Faustian Bargains and Nuclear Progress

Ethical evaluations of progress simplify into a cyclical process which emerged long before the discipline of ethics formally surfaced; a progressive development is made, the said development challenges any number of long-standing values, and schools of thought relevant to the situation are applied to evaluate contradictory opinions in the conflict. Using Kant’s categorical imperatives, Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, or even “bro code,” ethicists and stakeholders alike attempt to resolve the conflict through consideration of criterion and situational conditions. This process seems simple enough at face value, implying that ethical conflicts can generally be resolved through straightforward procedures. But what happens when the conflict’s situational conditions include the Nazi regime’s threat to world peace, a vocational obligation to governmental administrative apparatus, a semi-Faustian bargain promising legacy, and the unknowns associated with a field defined by infinite realities? This is an ethical dilemma typical of the field of nuclear ethics, and specifically, a few of the many circumstances considered during the Manhattan Project.

Under the guise of “pure research,” much of academia before the 20th century did not consider it appropriate for scientists to concern themselves with ethical implications, arguing that applications and societal uses were strictly up to political entities. Between Einstein’s revolutionary discovery of special relativity in 1905 and the first nuclear fission experiment in 1939, the applications of the potent and unfamiliar phenomenon that is nuclear physics were moving at a rapid pace, necessitating a philosophical shift among scientists. Epistemic values simply could not be ignored by the “pure researchers,” when scientists and society alike realized that the stakes of the entire universe were being toyed with. Thus, the field of nuclear ethics emerged.

To oversimplify one of the most consequential points of no return, choices weighing governmental pressure, international threats, individual moral consciousness, and the scientific kryptonite of nuclear force needed to be made. While professionals like Rotblat and Einstein (though not directly involved) withdrew support and participation, Oppenheimer and many others’ ethical determinations led them to continue their work at a shockingly accelerated rate — despite Germany’s evident failure to develop a similar weapon and even after Germany surrendered. Ethical evaluations of actions resulting from the Project itself have been the subject of plentiful research under primarily a consequentialist school of thought and both “sides” are riddled with complexities. Project members like Dr. Weinberg’s comparison of their work to “a Faustian bargain with society” is certainly on the more intrepid side, while others concede that it is simply an impossible feat to simplify decisions to an ethical black or white. There still lies moral confusion and a lack of focus on considerations made during the Manhattan Project (both under deontological and consequentialist approaches) as applicable to the entire discipline of nuclear ethics as well as to the greater scientific community — the examination of which is arguably much more beneficial to the future of nuclear technology. 

Now, researchers are left with many questions about how to navigate moral responsibility and progress post Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the many other atrocities of World War II. How can the intentions of scientists leading up to the advent of nuclear fission and the bombings inform historians and modern scientists alike? What conditions and circumstances should inform nuclear research and developments in an age extraordinarily dependent on nuclear fission? Even more broadly, what role does the scientist play in research applications and subsequent uses? A conversation with Emeritus Professor Santhanam, who specializes in quantum electrodynamics, provides direction for the future of nuclear energy, nuclear research, and scientific progress. Greatly informed by his moral consciousness, the fields of history and religious studies, his commitment to and faith in our human duty to a greater power, and his personal connections to members of Oppenheimer’ greater team, his departed knowledge may provide direction for finding answers to these ongoing questions.

