Responsibility of a scientist's work to society.
Scientists are usually called people professionally engaged in scientific activities, the “production” of scientific knowledge. Of course, not only scientists themselves are involved in the field of science. They are helped and served by laboratory assistants, administrators, engineers, etc. People of many professions are directly related to this special type of production. It is impossible to imagine modern science without scientific journals, almanacs, reference books, etc., which are edited, published, and decorated with drawings, diagrams, and drawings. An important role in the development of modern science is played by the media, which popularize its achievements, highlight scientific problems, etc. Nevertheless, the field of science cannot exist and develop without scientists.
From history we are familiar with the names of sages, talented scientists obsessed with finding answers to complex questions. Many of them were ready to give their lives for the sake of truth. One can at least recall the fate of Socrates or Giordano Bruno.
Already in Ancient Greece, the legendary Academy was a recognized scientific center - an Athenian philosophical school founded by the philosopher Plato in the Academa grove. Platop’s students gathered here for conversations, debates, and reading reports on various fields of knowledge. A library was also organized here - a repository of books and manuscripts.
Later, the word “academy” began to refer to associations of scientists. Science is not only a special system of knowledge, but also a system of organizations and institutions in which science is created. Gone are the days of solitary scientists who, in the quiet of solitude, were busy searching for the “philosopher’s stone.” Specialized scientific institutions gradually emerged. At first they were universities, then laboratories, institutes, academies, and later scientific centers and even entire cities. Scientific institutions create an entire infrastructure of libraries, museums, testing stations, botanical gardens, etc. nearby.
Data. The Russian Academy of Sciences was established by order of Emperor Peter I by Decree of the Government Senate of January 28 (February 8), 1724. It was recreated by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 21, 1991. as the highest scientific institution in Russia. And at present, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) includes 9 departments (in areas of science) and 3 regional departments, as well as 14 regional scientific centers. In addition to the Russian Academy of Sciences, there are other state academies in our country, including the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Academy of Education, and the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Scientific research is carried out not only by scientists of the Academy, but also by industry research institutes, as well as scientific teams of higher educational institutions. This is very important for the formation of specialists for future research, since scientists engaged in the search for science.1 pass on to their students not only knowledge, but also research skills and a desire for research.
Modern science goes beyond the boundaries of individual countries, and associations of scientists often include specialists in a certain field of knowledge from different countries. They communicate using modern means of communication and meet at international conferences, congresses, and symposiums. Scientists who have achieved outstanding results receive international awards. The most famous of them is the Nobel Prize.
Among our compatriots the Nobel Prize for scientific achievements was awarded to: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov, Nikolai Nikolaevich Semenov, Pavel Alekseevich Cherenkov, Ilya Mikhailovich Frank; Igor Evgenievich Gamm, Lev Davidovich Landau, Nikolai Gennadievich Basov, Alexander Mikhailovich Prokhorov, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, Leonid Vitalievich Kantorovich, Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, Zhores Ivanovich Alferov, Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, Alexey Alekseevich Abrikosov.
Moral principles of the work of a scientist.
Real scientists are not just educated and talented people who have achieved success in scientific research. Most of them are people with high moral principles.
At all times, the community of scientists has rejected plagiarism - the appropriation of other people's ideas. Scrupulous adherence to the truth, honesty before oneself and others distinguish real scientists. With regard to the honor of their name, most scientists are very demanding; they are not indifferent to how the truth is obtained.
One of the most important ethical issues facing scientists is the consequences of their work. Repeatedly well-known scientists have made public statements in connection with their concern about the possible use of spiders' achievements for inhumane purposes.
(work on the document for the lecture, see appendix)
The increasing role of modern science. The modern organization of scientific research differs markedly from that adopted in the 17th century. and even in the 20th century. Initially, science was limited to the search for true knowledge, and philosophy helped to understand and explain the structure of the world as a whole. It took science a lot of time to assert the right to shape a worldview and to establish a kind of delimitation of influence with religion. Today, without scientific ideas, the existence of spiritual culture is impossible.
Industrial society demanded that science have a closer connection with production and focus on the development of technical ideas. In turn, science received from production a powerful impetus for development in the form of technical equipment. In fact, many research centers began to look for ways to bring their new achievements closer to direct production. The so-called technology parks have become a progressive form of cooperation between science and production.
