Does a purely STEM-focused education creates moral indifference in scientists, as seen in the development of the atomic bomb?

I know there’s a lot more to the history of the atomic bomb, especially in terms of politics, global conflict, and military strategy, but for me, it’s hard to understand how something so destructive could ever be justified. I’ve never really had a "science-type" brain, but I’ve been thinking a lot about how STEM education focuses primarily on technical skills, often without much attention to the humanities or ethics.

Take Oppenheimer, for example—he seemed to have this intense thirst for discovery, but all for what? Ultimately, it led to global instability and the threat of nuclear war. It seems like the focus on the scientific achievement overshadowed the devastating consequences of that achievement.

Do you think that scientists who focus solely on STEM subjects might become detached from the broader human implications of their work? In the case of the atomic bomb, for example, many of the scientists involved were focused on the technical challenges and the “necessity” of developing it during wartime. But does this narrow focus, or lack of emphasis on ethical reasoning, lead to a kind of moral indifference? Could it create a "bubble" where the ends justify the means, and the consequences of their inventions are overlooked?

This might also relate to the absolute separation we often see between STEM and humanities education, when in reality, everything is interconnected. The more we separate these areas of study, the more we risk overlooking the moral and societal implications of technological advances.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether the integration (or lack thereof) of humanities in STEM education plays a role in shaping the moral compass of scientists, both historically and today.

Submitted February 18, 2025 at 06:29AM by LeadIndividual4085 https://ift.tt/pQK5Nxq