Science and Sin – Forbidden
Knowledge
Einstein’s reluctant yet urgent call to action (prompted by
Leo Szilard) led to a collaboration of science, technology, and
entrepreneurship that bears comparison with the construction of the Pyramids,
the Great Wall of China and the Panama Canal.
More concentrated than those undertakings because of the urgency and the
secrecy of its mission, the Manhattan Project was carried out within stark
Aristotelian unities of time, action, and character. That drama presents us with
a tragic hero who succeeded brilliantly in his assigned task, yet who
ultimately saw himself as having betrayed the trust of his high calling - a
frail, fedora-wearing Prometheus, a chastened Frankenstein.
J. Robert Oppenheimer was a respected theoretical physicist,
an organizer-director who earned the loyalty of hundreds of scientists,
technicians, and military personnel, and a troubled philosopher of the responsibilities
of his mission. When the first test bomb exploded at Alamagordo
he quoted from the Bhagavad-Gita ‘If the radiance of a thousand suns were to
burst into the sky, that would be like the splendour
of the Mighty One,’ and on seeing the mushroom cloud ‘Now I am become Death,
the destroyer of worlds.’
In retrospect, Oppenheimer appears to have been typecast to
express the rival convictions that grew up within the project. The work of
those involved would help defend democracy and human decency against a new form
of state barbarism. Their work would also unleash a force so destructive that only
fears that the enemy might discover it first justified the effort. We know the
crucial roles played by Einstein and Fermi and ocher scientists, by Roosevelt, General Groves, and Truman. But in our minds, we
have projected upon Oppenheimer the responsibility to answer two distinct
questions: “Shall we manufacture the bomb? Shall we employ the bomb?”
Oppenheimer became both hero and scapegoat for having answered the two questions
in the affirmative. In June 1945, he rejected the scientists’ Franck Report,
which opposed any unannounced use of the bomb. After Hiroshima, he changed his mind. He is Our
Hamlet. Later public questionings of his loyalty and denial of his security
clearance only enhance the portrait of a person racked by the disputes of his
time.
Just two years after Hiroshima
and Nagasaki,
Oppenheimer was invited to deliver a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He gave it the neutral title “Physics in the Contemporary World.”
Everyone was highly conscious in 1947 of Oppenheimer’s appearing as the
ex-director of the Manhattan Project before an audience of scientists at a
historic moment as the world emerged from World War II. He had composed a
subtle and highly personal manifesto in defense of science. After affirming
that “physics is booming” especially in the field of elementary particle
research, he applied the elusive principle of complementarity
to science itself. In other words, he described two conflicting interpretations
and affirmed the truth of both. They complement each other as partial, not
exhaustive, truths. On the one hand, the value of science lies
in its fruits, in its effects, more good than bad, on our lives. On the other
hand, the value of science lies in its robust way of life dedicated to truth,
disinterested discovery, and experiment. The practising scientist feels a
greater kinship with the second principle; he is at best “Ineffective” when he
tries “to assume responsibility for the fruits of his work.” That task is
properly assumed, Oppenheimer declared, by statesmen and political leaders. One
wonders if he had read Frankenstein along with the Bhagavad-Gita.
In this context of affirming scientific research, the most
widely quoted passage in the talk seems surprisingly out of place, as if
Oppenheimer could not bring himself to exclude it from an otherwise-affirmative
statement of the strengths of the scientific approach to knowledge. The passage
must have jarred his listeners in 1947 even more than it jars a reader today.
After mentioning “a legacy of concern” left by World War II and the development
of the atomic bomb, he inserted this alien paragraph.
Despite the vision and the far-seeing wisdom of our war-time
heads of state, the physicists felt a peculiarly intimate responsibility for suggesting,
for supporting, and in the end in large measure, for achieving the realization
of atomic weapons. Nor can we forget that these weapons, as they were in fact
used, dramatized so mercilessly the inhumanity and evil of modern war. In some
sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite
extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they
cannot lose.
(GARDNER, 193)
At the center of Oppenheimer’s encouragement to young
physicists squats an ominous monster of guilt. He
refused with impatience any distortion or dismissal of it by nervous joking or
excessive breast-beating. This nonreligious scientist could not have found a
stronger word than sin to express a conviction about complicity with evil. He
had not opposed the policy decisions that led to immense destruction of
civilians at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki. The “knowledge” referred to in the
last sentence is of a different order from that of scientific knowledge.
Oppenheimer meant moral knowledge. He appeared to be on the verge of
propounding a Hippocratic oath for scientists.
Having confessed his guilt and acknowledged the consequences of his deeds,
Oppenheimer returned to the generally optimistic message about science, even
though he granted that science could not establish a secure peace. This
embedded cautionary passage in his MIT lecture corresponds to a sentence
Oppenheimer blurted out during a friendly conversation with Truman after the
war. “Mr. President, I have blood on my hands.” Truman was exasperated by what
must have appeared to him as Shakespearean posturing.
At the United Nations in June 1946, the Soviets vetoed the
Baruch Plan for banning atomic weapons, destroying United States atomic bombs, and vetoless international control of all atomic materials. By
the time the Soviets exploded their own atomic bomb in 1949, the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Rand Corporation (contracting weapons research and development
for the new Air Force), and the indefatigable physicist Edward Teller were
working at a new order of magnitude. The destructive force of the hydrogen bomb
detonated in 1952 on the atoll of Eniwetok had to be measured not in kilotons
but in megatons of dynamite - one thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
Oppenheimer’s opposition to the development of the hydrogen bomb earned him
classification as a “security risk” and dismissal from his responsibilities
advising the Atomic Energy Commission. Teller knew none of Oppenheimer’s
scruples about the possibility of sinful knowledge. In a 1994 interview,
Teller, looking back at the H- bomb debate, pronounced a sentence in which it
would be difficult to distinguish optimism from pleonexia.
“There is no case where ignorance should be preferred to knowledge—especially
if the knowledge is terrible.”