As a nuclear physicist, I was kindly invited by Isaac J. Mass to the Greenfield Garden Cinemas to the preview of the film “Oppenheimer,” by Christopher Nolan, an intricate depiction of the rise and fall of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the development of the first nuclear weapons at the Los Alamos site in New Mexico.

Interestingly, the movie does not attempt to address the relevant nuclear science directly.

The scientific background is present indirectly through historical characters and events. The science is, however, central to this story in quite a few ways. Most of the leading players of the early nuclear program are mentioned throughout the movie, providing an interesting backdrop that physics practitioners will appreciate.

More importantly for the broader audience, the need for an open scientific debate alongside the societal and political decision-making process emerges as an important talking point that this blockbuster movie will, hopefully, trigger.

Let us not miss the point: Oppenheimer led the development of a weapon of mass destruction. The scientific events resulted in nuclear weapons and are the perfect starting point for a broader debate on issues raised by the latest progress in scientific investigation. How should scientific research proceed when dealing with topics that have the potential to get out of hand quickly and dramatically if misused?

Nuclear physics is not unique in this sense. Since World War II, research on genetic decoding and manipulation has gone through a similar process. Today, the advent of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) in everyday life has, arguably, started a comparable debate.

The similarities between the development of AI and the early research on nuclear reactions are strong. In both cases, we are dealing with technologies enabled by the discovery of processes which are not just new, but revolutionary in their potential reach. Nuclear physics and AI are based on scientific foundations that the great majority of the population fundamentally does not understand. They also developed quickly and rose to the public eye abruptly. These conditions are fertile ground for opinions based on fear, suspicion, and prejudice, rather than the desire to develop informed opinions.

Nuclear physics evolved from the first nuclear model of the atom to the Trinity site explosion in less than 35 years. During this time, the understanding of the fundamental interactions of Nature saw the birth and rise of quantum mechanics; the number of known elementary particles quickly increasing beyond protons, electrons, and photons via the study of radioactivity; atmospheric radiation and the development of novel particle accelerators; and the understanding of the cosmos dramatically changing with the study and experimental verification of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Artificial intelligence has evolved over the past few decades thanks to the fast growth of computational power and algorithmic tools, as well as the interconnected and ubiquitous nature of computing machines via the internet and cellular communication. Information can now be accessed with a power and speed that were once the realm of science fiction, hard to understand by anyone who has not been actively part of the intimate scientific debate over the last two decades.

Today we are asking questions about whether AI will take over the activities of a large part of the working human population or will enable the development of knowledge that could have unthinkable destructive power.

Key to the scientific debate is not so much to self-determine how far to go, set boundaries, or deliver absolute truths. It is rather to provide the environment in which to have an open, heated but frank debate on these issues. The scientific process should be an intellectual and applied toolbox to find feasible and practical solutions to societal problems.

Scientists often dissent on the correct interpretation of novel findings but generally agree on the method by which commonly accepted knowledge is established, through reproducibility of results, tests of predicted outcomes, and the possibility to find, and accept, mistakes.

Importantly, the outcome eventually transcends individual personalities, egos and ambition. If the scientific method is more broadly communicated to the public, the latter can become a more effective and active player in the decision-making process around existential challenges of today’s society.

“Oppenheimer” provides a welcome large-scale sounding box to encourage conversations in this direction. The experience of watching this movie at a downtown theater, with an audience of people drawn to it for different reasons, welcomed by courteous and enthusiastic staff in the lobby, is an excellent starting point.

Andrea Pocar is a professor of physics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

]]>