, Volume 79, Supplement 5, pp 961–979 | Cite as

The Moral Terrain of Science

  • Heather DouglasEmail author
Original Article


The moral terrain of science, the full range of ethical considerations that are part of the scientific endeavor, has not been mapped. Without such a map, we cannot examine the responsibilities of scientists to see if the institutions of science are adequately constructed. This paper attempts such a map by describing four dimensions of the terrain: (1) the bases to which scientists are responsible (scientific reasoning, the scientific community, and the broader society); (2) the nature of the responsibility (general or role); (3) the level of responsibility (minimum demand or ideal); and (4) who bears the responsibility (the individual or the community). Such a map will be used to elucidate the recent debate over the publication of studies concerning H5N1 flu virus.


General Responsibility Institutional Structure Scientific Reasoning Collective Responsibility Role Responsibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This paper evolved at a series of talks I gave at Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) at the Universität Bielefeld (at a conference on “The Social Relevance of Philosophy of Science” organized by Martin Carrier and Don Howard), the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cincinnatti (at their 49th Annual Philosophy Colloquium colloquium on socially engaged philosophy of science organized by Angela Potochnik), the Department of Philosophy at the University of Guelph (organized by Maya Goldenberg), and at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Alberta (organized by Ingo Brigandt). My thanks to all those who organized these events and to the audiences who provided such helpful feedback. This paper also benefited from the comments of Doreen Fraser, Marc Lipsitch, Ted Richards, two anonymous referees, and the feedback from my students of PHIL 271 Science in Society Winter 2013 at the University of Waterloo.


  1. Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40(2), 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, M. (2012). The source and status of values in Kourany’s socially responsible science. Philosophical Studies, 163(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brumfiel, G. (2012). Good science/bad science. Nature, 484(7395), 432–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (2012). The limits of avian flu studies in ferrets. Science, 335(6068), 512–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas, H. (2003). The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 59–68.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, H. (2009). Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philosophy of Science, 76, 444–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douglas, H. (2010). Engagement for progress: applied philosophy of science in context. Synthese, 177(3), 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elliott, K. (2011). Is a little pollution good for you? incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enserink, M. (2011). Controversial studies give a deadly flu virus wings. Science, 334(6060), 1192–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fauci, A. S., & Collins, F. S. (2012). Benefits and risks of influenza research: Lessons learned. Science, 336(6088), 1522–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fehr, C. (2011). What is in it for me? The benefits of diversity in scientific communities. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science (pp. 133–155). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fehr, C., & Plaisance, K. S. (2010). Socially relevant philosophy of science: An introduction. Synthese, 177(3), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grady, D. (2012). Panel Says Flu Research is Safe to Publish. New York Times. Published March 30, 2012.Google Scholar
  14. Greenfieldboyce, N. (2012). Dutch government set to reconsider restrictions on publishing bird flu study. NPR Shots Blog.
  15. Hansen, L. A. (2013). Institution animal care and use committees need greater ethical diversity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(3), 188–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardimon, M. (1994). Role obligations. The Journal of Philosophy, XCI(7), 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holbrook, J. B. (2005). Assessing the science–society relation: the case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion. Technology in Society, 27(4), 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holbrook, J. B. (Ed.) (2009). Special issue on the U.S. national science foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, (Vol. 23, pp. 3–4).Google Scholar
  19. Horner, J., & Minifie, F. D. (2011). Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)—Historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, S303–S329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Intemann, K. (2009). Why diversity matters: Understanding and applying the diversity component of the National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Irzik, G. (2010). Why should philosophers of science pay attention to the commercialization of academic science? EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science, 129–138.Google Scholar
  22. Kaiser, D., & Moreno, J. (2012). Dual-use research: Self-censorship is not enough. Nature, 492(7429), 345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kitcher, P. (2004). Responsible biology. BioScience, 54(4), 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakoff, S. A. (1980). Moral responsibility and the “Galilean imperative”. Ethics, 100–116.Google Scholar
  26. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Macrina, F. L. (2000). Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases. American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
  29. McKay, C. (1995). The Evolution of the institutional review board: A brief overview of its history. Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, 12(2), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, F. G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L. C. (2005). Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLoS Medicine, 2(9), e262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murillo, L. N. (2012). Ferret-Transmissible Influenza A (H5N1) Virus: Let us err on the side of caution. mBio, 3(2).Google Scholar
  32. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pimple, K. D. (2002). Six domains of research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Radder, H. (2010). The commodification of academic research. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  35. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: an introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Schienke, E. W., Tuana, N., Brown, D. A., Davis, K. J., Keller, K., Shortle, J. S., et al. (2009). The role of the national science foundation broader impacts criterion in enhancing research ethics pedagogy. Social Epistemology, 23(3–4), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub Incorporated.Google Scholar
  38. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  39. Solomon, M. (2006). Norms of epistemic diversity. Episteme, 3(1–2), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solomon, M. (2012). Socially responsible science and the unity of values. Perspectives on Science, 20(3), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wendler, D. (1996). Deception in medical and behavioral research: Is it ever acceptable? The Milbank Quarterly, 87–114.Google Scholar
  42. Wendler, D., & Miller, F. G. (2004). Deception in the pursuit of science. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(6), 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolinetz, C. D. (2012). Implementing the New US dual-use policy. Science, 336(6088), 1525–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations