A Harvard First that the University Rarely Touts
By Robert Higgs • Thursday March 24, 2011 12:16 PM PDT • 5 Comments
In 1943, a team of chemists at Harvard University led by Louis Fieser produced napalm, and thereby beat out competing teams at DuPont and Standard Oil in a government competition for its development. Like many scientists who have worked on weapons development for the government, Fieser was unapologetic, even when the U.S. military’s use of napalm in the Vietnam War became a focus of protest against the war in general and the product’s manufacturer Dow Chemical in particular.
In Fieser’s view, he had simply solved a technical problem that the government wanted solved. What the government did with his “solution” was not his concern. Similarly, legions of other scientists have shrugged off responsibility or even concern for the hideous consequences of their scientific work, most notably perhaps in the development of nuclear weapons. Some take pride in helping to “save American lives,” notwithstanding the suffering and loss of life their creations facilitate among human beings who have committed the crime of being something other than American.
Tags: American History, Defense, Military, Morality, Peace, Science, The State, War, Weapons 
A friend of mine once asked her Dad, who worked as a scientist/researcher at a genetics lab, if he ever had any moral quandaries about the work he was taking part in. His answer was that questions of morality had no place in the laboratory. Over a decade later, I still shudder when I think about the implications of that statement.
RickC | Mar 25, 2011 | Reply
There IS an essential tension between the joy of solving a technical challenge on the one hand, and the horror and guilt of the uses that others make, even in the distant future, of your success.
An airplane was used (and was necessary) to deliver the atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima. Should/did the Wright brothers feel guilt about the use of their invention (I would have)?
Napalm is a particularly “pure” example: I’m not aware of peaceful or productive uses of the invention.
N. Joseph Potts | Mar 30, 2011 | Reply
I would say that it would depend on the intended use of the technology.
The intent of the airplane could easily have been for transportation, but that intent was quickly twisted for violent use.
Fission research could have conceivably been used for humanitarian purposes, but obviously the initial intent was to use it as a violent weapon.
Napalm is the same way. It was intended to be used as a weapon, and has no other primary purpose.
But that is not to say that ALL weapon development is evil. Firearm technology benefits anyone who is inclined to self- and home-defense, even though many firearms are designed specifically for war.
Chris Breaux | Mar 30, 2011 | Reply
Good grief — a rant against technological innovation from an alleged libertarian!
Napalm is a good thing, just as Samuel Colt’s revolver and John Browning’s automatic are. All three can be useful in defending life, liberty, and property. It is only their misuse that is objectionable. So... is Higgs an advocate of gun control and universal disarmament, or is he an idiot who doesn’t understand the implications of his own arguments?
Charles N. Steele | Mar 31, 2011 | Reply
Napalm is hideous. Sick minds requested it, invented it, and used it. Now, in this thread, I read from someone who opines it to be something good. Sadly, napalm has been replaced by yet more hideous chemical weapons, no doubt all considered to be good things. Is there no sanity left?
alzurzin | Apr 24, 2011 | Reply