Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 33–41 | Cite as

Why Science cannot be Value-Free

Understanding the Rationality and Responsibility of Science
  • Agnieszka Lekka-KowalikEmail author
Original Paper


Against the ideal of value-free science I argue that science is not––and cannot be––value-free and that relevant values are both cognitive and moral. I develop an argument by indicating various aspects of the value-ladenness of science. The recognition of the value-ladenness of science requires rethinking our understanding of the rationality and responsibility of science. Its rationality cannot be seen as merely instrumental––as it was seen by the ideal of value-free science––for this would result in limiting the autonomy of science and reducing scientists to “minds to hire”. The scientific rationality must be seen as practical rationality which takes into account the full horizon of values. The scientific responsibility must also be broaden in scope and type. On this basis I draw three practical conclusions concerning the organization of research and training of young scientists, appealing to Plato’s claim that those most capable of healing are also those most capable of harming.


Value-free science Value-ladenness of science Instrumental rationality Practical rationality Responsibility of science 


  1. Agazzi, E. (2004). Right, wrong and science. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  2. Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gärdenfors, P. (1990). Is there anything which we should not want to know? In J. E. Fensted (Ed.), Logic methodology and philosophy of science (pp. 63–78). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Glass, B. (1993). The ethical basis of science. In R. E. Bulger, E. Heitman, & S. J. Reiser (Eds.), The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences (pp. 43–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research policy, 37, 740–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson, D. (1999). Reframing the question of forbidden knowledge for modern science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5, 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value free? values and scientific understanding. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Lekka-Kowalik, A. 2000. ‘Le Choix des themes de recherche en tant que decision morale’ In P. Proellochs and D. Schulthess (Eds.), Y-A-T-il Limite Ethiques Recherches Scientifique? (pp. 31–46). Geneve: Editions Médecine et Hygiène.Google Scholar
  11. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton Univesity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Proctor, R. N. (1991). Value-free science? purity and power in modern knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rescher, N. (1987). Forbidden knowledge. In id., Forbidden knowledge and other essays on the philosophy of cognition (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  14. Root, M. (1993). Philosophy of social science. The methods, ideals, and politics of social inquiry. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgement. Philosophy of Science, 20, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stevenson, L., & Byerly, H. (2000). The many faces of science. An introduction to scientists, values, and society. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  17. Weber, M. (1992). Value-judgments in social sciences. In R. Boyd, Ph. Gasper, & J. D. Trout (Eds.), The philosophy of science (pp. 719–731). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ziman, J. (1998). Why are scientists now expected to be so much more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282, 1813–1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe John Paul II Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations