The scientists, on different sides during the war, converse regarding their own actions and the consequences both scientists faced. They discuss their respective viewpoints on the war and the powers they have sided with. They discuss what the consequences of developing a weapon of such destructive power could be. Heisenberg was in charge of developing the bomb for the Nazis and is arguable the central character. He and Bohr argue about which side they should be on and what the implications of providing either side with a bomb could be. Heisenberg is on the side of the Nazi's not because he agrees entirely with Hitler's theories but because of his immense national pride. Heisenberg knows it could be dangerous to arm Hitler with a weapon of such terrible power but he does not want his homeland to crumble. Bohr is half Jewish himself and so has a preference for the allied powers. Despite being on the side of the Nazi's Heisenberg is never portrayed as a Nazi sympathizer but rather a victim of the regime. He was tormented by his love of Germany and his understanding of Hitler; he knew that a man like Hitler should never be given an atomic bomb, but he did not want to see his homeland reduced to ruins either. Heisenberg was torn between wanting to save Germany and not wanting to aid Hitler, he knew his decision would have vast implications for the future of Germany and her inhabitants "I have to know what I am deciding for them! Is it another defeat? Another nightmare like I grew up with?". The fact that Heisenberg struggles so deeply with this moral dilemma places him in a perfect role for Shapin's paper. From his obvious pain regarding the morality of his actions it is clear that Heisenberg is what Shapin would define as "morally ordinary"; an individual who, despite being a brilliant physicist, is as susceptible to the role of ethics and morality as any person on the street.
