable implications for the citizenship programmes of study in schools. "Social and moral responsibility" has been clearly recognised as one of three principles for effective citizenship education (see the Keystage 3 and 4 programmes of study) .... but will it really be allowed to develop genuine education in moral responsibility? Unlikely ...