Research and Politics.
Research and Politics.
复制标题
研究和政治。
DOI：
10.1080/00963402.1949.11457067
复制
发表时间：
1949
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
R. Goldschmidt
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Goldschmidt
研究，至少在科学领域，在19世纪或多或少地脱离了国家的生活。如果实验室不是真正的象牙塔，它们至少是有庇护的绿洲，远离市场的喧嚣。在欧洲国家，科学家尤其被认为是社会中令人愉快和光荣的财富，受到尊重，有时也会受到一点嘲笑，但通常都是不受打扰的。他们的发现被接受，有时还受到赞赏，如果具有实际意义，则被应用科学所接受和利用。没有人问一个科学家为什么要研究一个特殊的问题。没有人问他，他的研究结果能带来什么实际好处。人们普遍认为，对自然的探索，对自然现象背后规律的探索，源于人类心灵的一种自然渴望，它本身就代表着一个不需要进一步证明的目标。这种对科学的评价有一个必然的结果，那就是，科学既然只致力于发现真理，就必须不受社会和国家的外来干涉，当然也要受法律的支配。1871年，由彻头彻尾的容克、俾斯麦伯爵（Count Bismarck）领导的反动君主国德意志帝国通过了一部新宪法，其中有一段写道：“科学及其教义是自由的。”在19世纪的欧洲国家，也就是现代科学的基础建立的时期，政府干涉科学自由的例子确实很少，无论多么反动，尽管总是有不同肤色的有组织的团体叫嚣着要求这种干涉。即使在大学完全由政府控制，教授是公务员的地方也是如此。举个例子，在巴伐利亚的天主教中间派统治下，教授们因为讲授进化论而受到国会的谴责。但是他们没有被阻止继续这样做，因为即使是最坏的反动派也没有走到废除教学自由的地步。在我国，情况有些不同。宪法确实保障言论自由，但没有提到科学及其教学。没有联邦大学。在捐赠大学，只有公众舆论才能阻止受托人制定侵犯科学自由的规则。在州立大学里，如果公众舆论允许，校董会、校长和议会可以扼杀科学及其教学的自由。每个人都知道发生过这样的事情。仍有一些州禁止讲授进化论。在这所或那所大学不时发生的事件迫使自由的监督者抵制违规的学校。但值得赞扬的是，这些都是罕见的例外，总体而言，科学及其教学仍然是自由的。这是否意味着未来不存在危险，我们也可以忘记科学自由的问题？20年前，这样的自满不会造成太大的危害。但从那以后，情况完全改变了。首先，我们看到了独裁统治的兴起（不幸的是，迄今为止只有两个政权倒台）——这些独裁统治不仅试图控制其臣民的思想，而且还试图控制科学被允许做什么和思考什么。不要说这在这里不可能发生。我相信这不会发生，但它会发生。第二，科学在工业领域的应用，进而在国防领域的应用，已经达到了这样一个水平：为了普遍利益，在某些领域对科学进行限制是不可能的……
R ESEARCH, AT LEAST IN THE SCIENCES, proceeded in the 19th century more or less apart from the nation's life. If the laboratories were not exactly ivory towers, they were at least sheltered oases, far from the noise of the market place. In the European nations scientists particularly were considered a pleasant and honored asset to the community, were respected, sometimes a little ridi-culed, but generally left alone. Their discoveries were accepted, sometimes admired, and, if of practical importance, taken over andused by the applied sciences. Nobody asked a scientist why he attacked a special problem. Nobody asked him what practical good could come out of his results. It was accepted as a truism that the exploration of nature, the search for laws beneath the phenomena of nature, grew from a natural longing of the human mind and represented a goal in itself which did not needfurther justifica-tion. This appraisal of science had a corollary, namely, that science, being solely bent upon the discovery of truth, must be free from outside interfer-ence by society andthe state, although of course governed by law. When Imperial Germany, a reactionary monarchy, led by the dyed-in-the-wool Junker, Count Bismarck, adopted a new constitution in 1871, a paragraph of this constitution read:" Science and its teachings are free." T [here were indeed very few instances in the European countries of the 19th cen-tury-that is, in the period in which the basis of modern science was laid-of interference with the freedom of science by governments, however reactionary, though there have always been organized groups of different colors who clamored for such interference. This was true even where the universities were com-pletely controlled by government and the professors were civil servants. It happened, to take an example, that under the rule of the Catholic Centrist party in Bavaria, professors were denounced in the Diet for teaching evolution. But theywere not prevented from continuing to do so, since even the worst reactionaries did not go so far as to abolish the freedom of teaching. In our country, conditions were somewhat different. The Constitution does guarantee the freedom of speech, but science and its teaching are not men-tioned. Thereare no federal universities. In en-dowed universities, only public opinion can prevent the trustees from setting up rules infringing upon the freedom of science. In state universities the regents, the governors, and the assemblies may, if public opinion permits, stranglethe freedom of sci-ence andits teaching. Everybody knows that such things have happened. Thereare still states in which the teaching of evolution is forbidden. There are events happening from time to time in this or that university which force the watchdogs of liberty to boycott the offending school. But greatly to the credit of our democracy, these are rare exceptions and as a whole science and its teaching have remained free. Does this mean that no future danger exists and that we may as well forget the problem of freedom of science? Twenty years ago such complacency would not have been too harmful. But since then the situa-tion has been completely changed. First, we have seen the rise of dictatorships (and unfortunately thus far only two have fallen)-dictatorships which attempt to control not only the minds of their subjects but also to control what science is permitted to do and to think. Do not say this cannot happen here. It will not happen, I trust, but it can happen. Second, the applications of science to the industrial field and consequently to national defense have reached a level at which restrictions to science in some fields cannot in the general interest be …