only comment to make about this article....it's a Girl!

This is a very important article. Currently we have new technologies being forced on us that most people are unaware of:
- Genetic Modification (GM) of food,
- Nano particles that are in many many items including toothpaste, chopping boards, anti-bacterial products, shampoos, suncream, wax coatings on fruit and veggies, interiors of fridges, etc
- irradiation
- synbio - considered to be GM on steroids
- geo-engineering

These technologies are all being introduced with minimal testing and really no idea of the long term effects. However behind these technologies seems to lie the idea that 'technology' will fix all problems and create no new problems themselves. This is the temptation of high tech science - trust me I can solve things. There is hubris and arrogance in this approach.

This is especially so since the evidence shows that there are many alternative solutions to the problems we face. They often involve a component of giving power and agency to the neglected, low status groups in society e.g. empowering small farmers (often women) in the 3rd world allows them to produce food security and sovereignty for their families.

Many of these solutions also work intelligently within natural systems i.e. the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) which is the most productive system for growing rice - it can triple yields and more. It does not use a 'technology' but farmer knowledge i.e. spacing rice seedlings, less flooding, hand weeding, compost etc.

Science and technology that has the ability to control and dominate and which can be introduced by the powerful regardless of public concern (nuclear bombs, GM, synbio, geo-engineering etc) should be at least discussed by the scientists creating them. There doesn't seem to be anything in scientific training that deals appropriately with ethics and how scientists should look at their work. To pretend that science and technology is not rooted in the world view of the creators (scientists) and owners (companies, governments, military) is dangerous. The general public needs to wake from the slumber that 'technology will fix it' and have a close look at what is really going on.

Wisdom before knowledge might be a more apt.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but this article needs some historical perspective.
First of all while Germany had all but surrendered by the beginning of 1945 the Japanese were putting up a ferocious fight. This was first demonstrated at the battle of Iwo Jima which began on 19 February and finished on 26 March. Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 1,083 taken prisoner. American casualties were 26,000 including 6.800 dead.
Roosevelt died April 15, 1945. The battle of Okinawa has just started and lasted till mid-June. The battle resulted in the highest number of casualties in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. Japan lost over 100,000 soldiers, who were either killed, captured or committed suicide, and the Allies suffered more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds.
After these two clear demonstrations of military fanaticism, estimates of Allied casualties for an invasion of Japan ran as high as 2 million. Ask any person serving in the military at the time (my father was one) and the last posting they wanted was to be part of the invasion force of Japan. Forget the viewpoints of the scientists. If you were a military leader and you had a weapon at your disposal that could prevent the probable death of 2 million of your men you would be neglectful not to use it. Also remember that World War II was a total war and Roosevelt had declared at Casablanca that the objective of the war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan was unconditional surrender.
What we do know was that the dropping of the two Atomic bombs on Japan on the 6th and 8th August was followed one week later by Emperor Hirohito’s announcement of the surrender of the Empire of Japan to the Allies. The tactic had succeeded brilliantly. And every Allied military man thanked his lucky stars that he did have to participate in an invasion of Japan.

The military will be the military so it is up to the scientists to be their conscience. That's what I get from this piece. Which by the way is exactly the wrong way to look at it. Science is about the search for truth, knowledge and understanding. How about people stop this hatred of science and scientists and instead start placing their misplaced anger where it belongs, with those responsible.

The tagline of this article sums it up perfectly "The scientific panel was not called upon to decide whether the bomb should be used, but only how it should be used". The Manhattan Project was a military baby, run by the armed forces and overseen by the President. They are the one responsible for dropping the bomb. It was not a group of scientists who flew it over but airmen. And now we have, as lillian pointed out, GM, nano-particles, irradiation, etc. And who drives this, who's baby is this? Big Business!

I have no doubt that if someone was willing to fund altruistic endeavours, fund 'saving the world' that many scientists would happily work in that industry. But it doesn't exist. Why? Because there is no money in it! No Money means No Interest from big business. No Interest means No Funding. No Funding means "Would you like fries with that?"! Science has been co-opted by those with a vested interest like the military and big business.

These are the ones ultimately responsible for the use, destructive or otherwise, of the end product. If you want to question character of those responsible your looking in the wrong place with the scientists.

While "Individual " supplies some facts that might indicate that the atomic bombing of Hiroshma and Nagasaki was the key to the Japanese surrender, the latest research supports Robert Jungk's view.

Jungk's book was based not only on interviews with the people involved in atomic research, but also on extensive reading. He supplies extensive references, also appendices, including the very telling "Franck Report " to the Secretary of War, June 1945. Seven distinguished atomic scientists argued that the unannounced atomic bombing of Japanese cities was not necessary.

The most recent study, Hiroshima Nagasaki: the Real Story, by Paul Ham (July 2012) comes firmly down on the side of Jungk's analysis: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was utterly without justification, a view that was held by many wartime generals