“If we can’t stop science and technology from changing the world, let’s at least try to make it go in the right direction.” More pragmatic than optimistic about human progress, the British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking delivered in Oviedo in 1989, upon receiving the Prince of Asturias Award for Concord, one of his most committed and prophetic speeches. It is the text that we offer in its entirety.
Science and technology have allowed us to live longer and better, but also glimpse the path of self-destruction, he came to say at a time when the thaw between the Western and Eastern blocs gave way to other challenges that few pointed out at the time, such as climate change, genetic engineering or the potential of computing.
Faced with this panorama of scientific and technological progress as unstoppable as it was uncertain for Hawking, it was only necessary to take measures so that no one was unaware of it, placing the transmission of knowledge at the level of research and innovation. That is to say, taking any progress to the general public, in an informative work that should correspond to both public and private institutions.
Only in this way, for the scientist, would any gap be avoided and the citizen would be both aware of and responsible for their progress. A model that, for the astrophysicist, would contribute decisively to forming democratic societies.
More than three decades later, it is obvious that no one has assumed this responsibility and that the ordinary citizen, more than an owner, is a mere spectator –or consumer– of the development of science and technology. And the institutions that should monitor and examine that progress seem incapable of effectively fighting some of the challenges that Hawking already pointed out, such as the climate crisis, or regulating advances in artificial intelligence.
The winner ended his speech with a touch of black humor: “Do you know why aliens haven’t contacted us? Because any civilization, upon reaching our level of development, self-destructs.” NASA, just in case, has already begun to investigate UFOs.
“I would like to say a few words about public awareness and attitudes towards science and technology. Like it or not, the world we live in has changed a lot in the last century, and it will probably change even more in the next hundred years.
â€Some would like to stop these changes and return to what they consider to be a purer and simpler time. But history teaches that the past was not so wonderful. It wasn’t so bad, it is true, for a small privileged minority, although they, too, lacked the benefits of modern medicine and even childbirth was a high risk for women. For the majority of the population life was sordid, brutal and short.
â€In any case, even if one wanted to, one could not turn back the clock of time to an earlier time. Knowledge and techniques cannot be relegated to oblivion nor can further advances be prevented in the future. Even if the entire government budget for research were cut, the force of competition between companies would bring technological advances.
â€Nor could anyone stop inquiring minds from thinking about the basic sciences, even if they weren’t paid to do so. The only way to prevent further advances would be a totalitarian world state, suppressing all innovation. But human initiative and ingenuity are such that they would not succeed. All it would do would be to slow down the rate of change.
â€If we admit that it is not possible to prevent science and technology from changing the world, we can at least try to make these changes in the right direction. In a democratic society, this means that citizens need to have a basic understanding of scientific issues so that they can make informed decisions and not rely solely on experts.
â€Today, society has an ambivalent attitude towards science. The continuous increase in the standard of living, the result of new advances in science and technology, is taken for granted. But science is also distrusted because it is not understood. This distrust is reflected in the caricature of the mad scientist, working in his laboratory to produce a Frankenstein. And he is also an important element of the support that the green parties have. But, on the other hand, people have a great interest in scientific matters, particularly astronomy, as evidenced by the huge audience of television series about the cosmos or science fiction.
â€What can be done to harness that interest and give citizens the science education they need to make informed decisions on issues like acid rain, the greenhouse effect, nuclear weapons, or genetic engineering? Clearly, the base must be in what is taught in schools. But science, in school teaching, is often presented in a dry and uninteresting way. Children memorize it to pass exams, but they don’t see its importance in the world around them.
“Also, science is often taught in the form of equations. And while equations are a concise and exact way to write down mathematical ideas, they are also scary to most people. When I recently wrote a popular science book, I was warned that every equation I included would cut sales in half. I included only one, Einstein’s most famous, E=mc2. Perhaps it would have sold twice as much without it.
â€Scientists and engineers tend to express their ideas in the form of equations, because they need to know the exact values ​​of quantities. But for other people a substantial understanding of scientific concepts is enough. And this can be expressed by words and diagrams, without the use of equations.
â€The science that people learn in schools can provide us with a basic framework. But the pace of scientific progress is now so rapid that there are always new breakthroughs that have emerged after one has left school or university. I never learned anything about molecular biology or transistors in school, yet genetic engineering and computers are two of the advances that are likely to change the way we live the most in the future.
â€Popular books and magazine articles on science can help to discover new advances. But even the most successful popular book is read by only a small part of the population. Only television can get a mass audience. There are some very good science shows on TV, but some just present scientific wonders as magical, without explaining them or showing how they fit into the framework of science. Producers of scientific television programs should understand that they have a responsibility to educate the public, not just entertain it.
â€What are the scientific issues on which people will have to make decisions in the future? Undoubtedly, the most urgent is that of nuclear weapons. Other global problems, such as the food supply or the greenhouse effect, are relatively slow to develop. Instead, a nuclear war could mean the end of all human life on earth in a few days.
â€The détente between East and West, initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev and Perestroika, has meant that the danger of nuclear war has faded from the consciousness of citizens. But the danger remains as long as there are enough weapons to destroy our world several times over.
â€Soviet and American weapons continue to be programmed to attack major cities in the northern hemisphere. A computer error or a rebellion of the people in charge of the missiles would be enough to start a global war. It is very important that society understand the danger, and put pressure on all governments to reach arms reduction agreements. It would probably not be practical to completely abolish nuclear weapons, but we can lessen the danger by reducing their number.
â€If we manage to avoid a nuclear war, there are still other dangers that could destroy us. There’s a darkly humorous joke that the reason we haven’t been contacted by a civilization other than our own is because civilizations tend to destroy themselves when they reach our level. However, I have enough faith in men to believe that this will not be so.
â€Once again, I would like to thank the Prince of Asturias and his foundation for the 1989 Concord Award. My wife and I have enjoyed coming to Spain, and we feel honored to have received the award.â€
