The scientist is not responsible for the laws of nature. It is his job to find out how these laws operate. It is the scientist's job to find the ways in which these laws can serve the human will. However, it is not the scientist's job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed, whether it should be used, or how it should be used. This responsibility rests with the American people and with their chosen representatives.
Interpretation
Scientists discover and explain natural laws, but ethical decisions about their applications belong to society.
In this quote, Edward Teller emphasizes the distinction between the role of scientists in understanding the natural world and the ethical responsibilities that come with the application of scientific knowledge. While scientists can elucidate how various laws of nature work, they are not accountable for the moral implications or societal decisions regarding the use of such knowledge, particularly in cases like the construction and use of weapons. That responsibility lies with society as a whole and its representatives.
In practice
In a debate about genetic engineering, one might quote this to highlight the ethical responsibilities of scientists.
In the history of physics, there have been three great revolutions in thought that first seemed absurd yet proved to be true. The first proposed that the earth, instead of being stationary, was moving around at a great and variable speed in a universe that is much bigger than it appears to our immediate perception. That proposal, I believe, was first made by Aristarchos two millenia ago ... Remarkably enough, the name Aristarchos in Greek means best beginning.
The science of today is the technology of tomorrow.
Today, nothing is unusual about a scientific discovery's being followed soon after by a technical application: The discovery of electrons led to electronics; fission led to nuclear energy. But before the 1880's, science played almost no role in the advances of technology. For example, James Watt developed the first efficient steam engine long before science established the equivalence between mechanical heat and energy.
Secrecy, once accepted, becomes an addiction.
No endeavor that is worthwhile is simple in prospect; if it is right, it will be simple in retrospect.
I tried to contribute to the defeat of the Soviets. If I contributed 1%, it is 1% of something enormous.
Nature - how, we don't know - has technology that works in every living cell and that depends on every atom being precisely in the right spot. Enzymes are precise down to the last atom. They're molecules. You put the last atom in, and it's done. Nature does things with molecular perfection.
No isolated experiment, however significant in itself, can suffice for the experimental demonstration of any natural phenomenon; for the "one chance in a million" will undoubtedly occur, with no less and no more than its appropriate frequency, however surprised we may be that it should occur to us.
It used to be thought that our genes were historically immutable and that it was not possible to imagine a conversation between culture and genetics.
Cutting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating the seed corn. We may have a little more to eat next winter but what will we plant so we and our children will have enough to get through the winters to come?
The upshot of all this is that we live in a universe whose age we can't quite compute, surrounded by stars whose distances we don't altogether know, filled with matter we can't identify, operating in conformance with physical laws whose properties we don’t truly understand.
...for a long time I wanted to become a theologian... now, however, behold how through my efforts God is being debated in astronomy.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.