While foresight makes it simpler to see the nuclear deterrence theory as being historically utilized to absolve researchers of moral consideration of their research, or to see the perceived threats of the 1940s as not being significant enough reasons for the continuation of the project, Professor Santhanam’s perspective combined with a Kantian approach may provide a new lens through which to understand the intentions of involved stakeholders. As he puts it, “the main research that Oppenheimer and others were interested in was how to use the release of fission energy positively in processes which allow [people] to live happily in society. Oppenheimer was one of those who predicted that atomic energy will be the source of energy for all the things that we dream[ed] of. It is only a certain number of decades or maybe centuries until the entire fuel supply confined to earth will be released or spent. In that sense, all developments of the post-German surrender were meant so that this energy can be used for good purposes and for generating cleaner power. We now have atomic plants everywhere, and history will trace it back to the circumstances which led to the advent of nuclear fission [for good or bad]”. As for the claims that science was wrongfully used and that contextually, the threats of the time weren’t enough to justify the actions taken, Professor Santhanam comments that “in [his] opinion, they [researchers] did not really decide on the energy that was released. They undermined the tremendous amount of energy in their work.” Additionally, while the creation of the bomb was purposeful once the threats of Germany created mass governmental fear and known to directors of the Project, there was not an intention for the actual scientific discovery to become a weapon but rather was a practical demonstration of the fission process. Furthermore, even while administrators like Oppenheimer did know the explicit purpose of their work, first hand accounts show that he along with many others, who critics may claim made moral compromises, were genuinely hopeful about their work. When asked by a colleague in Los Alamos about the aim of his work, he said “I can’t tell you what work we’ll be doing…But I can tell you that it may end this war — and it may end all wars.”

The larger question which these deductions point to is whether scientists should be pursuing further nuclear research and what responsibility the scientist holds concerning applications. Regardless of the intentions of researchers, ill minded actors inevitably weaponize research. Does that create reason for attempting to halt progress as much as possible, if the research may have potentially harmful uses? Professor Santhanam’s words may alleviate these hesitations of scientists with his perspective of his profession’s duty. He believes the scientist’s “role is to find out how much energy can be produced by the fission or the fusion processes, which can be positively used for the constructive purposes of the society. The scientists are not responsible for the destructive use of constructive research.” However, this is not to say that scientists are void of responsibility over applications. He says “what they [researchers] must do is to discover new methods to shield such a process [such as the Manhattan Project] in case mischievous governments use these weapons again. The research should be mainly to discover how to stop the damage, how to prevent such a thing.” While the individual scientist may have limited power over preventing hostile utilization, they certainly maintain commitments to questioning unclear authority, testing applications of discoveries/tests empirically proving theories falsifiable, and conducting socially-conscious work. The dangers associated with fields like high density energy physics certainly are not necessarily causes for the aversion of progress, but rather, may be indicators of what society demands. The tragedies of World War II became indicators to organizations such as the National Nuclear Security Administration that there is clear demand for hostile environment survivability research to bolster nuclear survivability. Again, with recent nuclear developments, such as those related to Sandia’s Z Machine, comes the threats of what professionals call “technological surprise,” as well as the risk of adversaries building off of US developments. However, professionals like Professor Santhanam would agree that the duty to serve through scientific fields and the potential for decreased harm coming from present research is much too hopeful not to pursue.

Knowledge aims to alleviate the problems of daily life and elevate the human experience, which rightfully includes in its scope the discovery of nuclear fission and the prevention of nuclear destruction. As for what current practitioners of nuclear research may gain from this

perspective, despite being a grandparent of 8, the caretaker of his 90-year-old sister, and well into his retirement, Professor Santhanam still manages to exemplify the ideal researcher committed to serving others. As one of the cruxes of his academic career, he, many years before retirement, discovered that Einstein’s contribution to defining relativistic momentum can be generalized, and yet, even after retirement, Professor Santhanam realized his work will never end. He is now “pursuing [further applications and revisions of] it because science is always united. I cannot walk off changing some concept. I have to discover the consequences of this change.” So as for the great ethical dilemma of balancing morality and progress with nuclear developments, it is certain that mindful progress should never end, so long as the human mind remains considerate to and curious about the many ways in which such progress may benefit society. As Professor Santhanam puts it, “as we grow, many new discoveries are bound to happen which will change the world and science. Our knowledge is limited. Science is wider, and so, new discoveries are always waiting.”

Maya Sanhanam ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at m.j.santhanam@ wustl.edu.