Today, there are over 50 technology parks operating in 25 regions of the Russian Federation, 25-30% of which are stably functioning structures. The founders of Russian technology parks are universities, research centers, industrial enterprises, non-state firms, authorities, banks, and public organizations. Russia's technology parks host about 1,000 small innovative enterprises (i.e., focused on introducing new technologies); there are about 150 small service enterprises; More than 10,000 new jobs were created. Russian technology parks produce products and provide services to 24 industries and social spheres, including most often in the fields of science, scientific services, ecology, mechanical engineering, fuel, energy, computer science, healthcare and education.
Scientists are usually called people professionally engaged in scientific activities, the “production” of scientific knowledge. Of course, not only scientists themselves are involved in the field of science. They are helped and served by laboratory assistants, administrators, engineers, etc. People of many professions are directly related to this special type of production. It is impossible to imagine modern science without scientific journals, almanacs, reference books, etc., which are edited, published, and decorated with drawings, diagrams, and drawings. An important role in the development of modern science is played by the media, which popularize its achievements, highlight scientific problems, etc. Nevertheless, the field of science cannot exist and develop without scientists.
From history we are familiar with the names of sages, talented scientists obsessed with finding answers to complex questions. Many of them were ready to give their lives for the sake of truth. One can at least recall the fate of Socrates or Giordano Bruno.
Already in Ancient Greece, the legendary Academy was a recognized scientific center - an Athenian philosophical school founded by the philosopher Plato in the Academa grove. Platop’s students gathered here for conversations, debates, and reading reports on various fields of knowledge. A library was also organized here - a repository of books and manuscripts.
Later, the word “academy” began to refer to associations of scientists. Science is not only a special system of knowledge, but also a system of organizations and institutions in which science is created. Gone are the days of lone scientists who, in the quiet of solitude, were busy searching for the “philosopher’s stone.” Specialized scientific institutions gradually emerged. At first they were universities, then laboratories, institutes, academies, and later scientific centers and even entire cities. Scientific institutions create an entire infrastructure of libraries, museums, testing stations, botanical gardens, etc. nearby.
Data. The Russian Academy of Sciences was established by order of Emperor Peter I by Decree of the Government Senate of January 28 (February 8), 1724. It was recreated by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 21, 1991 as the highest scientific institution of Russia. And at present, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) includes 9 departments (in areas of science) and 3 regional departments, as well as 14 regional scientific centers. In addition to the Russian Academy of Sciences, there are other state academies in our country, including the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Academy of Education, and the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Scientific research is carried out not only by scientists of the Academy, but also by industry research institutes, as well as scientific teams of higher educational institutions. This is very important for the formation of specialists for future research, since scientists engaged in the search for research.1 pass on to their students not only knowledge, but also research skills and a desire for research.
Modern science goes beyond the boundaries of individual countries, and associations of scientists often include specialists in a certain field of knowledge from different countries. They communicate using modern means of communication and meet at international conferences, conventions, and symposiums. Scientists who have achieved outstanding results receive international awards. The most famous of them is the Nobel Prize.
Among our compatriots, the Nobel Prize for scientific achievements was awarded to: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov, Nikolai Nikolaevich Semenov, Pavel Alekseevich Cherenkov, Ilya Mikhailovich Frank; Igor Evgenievich Gamm, Lev Davidovich Landau, Nikolai Gennadievich Basov, Alexander Mikhailovich Prokhorov, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, Leonid Vitalievich Kantorovich, Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, Zhores Ivanovich Alferov, Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, Alexey Alekseevich Abrikosov.
Moral principles of the work of a scientist.
Real scientists are not just educated and talented people who have achieved success in scientific research. Most of them are people with high moral principles.
At all times, the community of scientists has rejected plagiarism - the appropriation of other people's ideas. Scrupulous adherence to the truth, honesty before oneself and others distinguish real scientists. With regard to the honor of the name, most scientists are very demanding; they are not indifferent to how the truth is obtained.
One of the most important ethical issues facing scientists is the consequences of their work. Repeatedly well-known scientists have made public statements in connection with their concern about the possible use of spiders' achievements for inhumane purposes.
(work on the document for the lecture, see appendix)
The increasing role of modern science. The modern organization of scientific research differs markedly from that adopted in the 17th century. and even in the 20th century. Initially, science was limited to the search for true knowledge, and philosophy helped to understand and explain the structure of the world as a whole. It took science a lot of time to assert the right to shape a worldview and to establish a kind of delimitation of influence with religion. Today, without scientific ideas, the existence of spiritual culture is impossible.
