International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Editorial: The Janus Face of Science and Technology

Inextricable Links, Inablienable Rights, and Double Standards

Jürgen Scheffran

Janus, the Roman god with two faces, symbolizes the ambivalence of science and technology. One face represents “good” aspects of science that seek truth about the world and serve noble and widely respected purposes. The other face shows the “bad” part of science that distorts the truth and exploits knowledge for partial interests and destructive purposes. Both faces are inextricably linked as complementary mirror images, reflecting a society that is both shaping and is being shaped by science. Here, good and bad are not just statements about the quality of science, but also moral judgements, based on the viewpoints and values of those who judge. Some actors profit from the fruits of science, while others may suffer adverse consequences.

Scientific and technical progress is part of the societal process that is driven by decisions of actors pursuing their own interests. Following democratic rules does not mean that the majority decides whether scientific results are true or false, but whether the consequences are right or wrong. Using science and technology as instruments of power and destruction serves no common purpose and thus cannot claim support by society. This is particular the case for the military applications of science and technology that are driving the arms race, undermining international security. Attempts to control the international flow of sensitive technologies are still necessary and partly effective but face the problem that the civilian and the military sector are inextricably linked. The military is exploiting the commercial sector which produces technologies for global markets on a mass scale and at low cost.

This dual-use is well known in the nuclear sector where weapons materials can be extracted from the civilian nuclear complex that includes reactors, uranium enrichment facilities and plutonium reprocessing plants. With this inextricable link the Atoms for Peace program contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons (Regina Hagen, Xanthe Hall). The inalienable right for nuclear energy, enshrined in Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, brings the genie out of the bottle: The bargain of the NPT, providing access to nuclear power in exchange for getting rid of the bomb, is reminiscent of the story about separating the two sides of a coin, ending with two coins – each again with two sides.

The latest proof is Iran, whose government pursues its inalienable right for Iranium enrichment and neglects the consequences (Martin Kalinowski). The international community, unable to prevent this path, condemns it, and the United States, still paralyzed with Iraq, threatens to counter proliferation with military force, fuelling Iran’s nuclear incentives. US pressure has obviously failed to bear fruit in Iran but it has also blocked a negotiated way out of the North Korean crisis (Hui Zhang). At the same time, the Bush Administration has struck a nuclear deal with India, rewarding this nuclear weapon state that never acceeded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the first place (Zia Mian, Ramana). This double standard, justified by the good guy – bad guy dichotomy, further inspires Iran, North Korea, and others to join the well-respected nuclear club (Zia Mian, Alexander Glaser). Japan with its Rokkasho reprocessing plant gives another example (Masa Takubo), and NATO’s strategy of sharing the nuclear umbrella across Europe, including Turkey, continues its outdated deterrence doctrine (Aslıhan Tümer).

The ambivalent face of nuclear power also became visible with the Chernobyl reactor accident 20 years ago which made clear that teetering on the brink of the nuclear abyss can go badly wrong. However unlikely the chain of events may have been, it did occur, affecting the life of millions of people across Europe. Spending billions of dollars on clearing the mess was too much for Gorbachev’s new reform course. Instead of Glasnost (openness), the regime tried to hide the truth, making the consequences even worse (Alla Yaroshinskaya). With a renaissance of nuclear power, the possibility of another Chernobyl cannot be excluded.

The duality of science and technoloy can be observed in other technology fields, most obvious in biotechnology, but also in missile and space technologies (Jürgen Scheffran). This is demonstrated by the conversion of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Galina Iofina) and kinetic energy anti-satellite weapons, both linked to civilian spaceflight (Wang Ting). To restrain proximity operations in space and ensure space security, the case for a Code of Conduct in space is made (Michael Katz-Hyman).

Living on the edge of the abyss was typical during the nuclear weapons age when even minor events ran the risk of triggering an all-out nuclear war that could destroy the whole planet. Turning away from the nuclear abyss was a common theme of a workshop that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation organized in February this year in Santa Barbara (see contributions by David Krieger, Aslı Bali, Matt Martin, Alice Slater, Tom Graham, and Wade Huntley). Science plays a role in the outlined paths towards nuclear disarmament, not by serving the security of some and creating insecurity for others, but by supporting concepts of common and global security that remove incentives to get the bomb.

Joseph Rotblat, the scientist whose life is inextricably linked with the ambivalence of the nuclear age, died in 2005 (Mel Watkins). His life represents the good part of science in a double meaning: it was both of high quality and justified by high moral standards. Ten years before his death he worked closely with INESAP in drafting a path towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World. His mind remained young, an inspiration for generations to come – and hopefully see a world without nuclear weapons and free from war. Interviewed by David Krieger about what is needed to achieve a mass movement for abolition, he answered: “I think two things a positive and a negative.” In this dialectic mode of thinking, both faces of science find proper consideration.

Jürgen Scheffran
June, 2006