The people of East Asia are nervous. North Korean President Kim Jong-Il probably has, or will have, nuclear weapons. A recent poll carried out by a popular Japanese news programme found him the “scariest world leader” (52%), followed by United States President George Bush (34%). With negotiations between these two countries decidedly rocky, the future security of East Asian countries cannot be taken for granted.

Moreover, there is tension between the United States on one hand and South Korea and Japan on the other over dealing with North Korea. This is forcing the East Asian countries, although still largely dependent on the United States for their defence, to take a second look at their own militaries. As part of this assessment, governments in these countries, along with others such as Taiwan, will be reconsidering their nuclear posture.

Scientists must be involved with these debates, both domestically and regionally. In the past, much of the tough thinking concerning the military application of science was the preserve of scientists in the United States, the Soviet Union, and other key players in the cold-war arena. Since the Manhattan Project, American scientists have sought, rightly, to play a central role in helping to shape decisions about how their knowledge should be used.

This effort has not always been successful, but it has been the least that could be expected ethically from the people whose technical expertise made nuclear weapons possible. (Many of those scientists who did not adequately consider the larger picture early in the development of nuclear weapons admitted regret in the following years.)

The consciousness concerning such issues in East Asia appears to be minimal (see pages 110–111). Scientists are adopting the attitude that war is something for the government to deal with. This attitude reflects their ideal for their lives in research: don't let political considerations skew your objectivity; focus on your research.

A researcher's career, so this argument runs, is defined by following pure curiosity, not by getting hitched to some political agenda. In Japan especially, researchers try to follow this ideal — so much so that would-be entrepreneurs have trouble getting university professors involved in start-up companies.

No one wishes to encourage researchers who, for example, take advantage of tensions in diplomacy to seek increased funds for their research project. But researchers in the West and even India and Pakistan seem to be more outspoken in promoting the military role of scientists. In East Asia, in contrast, they seem to be happy to stay in the background, to focus on their research.

But just because they do not seek active involvement does not mean that they and their research will not be enlisted. Military preparations require science-based research and development, from the analysis of an enemy's capabilities to the design and production of weapons.

If researchers are willing to leave decisions considering the military application of science to politicians, they will all too possibly become involved in ways that they could never have anticipated. Like it or not, scientific research — especially that in military-related fields — plays a political role. If leading researchers are not actively engaged in defining this role, those much less qualified will do so.