Industrial society demanded that science have a closer connection with production and focus on the development of technical ideas. In turn, science received from production a powerful impetus for development in the form of technical equipment. In fact, many research centers began to look for ways to bring their new achievements closer to direct production. The so-called technology parks have become a progressive form of cooperation between science and production.
Currently, there are over 50 technology parks operating in 25 regions of the Russian Federation, 25-30% of which are stably functioning structures. The founders of Russian technology parks are universities, research centers, industrial enterprises, non-state firms, authorities, banks, and public organizations. Russia's technology parks host about 1,000 small innovative enterprises (i.e., focused on introducing new technologies); there are about 150 small service enterprises; More than 10,000 new jobs were created. Russian technology parks produce products and provide services to 24 industries and social spheres, including most often in the fields of science, scientific services, ecology, mechanical engineering, fuel, energy, computer science, healthcare and education.
The problem of a scientist's responsibility to society is complex and diverse, it consists of a considerable number of factors, and is closely intertwined with the broader problem of the ethical aspects of science.
In his activities, a scientist naturally bears responsibility of a universal human nature. He is responsible for the usefulness of the scientific “product” he produces: he is expected to have impeccable demands on the reliability of the material, correctness in using the work of his colleagues, rigor of analysis and solid validity of the conclusions drawn. These are elementary, self-evident aspects of a scientist’s responsibility, his personal ethics.
The responsibility of a scientist becomes much broader when the question arises about the forms and results of using his works through technology and economics. It is naive to think that the actions and behavior of an individual scientist will affect the emergence or course of a particular crisis. We are talking here about the voice of the community of scientists, about their professional position.
The responsibility of a scientist is the other side of the freedom of his scientific creativity. On the one hand, responsibility is unthinkable without freedom, on the other hand, freedom without responsibility becomes arbitrariness.
One of the necessary conditions and features of the development of science is freedom of scientific creativity. In all its aspects - psychological (free will), epistemological (freedom as a recognized necessity), socio-political (freedom of action), interconnected, freedom in the field of science manifests itself in special specific forms and acts as a necessary basis for responsibility not only scientist, but also humanity as a whole.
Freedom must manifest itself not only externally and with the help of science, but also within it itself in all forms of freedom of thought (posing scientific problems, scientific imagination, foresight, etc.), freedom of choice of research objects and methods of scientific work, freedom of action, social freedom of the scientist as an individual.
One of the manifestations of freedom of scientific creativity, and therefore responsibility, is the ability of a scientist to free himself from preconceived opinions, the ability to practically analyze his own work and treat the work of others favorably, to see the grains of truth in it. Constant doubt about the correctness and reliability of conclusions and discoveries is one of the foundations of scientific integrity, a scientist’s sense of responsibility for the truth of scientific views. The victory of doubt, which was preceded by intensive work of thought to verify conclusions, expresses true freedom of creativity.
It should be noted that scientific activity requires certain qualities from a person. This is not only boundless hard work, inquisitiveness and obsession, but also high civil courage. A true scientist wages an uncompromising fight against ignorance, defends the sprouts of the new, progressive against attempts to preserve outdated views and ideas. The history of science carefully preserves the names of scientists who, without sparing their lives, fought against the backward worldview that hampered the progress of civilization. Giordano Bruno, a great thinker and materialist who boldly declared the infinity of the Universe, was burned at the stake of the Inquisition.
In an exploitative society, science and scientists had and still have one more enemy - the desire of those in power to use the work of scientists for the purpose of their enrichment and for the purposes of war. When a modern scientist, armed with all the power of modern technology and supported by all the “assets” of modern states, loses clear moral criteria, when he is “in the interests of science” and not out of morality, and often out of a purely “aesthetic” interest in the “case”, in discovery and creativity, as such, invents sets of poisons, atomic, bacterial, psychopathogenic weapons, this is deadly for humanity, not to mention that it is also deadly for science. responsibility scientist scientific weapons
Among the areas of scientific knowledge in which the issues of social responsibility of a scientist and the moral and ethical assessment of his activities are especially acutely and intensely discussed, a special place is occupied by genetic engineering, biotechnology, biomedical and human genetic research, all of which are quite closely related to each other.
