The movie Oppenheimer was a fantastic insight into the complexity of pursuing science in the expectation that it will be used for good by humanity. Take a look at this review for the Times Higher Education
Here is the pre-edited verison:
The movie Oppenheimer depicts its protagonist with a classic narrative about the scientist’s vocation; the relentless pursuit of a world-changing idea, which begins as a nucleus of thought, developing into an all-consuming, compelling, and noble mission.
Admittedly, there are elements of this that are more complicated when the science leads to the creation of a bomb, but leaving that aside for a moment, what academic wouldn’t wish for their niche, fringe beliefs about how the world really works to gradually, but surely, inspire students to join seminars, peers to defer to their intellect, and heads of state to recognise the importance of their work in forms of national decorations, where each of these symbolises the broad public good that is derived from what they do by, predominantly, just thinking?
Oppenheimer is a story about being heard and being acknowledged for the most intimate facet of our humanity - the merit of our ideas and our ability to demonstrate their worth. The film inspired me to think about what and how I teach. Do each of my lectures or seminars present ideas that will confront students with new ways of thinking about the world, to challenge their assumptions and confront them with difficult, sometimes uncomfortable ideas? Do I go into every classroom and prioritise challenging the views of my students and bringing out the best of their views, cognisant of the fact that this opportunity for interaction is also the place where my own views can be remade and improved by theirs? Does the curriculum I have written prioritise this form of thinking and demonstration of intellectual achievement? The film also made me think about the function of teaching in the pursuit of knowledge, at a time where we seem often to be struggling with the division between teaching and research.
What we don’t see of Oppenheimer is the endless administrative tasks that now fall upon most academics, dealing with student wellbeing, progression rates, and any number of tasks which take the academic away from their core, unique capability, which must surely be to lead the development of new intellectual traditions through inquiry born out of scholarship, research, and teaching. While those forms of welfare are in the service of inclusive and supportive learning experiences, they can easily overwhelm the kind of singular conviction that we see as necessary in Oppenheimer’s pursuit of a complex problem, free from the burden of distraction, other than to wrangle with the crucial consideration as to whether our work is, indeed, good for humanity or not.
From what I have observed, very few scholars have the kind of academic life that is depicted by Oppenheimer’s journey through academia, in terms of that vocational conviction. Very few are able to maintain - or even to establish - a core sense of purpose about their pursuit of a subject or an idea and for this to sustain their entire career. While I have known researchers who are in pursuit of the answer to one question, that question is elusive for most. The singularity of purpose that was depicted of Oppenheimer - or who we often depict as being the most accomplished minds - is a rare presence in the academic community, but is it desirable that all should experience or pursue this kind of career?
To its credit, Oppenheimer did well at showing how he approached progress as a matter of collegial collaboration, encouraging others to pursue their ideas, even when he could not see their merit. Oppenheimer was portrayed as quite self-effacing at times, noting his own incompetence at experimental physics and demonstrating clear value at the need for both theory and experimentation. This helps to dispel the idea that genius is best understood as the work of an individual, working alone with their thoughts.
Back to the bomb
The uncomfortable tension amidst all of this inspirational discovery is the application of Oppenheimer’s science to what became the most destructive discovery humanity has ever created through its pursuit of knowledge. The bomb wasn’t just any bomb, but was an idea that could set the world on fire, to paraphrase the film.
It’s not an unfamiliar tension in an intellectual’s life to grapple with how their passion for the pursuit of knowledge might, later, be applied to grotesque situations and a vast amount of experimental research will find itself in this position, even if the separation between the science and the situation is significant. While not every academic’s work could be quite as destructive, the creation of new ideas, methods, or insights, is often a disruptive force with unexpected and undesirable consequences, whether these are realised immediately or over a longer period.
Oppenheimer did not enjoy the benefit of this separation; there was no cognitive dissonance possible, even though he convinced himself that realising the method would be enough to dissuade the world from the pursuit of creating the weapon. The film describes this as naivety and may be a forgivable assumption, when faced also with the prospect of other nations seeking to do the same and who are perceived to lack any such moral compass.
However, the error that the movie invites us to consider is Oppenheimer's belief that the USA were the good guys, the trusted nation, who would deploy the bomb for justifiable means or use it to deter others from its pursuit,
In the end, the film depicts a catastrophic failure in understanding what global peace diplomacy requires, but also fails to reveal that, in fact, we don’t really know what it requires - especially when the ‘we’ is the academic, who remains blissfully absent from the political sphere. And this is the problem. In the absence of a better idea, or even expert political judgement, the best available approach taken by even capable and established democracies is to stay ahead of one’s enemies and it’s a conclusion that many nations, in many ways, pursue through their entire investment in science and technology.
Perhaps the greatest wisdom found in Oppenheimer is that the mindless pursuit of STEM for their own sake, without attention to how intellectual journeys must be forged via critical moral and social insights, puts the world in a persistent state of tension. If we look at our learning curriculum today within our most advanced science and technology subjects, we see a gaping hole in this component of the learning process. How many courses on artificial intelligence have space in the curriculum for ethical debate? This needs urgent and immediate rebalancing to ensure our intellectual institutions protect and service the pursuit of intellectual endeavour for human prosperity, rather than its further demise.