Function: Technical Expertise Context: Care/Harm Value: Is the concern

Most individuals in society lack the knowledge and expertise in the area of science and
technology, relying solely on the scientist to invent and discover new advancements for the
improvement of their lives. Thus, how these inventions and discoveries are used should be
the concern of the scientist. In this case, the scientists job goes beyond mere creation and
research to identifying potential risks of their work and thus coming up with solutions to
counter them. This should be done because it is ironic and unfair to the users of such
inventions, who hope to benefit from it, have it eventually turn their back on them and
harm them instead. For military technology, it does not only harm the users but also
innocent people, causing problems on a much wider scale. Arthur Galston, the inventor of
Agent Orange, a chemical which later caused over 4 million deaths and disabilities with
another 500,000 birth defects in the Vietnam War, never meant for it to be so destructive. It
was developed as a chemical to speed the growth of soybeans, allowing them to be grown
in areas with a short season, improving the lives of people! The very moral principle of
caring for others, protecting them from harm which is shared by most universally tells us
that how inventions and discoveries are used should be the concern of the scientist.
Furthermore, the scientist has the technical expertise which others lack for the creation of
solutions to potential problems of their own works. After all, who would know their work
better other than themselves? Should they not be required to take responsibility for
whatever inventions and discoveries they found, then who will? No other group in society
have the ability to do so even if they had the will to. Thus, I propose that taking
responsibility for whatever inventions and discoveries there are should go beyond the
scientist himself to other professionals in the industry.

Function: Technical expertise + duty Context: interconnected world + scientists who abuse
their power to harm others (?) Value: Is the concern of not only the inventor himself but
also the professionals in the industry.
There is a need for collective responsibility in the scientific industry because in a highly
globalised and interconnected world today, it is easier than ever to check and review their
peers work to ensure that information provided by one scientist is accurate and safe. Just
this year, many scientists have criticized and cast doubt on the work of Haruko Obokata who
claimed to have discovered a relatively easy method of regenerating stem cells by simply
applying stress to it in acidic conditions. Many scientists stepped forward saying that
contrary to what Obokata claimed, it was a fairly complicated process and many of the test
mice died after being placed in such conditions. Should this discovery have went unchecked,
it is possible that it would have been tried onto human beings, resulting in dire
consequences. Going beyond the basic principle of care and harm, we also have to
acknowledge the fact that there may be scientists who seek to discover and create to satisfy
the perverted needs of belligerent nations to oppress citizens, torturing those who goes
against them or in extreme cases, exterminate an entire group of people in society. One
example would be Eduard Wirths, the chief doctor in Auschwitz concentration camps and
his team of Nazi scientists. Prisoners in the camp were coerced into participating in various
hazardous experiments which typically resulted in death, disfigurement or permanent
disability. The inhumane experiments ranged from administering poison to prisoners to
freezing them naked to the literal sewing together of living human beings in attempt to form
conjoined twins. All of which are justified to be in the name of research. Scientists, who also
make up our society, not only have the technical expertise to bear responsibility, but also
have a duty to the people around them to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

Function: (not really sure if there is any function here) Context: Conflict- ridden world +
perspective of government and nations.
Value: Is not the concern of scientist
However, in a world which is so prone to conflict and when there is a thin line between
peace and mass destruction, security is of utmost importance. More advanced and
destructive technology is required to ensure first and second strike capability, as evidenced
from the arms race between the two superpowers in the Cold War era. This in turns
conflicts with the objective of scientists who wishes to take responsibility for their own
creation and findings, especially in the case of military technology. It may result in a
situation whereby a new weapon is invented to protect our nation but the scientist or other
professionals in the industry come up with solutions to prevent its use. Doing so may indeed
protect the soldiers and innocent victims of war but in turn leaves us in an especially
vulnerable state. Thus, I believe that in such situations, the usage of inventions and
discoveries should be the concern of government and not the scientist as the scientist may
not actually see the larger picture of things and thus, take responsibility in the wrong areas.

Function: Ability to control + Legal contract Context: Capitalised world Value: Should be
the concern of scientist but in reality, they cannot control and take responsibility
Furthermore, even if the scientist makes a right decision in taking responsibility for a
particular aspect of his inventions, he may not be able to do so as they are merely
individuals and have little power to stand up against the government and corporations.
Once their invention and finding is released to them, they are free to do whatever they
want with it and nearly impossible for a sheer individual to go against organisations with a
tremendous amount of wealth and manpower. Even if the scientists do manage to control
and take responsibility, the problem may have reached such a large scale that is impossible
for any organisation, much less an individual to stop. Scientist, environmentalist groups and
nations have been convening time after time to do something about climate change and
global warming. Up till date, the problem has yet to be solved, showing the infeasibility of
having scientists bear the responsibility of the usage of their findings. More often than not,
the scientists are also tied down by legal obligations with corporations and the government
who funded their research. Thus, taking responsibility for their inventions and discoveries
now becomes a responsibility to ensure that their creations fit and align with how the
government or corporation wants to use it for. Thus, while in theory, it is ideal for the
scientist to be concerned about how their inventions and discoveries are used, in reality,
they often have no say on it.