It was the development of genetic engineering that led to a unique event in the history of science, when in 1975 the world's leading scientists voluntarily entered into a moratorium, temporarily suspending a number of studies that were potentially dangerous not only to humans, but also to other forms of life on our planet. The moratorium was preceded by a sharp breakthrough in molecular genetics research. However, the other side of this breakthrough in the field of genetics was the potential threats hidden in it for humans and humanity. These kinds of fears forced scientists to take such an unprecedented step as establishing a voluntary moratorium. However, discussions around the ethical issues of genetic engineering have not subsided.
Responsibility of scientists to society for the development of weapons of mass destruction
Scientists have always spoken out for preventing wars and bloodshed, as well as for stopping the use of nuclear technology. Thus, in December 1930, Albert Einstein expressed the thought: “If it were possible to get only two percent of the world’s population to declare in peacetime that they would refuse to fight, the question of international conflicts would be resolved, for it would be impossible to imprison two percent of the world's population, there would not be enough room for them in the prisons of the entire earth." Nevertheless, Einstein's call left a noticeable mark: it was an inevitable and necessary stage in the difficult process of scientists realizing their civic duty to humanity.
A. Einstein and a number of other prominent scientists, including Paul Langevin, Bertrand Russell, were part of the initiative committee for the preparation of the World Anti-War Congress, held in Amsterdam in August 1932. A significant step towards uniting scientists against the war was made by the anti-war congress in Brussels in 1936. During this congress, representatives of the scientific community from thirteen countries discussed the issue of the responsibility of scientists in the face of military danger.
In a resolution adopted by the scientific committee of the congress, they condemned the war as undermining the international character of science and pledged to direct their efforts to prevent war. Congress participants called on scientists to explain the harmful consequences of using scientific achievements for war purposes, to conduct anti-war propaganda, and to expose pseudoscientific theories with the help of which certain forces are trying to justify war.
This decision, made on the eve of the Second World War, did not have any serious practical consequences, but it forced many Western scientists to think about the socio-economic causes of the war, about the role that scientists can play in educating the general public about the causes and consequences of war , in facilitating the organization of resistance to forces interested in starting a war.
These thoughts pushed anti-fascist scientists to action, which from today’s perspective can be assessed as a manifestation of the desire to prevent atomic weapons from falling into the hands of Hitler and his allies.
Hitler's Germany could create nuclear weapons and use them to enslave peoples - many scientists thought so, especially those who learned in practice what fascism was. They did everything to prevent Hitler from using this powerful force. The brave son of the French people, Frederic Joliot-Curie, whose research on the fission of the uranium nucleus into two fragments under the influence of a neutron revealed the last link in the chain reaction, took all measures to prevent the Nazis from seizing the uranium reserves and heavy water needed in France. creation of a nuclear reactor.
Concern for the fate of nations and the possibility of Germany acquiring nuclear weapons prompted progressive scientists in the United States, many of whom were refugees from Europe, to appeal to the American government with a proposal to immediately create an atomic bomb.
This decision was made, and a special organization called the Manhattan Project was created to develop and manufacture the atomic bomb. The leadership of this organization was entrusted to General L. Groves, a representative of the Pentagon.
On April 23, 1957, the famous scientist, Nobel Prize laureate, physician and philosopher A. Schweitzer drew public attention in an address broadcast by Norwegian Radio to the genetic and other consequences of ongoing nuclear weapons testing. Joliot-Curie supported this appeal, emphasizing the urgent need to stop test explosions of nuclear weapons. This appeal received a positive response from scientists in many countries. Soviet scientists also categorically stated that they supported the prohibition of nuclear weapons and demanded the conclusion of an agreement between countries on the immediate cessation of testing of atomic and hydrogen bombs, believing that any nuclear war, wherever it occurred, would necessarily turn into a general war with dire consequences for humanity.
A modern scientist cannot be imagined without a high sense of citizenship, without heightened responsibility for the results of his activities, without serious concern for the fate of the world and humanity. A scientist of any specialty, under any circumstances, must consider concern for the welfare of humanity as his highest moral duty.
Responsibility of scientists for developments in the field of genetic engineering and cloning.
Genetic engineering emerged in the 1970s. as a branch of molecular biology associated with the targeted creation of new combinations of genetic material capable of multiplying in a cell and synthesizing final products. A decisive role in the creation of new combinations of genetic material is played by special enzymes that make it possible to cut the DNA molecule into fragments in strictly defined places, and then “stitch” the DNA fragments into a single whole.
