Der Wert des Wissens und die Verantwortung des Wissenschaftlers. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der modernen Biologie by Reinhart Schneider (review)

Outcome of Severe Damage to the Central Nervous System. Edited by R. Porter and D. W. Fitzsimmons. CIBA Foundation Symposium 34, new series. New York: Elsevier, 1976; New York: Excerpta Medica, 1976; Amsterdam: North-Holland , 1976. Pp. ix+354. $37.00. This highly successful symposium was chaired by Fred Plum of Cornell, the established world authority on prediction of long-term outcome of acute central nervous system injury. The book provides much-needed clarification of a common clinical dilemma by 27 internationally eminent experts in meticulously edited and integrated chapters. Acute injury to the nervous system by anoxic as well as a variety ofiatrogenic, natural, and violent etiologies cannot be regarded as preventable, and it is necessary, albeit often neglected, to predict reliably to relatives and others what the ultimate degree of the generally poor recovery is likely to be. The book is indispensable to neurosurgeons, neurologists, psychiatrists , psychologists, neurophysiologists, medical mathematicians, geriatricians, rehabilitation workers, and all concerned with this common and frequently perplexing but compellingly practical problem. The book principally emphasizes the neurological signs of injury, but thorough treatment ofthe psychosocial, psychiatric, and mathematical analysis is presented with clarity and in-depth detail. The book is unreservedly recommended . Henry Kawanaga, M.D. Department ofNeurosurgery University of Chicago Der Wert des Wissens und die Verantwortung des Wissenschaftlers. Untersuchungen am Beüpiel der modernen Biologie. By Reinhart Schneider. Meisenheim: Verlag Anton Hain, 1976. Pp. 185. DM 36.00. Written by a sociologist about biologists, this scholarly German book may offer a challenge to those who are accustomed to biological, but not to sociological, methods of investigation. The author's concern with the scientist's (in this case, the biologist's) responsibility to society, however, has also become the concern of individuals engaged in scientific research, particularly since 1945 when theBulletin of the Atomic Scienthts began to be a moral voice of and for those who had helped to develop and use the atomic bomb. A chorus of other voices has joined in, among them that of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A look, for example, at the letters in the October 1, 1976 issue of Science shows how vigorously biologists and psychologists debate the heritability of intelligence and the effect on the human population. Reinhart Schneider selected this topic as one of the empirical examples for his study as well. Judging from the scope of his reference material, he must now also have in hand the recent (1975) AAAS report on "Scientific Freedom and Responsibility," which should provide an interesting comparison with his own views. What are Schneider's views? He states his basic premise: If doubts arise in 464 I Book Reviews society about science as a progressive force, the legitimacy ofscientific research is endangered. Therefore, scientists must make an effort to seek the support of society byjustifying their activity to the public and by proclaiming the promises inherent in the acquisition of knowledge. He goes on to enumerate some problems : Can the gulf between laymen and scientists be bridged by scientific research to the public? How can the biologist perform this function when new discoveries accumulate so rapidly that he cannot survey, much less explain, justify, and seek support for them? How does he answer the question whether science is really a force for human progress? Can he justify the ethics of applications to gene manipulation, destruction of the ecological balance, biological warfare ? Should society place controls on research that has any potential whatever for harmful uses, or can science be pursued for its own sake? Schneider of course attributes public questioning whether research advances are positive achievements of human enlightenment to the pessimistic attitude toward science , research, and scientific values brought on by the "atomic age." The questions are examined in quotations, which permeate the book, from a wide sampling of biologists (die scientific spokesmen here) and social scientists who have dealt with them, and it takes some effort to seek out the author's own position on the issues that he raises. He makes it clear, however, that he hopes to make a small contribution to an interdisciplinary attitude toward the sciences of biology and sociology, and he asks biologists to discuss social issues...