I recently finished reading a stellar, and thought-provoking biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. His life story was one of unparalleled triumphs, that existed, in later years, alongside tragedies like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the very personal tragedy of the persecution he faced during the Red Scare of the early 1950s. He was, if you aren’t familiar with his life-story, a fascinating individual on both personal and professional levels. His facility with, and love of literature, languages and poetry in particular, in addition to his prodigious scientific abilities make him one of those rare scientists who permeated the public consciousness with their charisma, leadership and ability to communicate with clarity and concision. I do believe that there are many lessons to be taken from his life, and this particular biography, with respect to recent events (including the new Bush space policy), but I’ll divert first to ponder a bit the very nature of biographies.
What of biographies?
I’ve been on something of a biography-kick this past year or so, having read David McCullough’s Truman and Ron Powers’ Mark Twain: A Life. In the past I’ve also found myself, more often than not, poring over biographies of great or interesting figures in recent and ancient history. It’s only recently that I’ve begun reflecting on why I’m interested in such stories. Do I wish to emulate these great figures? Am I looking to these books for guidance on how to live my life in a meaningful (read: influential) manner?
Well, perhaps. They certainly do reveal the kinds of (often mundane) experiences that powerfully shape the futures and destinies of such individuals. As I am prone to drifting to always thinking of what my long-term aims in life are, such experiences are useful guideposts and starting points. I think, however, what moves and shapes my thinking is that these powerful biographies provide narrow, but deep views and insights into particular aspects of human nature. They reveal in some sense, how individuals can become powerful forces for changing our collective futures (and not always, for the better).. But ultimately, to me, they offer key warnings on how our very personal failings can be sources of anguish both internally and to others, but how oddly enough, they can become sources of strength. There isn’t any one commonality among all these figures. Through fate, will or a combination thereof their lives proved to be worthy of weighty tomes and detailed analysis. I should say that secretly, I wonder if my relatively insignificant life will ever be worth a biographer’s time and thought. Haha, it’s ultimately my own ego that draws me to biographies I suppose — wondering how I can get a book written about me someday :-p
Science Policy – Part I
Getting beyond the issue of personalities and the personal life of Oppenheimer (endlessly fascinating I must say — affairs with brilliant women, the flirtations with left-wing and communist social circles through his life, and the inner demons that sometimes surfaced), there’s his lucidity on where and what the role of scientists should be in public life. Much criticism has been laid at his feet for involvement with the Manhattan Project and subsequent failure to stop the arms race that so promptly began. The criticism, such as it is, does not blame him for not trying; it faults his lack of success in convincing the administration and general public of the impending moral hazard and conundrum that the atomic bomb would bring to global society and politics. Indeed, in hindsight, we see that the arms race and much of the nuclear aspect of Cold War was emphatically not inevitable in 1946. I won’t necessarily repeat all the arguments towards this that are made in the biography. Instead, one could argue that it was perhaps Oppenheimer’s own extant internal conflict regarding his involvement with the atomic bomb, that was responsible for his lack of moral clarity, and ultimately, lack of success in dealing with the coming arms race.
He held a great deal of power and sway over the establishment as the head of the project, yet his later calls for a highly international approach to dealing with nuclear technology went unheeded. The military establishment had taken over, and different voices prevailed. Was this then his failure? Was it his inability as the public scientist to get the voice of academia, and the notion of freedom of inquiry adequately represented in both the general public’s and the government’s minds? In an era where science and engineering are essential forces shaping society in striking ways, it often seems that the voices of those who understand the essentials of these essentials, scientists, are misheard, or worse, distrusted — especially in America. In my next entry, I will examine this through the lens of an issue I considered in some research and work I did at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (at the Kennedy School of Government) : the weaponization of space.
Indeed, rather quietly, the Bush administration recently put forth a new space policy that stresses, above all else, the need for America to project overwhelming force in the ’space arena’. As absurd and hypothetical as this may all sound to you, dear reader, we really are not very far from having rather sophisticated weapons systems in space; and an arms race with the U.S., and you guessed it, China. In our work, we considered such hypothetical (now all too real) scenarios, and were hoping to persuade policy-makers and diplomats that any attempt at weaponizing in space would yield severely deleterious effects with a depressing future path of escalation akin to the ridiculous nuclear weapons arms race of the previous century. Furthermore, we tried to highlight the absolutely galling lack of fundamental scientific understanding amongst those proposing these outlandish ideas and systems. Indeed, many previously and current proposed ideas aren’t just bad policies from a strategic point of view, they’re plain incompetent and incomprehensible from a scientific standpoint. More, in my next post.