Genetic engineering has opened up prospects for the construction of new biological organisms - transgenic plants and animals with pre-planned properties. The study of the human genome is also of great importance.
The responsibility of scientists during the development of genetic engineering can be characterized by the fact that they must maintain the confidentiality of genetic information about specific people. For example, some countries have laws restricting the dissemination of such information.
Although significant work has been done in the laboratory to engineer transgenic microbes with a wide variety of properties, scientists have a public responsibility to ensure that transgenic microbes are not used in the open. This is due to the uncertainty of the consequences that such a fundamentally uncontrollable process can lead to. In addition, the world of microorganisms itself has been studied extremely poorly: science knows, at best, about 10% of microorganisms, and practically nothing is known about the rest; the patterns of interaction between microbes, as well as microbes and other biological organisms, have not been sufficiently studied. These and other circumstances determine the increased sense of responsibility of microbiologists, expressed not only towards transgenic microorganisms, but also towards transgenic biological organisms in general.
The importance of awareness of the responsibility of scientists involved in cloning cannot be underestimated either. Recently, many predictions, wishes, guesses and fantasies about the cloning of living organisms have been spreading in the media. The discussion of the possibility of human cloning gives particular urgency to these discussions. Of interest are the technological, ethical, philosophical, legal, religious, and psychological aspects of this problem, as well as the consequences that may arise when implementing this method of human reproduction.
Of course, scientists defend themselves by the fact that in the 20th century many successful experiments were carried out on cloning animals (amphibians, some species of mammals), but all of them were carried out using the transfer of nuclei of embryonic (undifferentiated or partially differentiated) cells. It was believed that it was impossible to obtain a clone using the nucleus of a somatic (fully differentiated) cell of an adult organism. However, in 1997, British scientists announced a successful, sensational experiment: the production of living offspring (Dolly the sheep) after the transfer of a nucleus taken from the somatic cell of an adult animal.
Particular attention should be paid to the responsibility for human cloning. Despite the fact that there are no technical capabilities to clone a person yet, in principle, human cloning looks like a completely feasible project. And here many not only scientific and technological problems arise, but also ethical, legal, philosophical, and religious ones.
Performance
Social and moral responsibility of a scientist.
Prepared
Sysuev Vadim Nikolaevich
Krivoy Rog
Humanists are paying increasing attention to what Western scholars sometimes call an “identity crisis,” i.e. a person’s loss of the idea of his place in a modern, constantly changing society, of the self-worth of the individual. We face an undoubted threat, as if for a general consideration of global problems affecting the broad masses of the population, right up to all of humanity as a whole, but forgetting about one thing, but ultimately the most important. What is this “one”? This is one person, this is a personality, an individual. We must constantly remember him.
Modern attention is directed to the external, material environment. They take care of its preservation and strive to avoid pollution. But life urgently requires attention to the “internal environment” of the human personality, to its deeper aspects. In search of the most effective forms of activity, it is natural to focus attention on problems affecting the broad masses of the population, but we must also think about the individual, about the human personality, about the spiritual world of modern man.
The situation of emerging crises, typical of the modern era, the consequences of which affect the fate of large masses of the population and sometimes represent dangers of a truly global nature, impose a special responsibility on science as a force involved in the emergence of such situations, and on the creators of this science, i.e. on scientists.
We often hear accusations against science, and therefore scientists, and this is natural. After all, a significant part of crises arises as a consequence of the use of modern technology in the economy based on it. It has become a truism that the progress of technology, its development and new forms are based on the achievements of spiders. Science has become not just one of the productive forces of national economies and the world economy as a whole, it is, in essence, perhaps the most powerful of these forces, if not directly, then, in any case, indirectly, as a universal source of new achievements that become the basis of development and technical progress.
The causes of the crises that arise in our time, along with the imperfection of various economic and social structures, in a large number of cases lie in the quantitative and qualitative ambiguity of the results of technological progress, which opens up the possibility of both the reasonable use of technological achievements and their use to the detriment of humans (nuclear industry and radiation threat; uncontrollable growth in the use of natural resources; increasing power of the media; flow of new medicinal substances, often with far from studied effects, etc.). Seeing the direct or at least indirect root cause of the emergence of alarming situations in the successes and achievements of science, we have to assume that science bears a certain responsibility for the developing conditions, although it is not, of course, their main cause. And from here it obviously follows that special responsibility falls on the creators of science, on scientists, who with their works pave the way for the emergence of negative consequences.
