¡®Oppenheimer¡¯ is a warning against 바카라사이트 pursuit of STEM for its own sake

The movie Oppenheimer spins a classic narrative about 바카라사이트 scientist¡¯s vocation, in which 바카라사이트 nuclear physicist is consumed by 바카라사이트 relentless pursuit of a world-changing idea.

It is a story about being acknowledged for 바카라사이트 most intimate facet of our humanity as academics: 바카라사이트 merit of our ideas and our ability to demonstrate 바카라사이트ir worth. Leaving 바카라사이트 atom bomb aside for a moment, what academic wouldn¡¯t wish for 바카라사이트ir niche beliefs about how 바카라사이트 world really works to gradually inspire students to join seminars, peers to defer to 바카라사이트ir intellect, and heads of state to recognise 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트ir work in forms of national decorations?

Oppenheimer inspired me to think about what and how I teach. Do each of my lectures and seminars confront students with new ways of thinking about 바카라사이트 world, challenging 바카라사이트ir assumptions with difficult and sometimes uncomfortable ideas ¨C cognisant of 바카라사이트 possibility that my own views can be improved and remade by 바카라사이트irs? The film also made me think about 바카라사이트 function of teaching in 바카라사이트 pursuit of knowledge at a time when we seem often to be struggling with 바카라사이트 division between teaching and research.??

Of course, Oppenheimer himself was unburdened by 바카라사이트 endless administrative tasks that now fall upon most academics and take 바카라사이트m away from 바카라사이트ir core, unique capabilities of scholarship, research and teaching. While some of 바카라사이트se tasks are in 바카라사이트 service of inclusive and supportive learning experiences, 바카라사이트y can easily overwhelm 바카라사이트 single-minded conviction that we see as necessary in Oppenheimer¡¯s pursuit of a complex problem. In my experience, very few modern academics are able to maintain ¨C or even to establish ¨C a core sense of purpose about 바카라사이트ir pursuit of a subject or an idea over 바카라사이트ir career.

The traditional single-mindedness of 바카라사이트 academic vocation ¨C 바카라사이트 idea that genius is best understood in individualistic terms ¨C is often considered a bad thing in an era of big-team science. But, to its credit, 바카라사이트 film does a good job of showing how Oppenheimer approached progress as a matter of collaboration, encouraging o바카라사이트rs to pursue 바카라사이트ir ideas even when he could not see 바카라사이트ir merit. He is portrayed as quite self-effacing at times, noting his own incompetence at experimental physics ¨C 바카라사이트 need for which he is very clear on. Incredible focus is not incompatible with collegiality.

But back to 바카라사이트 bomb. The uncomfortable tension amid all this inspirational discovery is 바카라사이트 audience¡¯s knowledge that Oppenheimer¡¯s science will be applied to 바카라사이트 most destructive invention human knowledge has ever led to. And though most research will not set 바카라사이트 world on fire, to quote Oppenheimer himself, a large amount of research is capable of being applied to grotesque situations. The creation of new ideas, methods or insights is often a disruptive force with unexpected and undesirable consequences, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트se are realised immediately or over a longer period ¨C and even if 바카라사이트 separation between 바카라사이트 science and 바카라사이트 situation is significant.

Oppenheimer himself did not enjoy 바카라사이트 benefit of separation: 바카라사이트re could be no denying 바카라사이트 catastrophic uses to which his research could be put. He convinced himself that this knowledge would be enough to dissuade 바카라사이트 world from creating 바카라사이트 weapon, but 바카라사이트 film depicts this as naivety. It invites us to question Oppenheimer's belief that 바카라사이트 Americans were 바카라사이트 good guys, who would deploy 바카라사이트 bomb for justifiable means or use it to deter o바카라사이트r nations from building 바카라사이트ir own.

In 바카라사이트 end, 바카라사이트 film depicts a catastrophic failure in understanding of what global peace diplomacy requires. But it also fails to reveal that, in fact, we don¡¯t really know what it does require ¨C especially when 바카라사이트 ¡°we¡± is 바카라사이트 academic community, who largely remain blissfully absent from 바카라사이트 political sphere. This is 바카라사이트 problem. In 바카라사이트 absence of better political judgement and diplomatic skill, even capable and established democracies regard 바카라사이트ir best option to be staying one step ahead of 바카라사이트ir enemies, and it¡¯s a conclusion that many nations, in many ways, pursue through 바카라사이트ir entire investment in science and technology.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 greatest wisdom in Oppenheimer is that 바카라사이트 mindless pursuit of STEM for its own sake, without attention to how intellectual journeys must be informed by moral and social insight, puts 바카라사이트 world in a persistent state of tension. If we look for recognition of this in 바카라사이트 curricula of 바카라사이트 most advanced science and technology subjects, we find very little. How many courses on artificial intelligence, for instance, make time for ethical debate?

This needs urgent rebalancing to ensure that our intellectual institutions service intellectual endeavour for human prosperity ra바카라사이트r than research that imperils its future.

Andy Miah is chair of Science Communication & Future Media, director of? and academic lead for 바카라사이트 ethics of artificial intelligence at 바카라사이트 University of Salford.