November 22, 2004
We Are Heading for 'Uncharted Waters,' Says Gordon
by Erica Grieder

Although many of us are still struggling to master the art of TiVo, the march of science and technology continues apace. According to Ted Gordon, a senior research fellow at the United Nations University (UNU), today’s MBA student will live to see the day when a $1,000 computer boasts the processing capacity of 1,000 human brains, and 99% of the world’s computing capacity is non-human in nature.

Speaking at the McCombs School of Business as part of the Business Ethics Program, Gordon stressed the importance of being able to manage the risks scientific advances can create.

Historically, scientists have been accused of everything from heresy to hubris to simple vulgarity. On the other hand, as Gordon put it, “science has given us almost everything we enjoy today, and for free.”

The tension between the devil we know and the one we don’t is therefore of long standing—it even cropped up in Eden. A contemporary example is the smallpox vaccine.

“Smallpox was almost eradicated,” said Gordon. “There was a time when smallpox existed only in two or three test tubes around the world, and there was debate among scientists about whether they should be destroyed” or saved for research purposes.

If it were up to him, said Gordon, he would definitely have destroyed the virus. However, the test tubes were not destroyed; and in the years that followed, they were not watched with sufficient vigilance. Now, there are probably a dozen test tubes of smallpox around the world, which could be manipulated by a scientist with menacing intent.

According to Gordon, our era is genuinely unique in that these issues have become very, very serious. “The power of technology is so vast,” said Gordon, “that if we make a mistake, it can damage us forever.”

As science accelerates, proceeding by bounds in the fields of nanotechnology, computing and cognitive science, we will see profoundly significant applications. The computer mentioned above, with the prodigious processing output, is actually a ho-hum probable scenario. The spectrum of plausible events is staggering.

“[The scenarios] are limited only by your imagination,” said Gordon. For example, we could end up at the mercy of agricultural blackmailers, who threaten to destroy our crops by deploying a microorganism developed for and dedicated to just that purpose, unless we pay an outlandish ransom.

We might even obsolete the middle man and find ourselves locked in a struggle for supremacy with a race of ultra-intelligent micro-organisms, hell-bent on their own self-actualization. “Could we invent self-conscious machines? Absolutely,” said Gordon. “Will they work in our interests? I hope so!”

This suggests a pressing question. “How do we control science so we can get what we want, and not what we don’t want?” asked Gordon.

The issue of how to control science and technology risks, effectively and ethically, may be even more complicated than the actual science and technology under scrutiny.

In the first place, we have to consider who ought to control these risks.

Gordon described a divide in the scientific community on the topic. Tabling the philosophical question of whether we ought to regulate scientific research, many scientists believe that regulations would be ineffective. A regulation against a certain activity in one country, such as stem-cell research, might simply prompt scientists to relocate. Also, since science can move more quickly than government, government regulators may not know what they need to regulate before the research has already been committed. According to this line of thinking, the best strategy is for the scientific community to self-manage risks, by training scientists in ethics.

On the other hand, many believe that expecting the scientific community to self-manage risks is a dubious proposition. An old political saw, which is too often proven true, holds that the dirtiest player sets the rules, and the scientific community is not exempt from human weakness, academic competitiveness and malicious intent. Gordon mentioned “the SIMAD scenario,” in which a “Single Individual, Massively Destructive” could, acting alone, create and use a weapon of mass destruction.

According to this second school of thought, the consequences of a failure of ethical self-management are too grave to be ignored. Therefore, science and technology risk management requires external regulation, arbitration and enforcement. As Gordon put it, “Dangers are global; control must be global.”

Historically, attempts to exert global control have been undermined by conflicts of interest, sovereignty and culture. In the mid-1990s, the United Nations University’s American Council launched the Millennium Project, a think tank comprised of several hundred scholars, business planners and policy makers who consider a range of future global issues.

Gordon, who works for the Millennium Project, shared some of these questions with the audience: What is the ethical way to intervene in a country that is endangering people? Should religions give up the claim of certainty and/or superiority to reduce religion-related conflicts? Is it right to integrate the systems of education, security and mental health to avoid deranged adults who may use WMDs?

Questions such as these have no answer, says Gordon, but it is crucial that we consider them.

Although much of the Nov. 15 lecture offered cause for concern, Gordon offered a few reasons for tentative optimism.

He cited a survey from the Institute for Global Ethics, which identified a set of common global values: truth, compassion, responsibility, freedom, reverence for life and fairness. Formal schooling offers a venue in which to educate people on the meaning and importance of these values. Through a concerted, cooperative effort between world governments, media, institutions and businesses to prioritize these values, said Gordon, their worth can be reinforced. For example, we can use “memes”—encapsulated ideas, the rhetorical analogue of genes—to promote ideals such as tolerance.

Ethical behavior can potentially be encouraged concretely by “mechanisms for rewarding altruistic behavior,” said Gordon, mentioning a group that awards an annual cash prize to a scientist whose research serves the public interest.

However, Gordon resisted the temptation to conclude his remarks with pat answers. With regards to future ethical issues, said Gordon, “We are sailing into uncharted territory, making it up as we go.”

“All I’ve done today is merely illustrated the scope, the enormous scope, the growing scope of issues that will have to be faced very soon,” he added, “by people like you.”

E-mail this page

Print this page