Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Dyson makes the case for nuclear disarmament

    Distinguished physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson yesterday urged openness and cooperation in nuclear disarmament and genetic advancements, calling for scientists to continue in their pursuit of knowledge even though such attempts may cause controversy.
    "A more open world is a safer world. Openness rather than secrecy is our best defense," he told a packed crowd in Cabot Auditorium as he delivered this semester's Richard E. Snyder Presidential Lecture, which aims to bring figures that hold viewpoints that are contrary to conventional thought to campus.   
    Dyson, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., is noted for his work in solid-state physics, quantum field theory and nuclear engineering. He has more recently attracted attention for his unconventional views on climate change, but his lectured focused instead on nuclear issues.
    In his speech entitled "Nukes and Genomes: Two Genies out of the Bottle," Dyson argued against nuclear weapons, voicing his belief that the greatest threat to nuclear stability in the present day is not the weapons belonging to "rogue" nations such as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, but the United States' own arms stockpile.
    "These are more dangerous to the world and to us than the small numbers belonging to Iran or Pakistan," Dyson said of the roughly 10,000 nuclear weapons the United States now holds.
    Dyson urged American leaders to reduce or destroy their nuclear stockpiles.   
    "The removal of our weapons would make the world a lot safer, even if other countries kept some of theirs," he said, stating that this would reduce the risk of a nuclear war.
    The scientist cited several accounts of nuclear disarmament to support his view that unilateral action was the most effective way to successfully ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
    He referred to Richard Nixon's independent decision in 1969 to ban the use of biological weapons of warfare, which, though not entirely effective in prompting Soviet Russia's disarmament, did reduce the risk of a biological weapon crisis, he said.
    Similarly, he referenced George H. W. Bush's decision in 1991 to disarm the U.S. Navy surface areas, submarines and aircraft as an example of how nuclear disarmament is better achieved through individual rather than group negotiation. Then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev responded with similar steps toward disarmament after Bush's decision.
    Dyson said that information and new technology have the potential to cause harm but ultimately must be explored cautiously in order to make progress. He urged scientists to pursue research openly for the safety and development of the planet.        "We can never know in advance what dangers new knowledge will bring," he said.
    Dyson highlighted the possibilities that have become available through biotechnology, a field commonly known for its development of genetic engineering.
    He spoke on advancement within the biotechnology industry, calling it a "new revolution in human society" and positing that "designing genomes will be a new art form, as creative as painting and sculpting."
    He raised concerns that apply to both nuclear armament and the biotechnology industry, asking whether such advancements, which many consider dangerous, should be stopped.   
    "What are the limits?" he asked. "How are they decided and enforced?"   
    Dyson said that scientists cannot stop pursuing scientific knowledge but must be cautious with their findings.   
    "The magic of genes will be available to those with the will and imagination to use it," he said, referencing the fact that biotechnology allows silicon-leaved plants to produce 10 to 15 percent more chemical energy than regular plants and decrease the total area necessary for crop land.   
    Biotechnology has the ability to "solve immediate social problems and alleviate the human condition," he said. He illustrated this principle by focusing on the jobs and opportunities green technology could provide for the developing world.
    "Rural poverty is one of the great evils of the modern world," he said. People migrate into cities due to lack of opportunity in the rural communities, he said, and the "world needs technology that attacks poverty by creating industry and jobs in the villages."
    His "dream of resurgent green technology" would allow for more rural industry because, he said, green technology uses land and sunlight as its primary resources.
    The speaker pointed out that tropical areas, which receive the most sunlight, are also typically some of the poorest in the world. This technology could bring jobs to the rural poor of these tropical countries.