Survey: What is your opinion on this moral dilemma?

The man is of questionable character, in my view, having taken an active role in developing chemical weapons, for use in WWI.

He also oversaw the deployment of chlorine on the battlefield in WWI, and it sounds as if he was proud of his active participation.

I'll hang the label on him - he was a morally bankrupt scientist and a war criminal.

And one of the most painful ironies is that his Zyklon B was used against his fellow Jews during WWII - with the 'final solution' intending to eliminate his people.

Being a Nobel Laureate says nothing of Haber's character. It only speaks to his genius. Recognizing the positive contributions of his process does not preclude his prosecution for war crimes either.

One could argue that the most important "process" of the 20th century was the splitting of the atom. Many positive inventions are based on this technology in energy, medicine, geology and anthropology. Yet none of the exceptional minds who worked on the Manhattan Project were even nominated for a Nobel Prize. Is that because their work was directly connected to atomic weapons?

Unfortunately, the Nobel Foundation is a private institution and can do whatever they want. Just recently, they looked at a man with a flawed computer model and some well placed misinformation who made a movie about Global Climate Change. Even though the man's own sources are abandoning him as an Elmer Gantry and more science shows his errors than supports his theories, the Nobel Foundation found his efforts worthy of the Prize.

If anything, the Nobel Foundation is showing the world just how irrelevant they are.

This is an example of a moral dilemma and one could certainly argue that Mr. Haber helped mankind with his invention. However, the difference as I see it is that he "took a direct hand in guiding and helping the German armies use" poison gas which was derived from his process.

Therefore, since he actively worked to use his process for harm, I think he should have been tried as a war criminal. Had someone else used his process, that would be a different story and I'd not feel Mr. Haber was directly responsible.

Alfred Nobel also faced theat very same dilemna. He was the scientist who developed TNT, whicjh became the base for MOST munitions used since his discovery. Now, his intention was to develope a SAFE means of blasting the way through stubborn rock and ground for mining and canal building. His invention has resulted in an enormous benefit to manking as a whole. YET, it was the MISUSE of his invention in the area of warfare, that caused him the greatest grief.

As inventions go, just about EVERY single thing developed to make our lives easier has been "shanghaied" by the warmakers to there own ends. the wheel was invented to make the transport of goods easier from farm to village, the invention of gunpowder was intended to be as a light show for the Chinese celebrations, the list goes on and on.

The responsibility goes NOT to the inventor, who'se intended purposes are almost always for the greatest good of all of humanity. Rather, the responsibility MUST go to those who have misused the discoveries that were made, in order to further their OWN ends. Just about every single weapon that has been used in warfare, from the club to the rocket has been initially developed for peaceful purposes. It took some homicidal maniacs to figure out that they could ALSO be used to kill other homicidal maniacs (and innocent bystanders as well).

Brightest Blessings,

Raji the Green Witch

I would have to vote for war criminal. The process of nitrogen extraction is a good thing. Using it though, to help the Germans kill millions of people though is inexcusable. If he had a direct hand it helping the German armies, the Nobel prize is undeserved.

By that reasoning are Richard Feynman and Einstein war criminals as well? They both helped with the atomic bomb. Einstein helped get the ball rolling by writing a letter stating his concerns that the enemy would use the technology first.

Edit-Absolutely, the set of lectures I am doing did a brief examination of his work. It was very interesting.

EDIT2- After going and researching him and his actions more I think there is no doubt he should have been tried for war crimes.

Whether or not he should be commended for the process he developed should depend on his intended use of the results.

For example, if he invented this process only to kill people via poison gas, then he should have been put on trial for that. However, if he invented the process with the noble intention of helping agriculture, then he is worthy of the prize.

If someone else used his process and applied it to agriculture, then that person should be recognized.

Scientist. Virtually every invention of human kind has been twisted, in one way or another, into being a weapon of war. This is often not the inventor's fault. Should we have tried the Wright brothers because their invention led to B-1 bombers?

scientist.

If the man aided in the invention and production of weapons that he was aware were unethical in conflict, in my opinion he should be tried for war crimes.

What the Nobel Society does with their award is irrelevant.

He's simply a scientist.

((((jack))))

Esteemed scientist. He cannot be blamed for what others did with his invention. Of course, he might have stood against gas warfare, but he wouldn't have stood for long in Nazi Germany! We are all the victims of the society in which we are embedded. We might as well blame the inventors of motor cars for traffic congestion, and the rest. To quote a cartoon of decades ago "We have seen the enemy and it is us!" But most people cling to heroes and villains, to avoid observing, and taking responsibility for, what they could change here and now.