The problem of a scientist's responsibility to society has long attracted much attention. It is complex and diverse, it consists of a considerable number of factors, and is closely intertwined with the broader problem of ethical aspects of science, which we will not touch on here. A scientist in his activities naturally bears responsibility, so to speak, of a universal human nature. He is responsible for the usefulness of the scientific “product” he produces: he is expected to have impeccable demands on the reliability of the material, correctness in using the work of his colleagues, rigor of analysis and solid validity of the conclusions drawn. These are elementary, self-evident aspects of a scientist’s responsibility, so to speak, his personal ethics. The responsibility of a scientist becomes much broader when the question arises about the forms and results of using his works through technology and economics. It is naive to think that the actions and behavior of an individual scientist will affect the emergence or course of a particular crisis. We are talking here about something else - about the voice of the community of scientists, about their professional position.
An example that has already become quite widely known and concerns the collective action of scientists is the agreed voluntary suspension of research in a new field of science - genetic engineering. Here, an ill-considered technique or carelessness in the “escaping” of dangerous, potentially pathogenic material from laboratories due to accidental negligence could have large, even global consequences, up to the emergence of a new, previously unknown epidemic, against which medicine does not yet have the means to combat. This issue was discussed at a special meeting convened in Azilomar (USA). In a very heated discussion, it was ultimately decided to declare a moratorium, i.e. on the suspension of relevant research pending the development of carefully thought-out precautions to guarantee against possible danger.
Opponents of this event were advocates of “freedom of scientific research,” but common sense prevailed, and at present the corresponding work rules have been adopted in most countries, sometimes they even acquire a legislative character. Thus, the “Azilomar Moratorium” on Iran can be considered a prototype of scientists demonstrating their responsibility in the face of a danger that could reach the proportions of a widespread national disaster, the scale of a crisis.
The problem of a scientist's responsibility arises with great clarity and distinctness when he is faced with a dilemma "for" or "against", as was the case, for example, in medicine at the beginning of the century, with the epoch-making discovery by Ehrlich of his first radical remedy against syphilis - the drug "606" " Medical science and, along with it, practice in those days were governed by one principle, and even now it appears in the “Hippocratic Oath.” This is a principle that has become an indisputable law: “first of all, do no harm.” Ehrlich put forward and courageously defended another principle: “first of all, be useful.” These principles are directly addressed to the responsibility, to the conscience of the scientist. It is clear that they go far beyond the scope of medical science alone and have the broadest general meaning. Such problems arise many times, and there is no absolute recipe. Each time, scientists must weigh the pros and cons and take responsibility for how to proceed.
In the case of Ehrlich, the responsibility of the scientist was unusually high, one might say gigantic. On one side of the scale was a terrible disease, which had a colossal spread everywhere. On the other side is a promising, but completely unknown therapeutic agent with the danger of secondary, perhaps severe, side effects. But confidence in one’s own rightness and in the reliability of checks contributed to the fact that the principle of “first of all, bring benefit” triumphed. Despite the risk of some supposedly possible harm, a serious, truly global disease was defeated.
There is no doubt that in the event of global problems and crises, scientists will more than once have to turn to their conscience and call on a sense of responsibility in order to find the right way to overcome emerging threats. And, of course, it is a matter of the public conscience of the world's scientists, of common responsibility - to fight in every possible way the causes that cause harmful, disastrous consequences, to direct scientific research to correct the harm that the spider itself, without weighing and not taking into account the possible consequences, could bring and thereby turn out to be involved in the emergence of certain global problems. And the peculiar form of reaction that has recently been encountered to difficult decisions that arise before the conscience of a scientist should be considered nothing more than capitulation, which is expressed in the promotion of the slogans of “counterscience” and “counterculture” with a call to suspend the forward movement of scientific research.
It can be admitted that scientists are to a certain extent to blame for the ulcers that plague and corrode the body of modern Western society, even if this is expressed in their non-participation, in the desire to evade responsibility, so to speak, in a new form of “non-interference” of fellow members of the world community of scientists. Many of us, the older age stratum, will remember what disastrous fruits were brought by the ill-fated principle of non-intervention in the field of international politics, which led to the fire of the Second World War in the days of Munich. It carries evil seeds within itself when it becomes the norm of behavior for a scientist.
