Al-Shahristani Iraq Science

Who is responsible for Iraq's science?

The Case of Hussain Al-Shahristani

by Nadine Woogara

Scientists of Iraq can either be judged as the creators of chaos and the infamous 'weapons of mass destruction' or as the reluctant victims of a corrupt and repressive regime. But, in the end, who is ultimately responsible for science in Iraq?

Hussain Al-Shahristani spent eleven years (May 1980 to May 1991) in the Abu Ghraib jail of Baghdad as a result of his fierce conviction that the consequences of science are inextricably linked back to the scientist. Formerly the chief scientific adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, when asked to head Saddam Hussein's atomic energy programme, he refused.

Arrested in December 1979 and tortured for 22 days and nights he did not break, sacrificing himself to life-time imprisonment. He even refused a place at the presidential palace offered by Saddam's stepbrother, resulting in solitary confinement for ten years. Now, in the aftermath of Saddam's reign, he is encouraging more scientists to act as he did, by taking personal responsibility for the consequences of their scientific endeavours, thereby realising their moral obligations to society.

More specifically, Mr Al-Shahristani is calling on scientists worldwide to refuse to work on biological and chemical weapons. More generally, he argues that scientists' opinions are respected and that they should not abuse this trust.

A justification often invoked by nuclear weapons scientists is that:

'if I do not work on the nuclear programme - someone else will and it is better that I carry out the work myself, knowing my own intentions - rather than leave it to someone else over whom neither I nor, more importantly, any competent, internationally recognised regulatory body has any control'.

Yet, in a recent interview with the New Scientist1, Mr Al-Shahristani, in effect, dismissed any such justification by condemning nuclear, biological and chemical weapons research and development as indecent because it encourages international aggression.

By discouraging scientists from working on such projects, Mr Al-Shahristani hopes to realise his ultimate dream: worldwide nuclear, biological and chemical disarmament. But such an objective begs a number of questions, including:

" Can we reasonably hope to be able to return to a world with no weapons of mass destruction?

" If such a return is, in practice, impossible, what is the alternate most ethically responsible course of action?

" What of the scientists who worked in Iraq under Saddam's rule - are they to be forever condemned as morally corrupt?

" Is it feasible to believe that when they signed up to Saddam's Iraqi atomic energy commission in 1956, which then had the full support of the US government, they knew Saddam's intentions?

" Is ignorance an excuse, and does this remove all responsibility from the scientist?

Any attempt to answer these questions should begin with first principles: scientists are always causally accountable for their actions. It can be argued that if a scientist conducted process A of their own free will, they are directly responsible or entitled for the blame or praise that accompanies the result B.2

If the scientist is ignorant of the consequences of process A, and is not responsible for their own ignorance, then they cannot be blamed or praised for their actions or the outcomes of their actions.

Yet first principles do not help us to answer the question: how can it be proved that the scientist is or is not responsible for their own ignorance?

Moreover, in considering the case of Iraq, there is a further crucial dimension to take into account: most scientists were forced to participate in Saddam's military programmes, those that refused were tortured and kept in mental hospitals until they were persuaded to work on the weapons' programme. Most of the Iraqi scientists were not given a choice.

Knowing what happened in Iraq, other scientists now have an even greater responsibility to acknowledge and accept that they themselves have a choice, and to consider very carefully the potential consequences of their work.

Until recently, many Iraqi scientists have been in hiding and most have been investigated by the Iraqi Survey Group set up in May 20043, searching for weapons of mass destruction. In a push to hire these unemployed Iraqi scientists, the US state department has initiated a recruitment programme modelled on that developed after the collapse of the Soviet Empire. The US is offering generously paid consulting positions to current and former employees of the Iraqi oil and environment ministries.

The US considers that Iraqi scientists have dangerous practical knowledge of how to create weapons of mass destruction. A foreign nuclear scientist entering Iraq would soon know the recipe, although not where to find the ingredients. Knowledge from Iraqi scientists could also easily be passed onto terrorists or rogue regimes. By employing the formerly scorned scientists of Iraq, the US are covering their own backs: a group of happily employed scientists are less likely to use what they know to harm America.

It is interesting to note that Mr Al-Shahristani has not been offered a place on the recruitment scheme: obviously, having regard to his outspoken ethical views, the US do not consider him to be a potential threat.

The case of Hussain Al-Shahristani shows that scientists are capable of standing up for their beliefs. His courageous example should encourage others, whose moral views may be compromised by their work, that it is possible to stand by their convictions despite difficult, even appalling, circumstances.

Science and its applications are inextricably linked. As science is conducted by humans, it therefore cannot be objective, neutral and value free. Scientists should realise their moral obligations and consider the consequences of their actions in the workplace.

References:

1. New Scientist (26 June 2004) Saying No to Saddam.

2 Forge, J, Moral Responsibility and the Ignorant Scientist, School of Science, Griffith University Kaye D (1998) Scientists for Global Responsibility, ' Biotechnology and the Social Responsibility of Science' Conference 'Genetics and Ethics'.

3. BBC News Pages

FtC October 2004 Nadine Woogara