Similarities between Science, Faith, and Society and On Duties

               In Science, Faith, and Society, Michael Polanyi expresses his ideas on how scientists should interact with the public and each other. Although Polanyi disagrees with many well-accepted ideas, such as the unimportance of the scientific method, he emphasizes the responsibility that a scientist holds in the scientific community, specifically to the longevity of science. Throughout his lectures, Polanyi claims that civil, thoughtful interactions between scientists are necessary to the continuation of scientific study over generations. Polanyi’s ideas about how a scientist should act remind me of Cicero’s opinions on how a politician should act in order to maintain the Republic.

               Cicero and Polanyi are both concerned with their institutions ceasing to exist. Cicero has watched the Republic decline, and he seems to be torn between being hopeful for its recovery and believing that the Republic is doomed. Polanyi continuously also refers to the existence of the scientific community and how certain behaviors are essential to maintaining it. Specifically, Polanyi referernes a “moral conviction” (54) that is required of scientists. This idea that scientists should act ethically reflects Cicero’s constant emphasis of the importance of virtue in politics. Both Polanyi and Cicero believe that ethical, virtuous behavior are imperative to improving the community and oneself. However, there are temptations to stray from this virtuous behavior. In On Duties, Cicero refers to the house that a nobleman should live in: “the master should not be made honorable by the house, but the house by the master” (54, section 139). Similarly, Polanyi refers to prestigious positions that scientists can receive. Polanyi addresses the temptation to forfeit this moral conviction in order to gain power: “the quickest impression on the scientific world may be made by … serving up an interesting and plausible story composed of parts of the truth with a little straight invention admixed to it” (53). Both of these warn against ignoring the moral obligation that a person has to their community, and although both authors address the temptation for corruption within the community, they both are confident that virtuous behavior is capable of defeating corruption.

               According to Cicero and Polanyi, the interactions within a community will eliminate corruption. To Cicero, success in the Republic is dependent upon the people’s support, and the best way to gain their support is through the “reputation and rumour of liberality, of beneficence, of justice, of keeping faith, and of all the virtues” (75, section 32). In the Republic, it is the public’s duty to discern between those that live virtuous lives and those that do not. Therefore, those without honor and virtue will be unsuccessful because they cannot gain the support of the people. In Polanyi’s scientific community, it is the responsibility of peers to help maintain ethical behavior. Polanyi refers to the peer review process, in which peers critique and apply value to each other’s work (47). If a scientific discovery does not reflect ethical behavior, then it will either not be published or it will be discredited. Therefore, corrupt and purposefully false science will actually hinder a scientist’s rise to power because the reputation of a scientist depends on the peer-assigned value of their work. In both societies, it is the community’s responsibility to ensure that corruption and dishonest members are removed.

               The parallels between the ideas of Cicero and Polanyi stem from the desire for their community to succeed. In a time when a community is threatened, it is important that all members work together to ensure that their community is not demolished.