The movement for collective responsibility among scientists is to be welcomed. Currently, such broad forms of social movements as the International Federation of Scientists, their professional associations in individual countries, the emergence of organizations with a clearly expressed special purpose, such as the British Association for the Social Responsibility of Scientists (BSSRS), etc., are attracting increasingly close attention. .d. In the development of this movement, we see an important form of scientists demonstrating their responsibility in periods characterized by particularly broad, global-scale problems affecting various aspects of modern society.
Purpose and objectives of the lesson Purpose: based on parallels between the life and work of the writer A. Belyaev, real life and scientific discoveries, to bring students to an understanding of the harm science can cause if it ends up in the hands of irresponsible scientists. Objectives: 1. to teach students to extract information from works of science fiction as literature that reflects real-life phenomena and warns people about terrible events in the future; 2. form your own opinion, position, give reasons for them; express your thoughts in oral and written speech; create texts of various types; 3. Learn to hear the author’s voice in a work of fiction, to distinguish the author’s position in relation to discoveries in the field of science.
1. Motivation for learning activities What is the connection between these concepts? Can science be useful? Can science be harmful? Where can we read about an upcoming scientific discovery? Who is responsible for a scientific discovery? Formulate the topic of the lesson. Define your goal. BENEFITS HARM SCIENCE
Updating knowledge ADVENTURE literature FANTASTIC literature LITERARY HERO Objective: to show human behavior in an extreme situation What does extreme mean? LITERARY HERO Task: to show human behavior in a simulated situation. What does it mean - simulated?
About Alexander Belyaev Born in 1884 in Smolensk, into the family of a priest. I dreamed about flying in the sky, dreamed about them in my sleep and in reality. He threw himself from the roof on an open umbrella, on a parachute made from a sheet, paying with significant bruises. Later he made a glider and flew an airplane. I took to reading early. Having taken a liking to books, I almost immediately discovered science fiction. Favorite writer: Jules Verne. “My brother and I even decided to go traveling to the center of the Earth, moved tables, chairs, beds, covered them with blankets, stocked up on a small oil lantern and delved into the mysterious depths...”
About A. Belyaev Sasha studied willingly; the boy’s mind at that time was occupied with theater, music, literature, and technology. Soon I became interested in photography. At first he followed in his father’s footsteps, studied at a theological seminary, but did not become a priest. Manila theater. He played many roles. He entered the legal lyceum, after which he worked as a lawyer in Smolensk and published his articles about theater and literature. In 1916 he became very ill. A bruise received in childhood took its toll. The doctor inadvertently touched a vertebra with a needle when taking a puncture. The result is terrible: I lay motionless in bed for 6 years. All these years I read and thought a lot. Exercise. Draw a parallel between this fact from the life of A. Belyaev and his book “The Head of Professor Dowell”
The connection between the writer’s life and his book For three years, A. Belyaev lay in a cast, shackled in his arms and legs. From these years he probably took away all the tragedy of Professor Dowell, deprived of a body, deprived of everything except facial expressions, eye movements, speech... Hence, probably, those sensations, those sufferings.
Identifying the place and cause of the difficulty. What event is the beginning of the work? (what important event does it begin with?) Plot Marie Laurent, a young doctor, goes to work with Professor Kern. In the laboratory, she sees a head separated from the body. Marie Laurent and the head of Professor Dowell
Work on content What can you think about when reading A. Belyaev’s book? Professor Kern's attitude to science; Professor Dowell's attitude to science; the attitude towards science of the young doctor Marie Laurent, assistant to Professor Kern; real and not real scientists; novel-fantasy and reality novel-warning
Independent work with self-test Why is A. Belyaev’s book “The Head of Professor Dowell” a novel - a warning? 1. Be careful with science. 2. Science can serve evil. 3. Scientists are responsible for their scientific discoveries. 4. Scientists are responsible for the future.
Homework Optional: 1. Write a reflection “What should a real scientist be like”? 2. What is unusual about A. Belyaev’s fiction? What techniques does the author use to create a fantastic world (give examples) (combination of the unusual and the real; exaggeration, special words, terms, vivid comparisons, contrast, inconsistency, etc.)
Informational resources
