This blog post examines what balance is needed for science and ethics to harmonize amidst the dazzling progress of technology.
The acclaimed Japanese anime ‘Ghost in the Shell’, the ‘Terminator’ series that defined an era in film history, and Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, ranked 5th among the 100 greatest works of 20th-century English literature. What do these three have in common? They are all works depicting the dark side of society that can emerge when technological advancement becomes extreme. These works warn in advance of the various social and ethical problems that can arise when humans become overly dependent on technology, depicting a reality where human identity, social values, and the very definition of humanity can be shaken. It’s as if they reveal, through dystopian imagination, the uncomfortable facets of a future we might face.
As the world advances, the boundary between machines and humans gradually dissolves. With the rapid development of biotechnology, including artificial wombs, the direct ‘production’ of humans has become a realistic possibility. In this context, the dark societal visions depicted in the aforementioned films and novels are no longer confined to fiction; they are approaching our not-too-distant future. This is why we wish to discuss the theme ‘Ethical Regulation of Science and Technology is Necessary’.
Those advocating for deregulation and the active utilization of science and technology argue that regulations on science and technology hinder overall scientific progress. They contend that various regulations and constraints limit research, placing a significant burden on researchers. They express particular dissatisfaction with the numerous domestic restrictions and related laws in the fields of drones and autonomous vehicles. They argue that rigid regulations create numerous obstacles to pioneering new markets, ultimately weakening the competitiveness of future industries and leading to potential economic losses. Their position is that regulations must be dismantled to facilitate the commercialization of new technologies and ease the market entry of these new products or services.
Such arguments can be seen as valid. Economic prosperity and scientific advancement are undeniably values we cannot afford to abandon. This is because new technologies open up new possibilities across diverse industries and possess the potential to improve daily life in ways previously unimaginable. However, even if removing regulations on science and technology were to spur scientific progress, would this truly benefit society as a whole? No, it would not. If we pursue scientific progress without considering its ethical implications, science may advance and greatly benefit some, but it could also create significant problems for others. For instance, the advancement of biotechnology and the proliferation of genetic modification techniques could lead to an unequal society where only certain classes can ‘select’ specific genes, severely undermining human equality and dignity.
The pursuit of scientific progress could destroy the surrounding environment, depriving people of their living space and infringing upon their right to life. Furthermore, the lack of appropriate oversight systems during technological development and commercialization can later lead to larger and more complex problems. Consider the example of self-driving cars, which are rapidly advancing and nearing commercialization overseas. The October 2015 issue of MIT Technology Review featured an article titled “Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill.” While autonomous vehicles can undoubtedly be safer than conventional driving, unexpected situations can always arise. The article highlights three major scenarios: choosing between killing multiple pedestrians or a single pedestrian; choosing between seriously injuring a single pedestrian or the driver themselves; and choosing between seriously injuring multiple pedestrians or the driver. Resolving these ethical choice problems is crucial. From the driver’s perspective, they would not want to purchase a car designed to kill them in an emergency. From society’s perspective, it cannot easily tolerate cars designed to kill innocent pedestrians. Therefore, focusing solely on development without addressing these issues beforehand could cause greater social turmoil later.
Consequently, abolishing regulations on science could create significant societal problems. Science must advance while considering its ethical issues through various regulations. Moreover, ethical considerations in science and technology should be viewed not merely as idealistic moral standards but as practical necessities mindful of real-world interactions. That is, we must seek ways for scientific achievements to provide tangible benefits to the majority while minimizing social harm. From this perspective, ethical regulation of science and technology is not a shackle on technological progress but rather helps scientists conduct their research with a sense of responsibility.
This will enable science to advance in a healthier direction aligned with society’s aspirations. For example, scientists involved in the Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb during World War II believed such ethical concerns were the politicians’ responsibility and that they should focus solely on research. However, witnessing the overwhelming destructive power of the atomic bomb—which hastened the war’s end—and the countless casualties it caused, many later realized the gravity of their actions. Consequently, German physicist and philosopher Werner Heisenberg strongly emphasized scientists’ internal responsibility alongside their external obligations. The nuclear threat persisting to this day may be the costly price paid for researchers—and indeed, society at the time—neglecting to sufficiently consider the ripple effects of their work and failing to adopt a comprehensive perspective.
Of course, unreasonable regulations or unrealistic constraints that fail to reflect the times should naturally be eased to encourage technological development. But this must never devolve into unconditional permissiveness. Now, when the influence and pervasiveness of science and technology are more formidable than ever, a complacent attitude of “develop first, worry later” is untenable. This is because there is a significant risk that completed new technologies could escape scientists’ control and be misused. Therefore, only when all sectors of society actively engage in discussion, no longer indifferent to science or to the ethics of science and technology, can we avoid repeating past mistakes. Science is an immensely powerful force, but the greater the power, the greater the need for the wisdom to use it correctly. Under the common goal of ultimate human and societal happiness, science and ethics should no longer be opposing concepts but maintain a mutually complementary relationship, knowing how to encourage and spur each other on.
