A new direction for science and values
- 853 Downloads
The controversy over the old ideal of “value-free science” has cooled significantly over the past decade. Many philosophers of science now agree that even ethical and political values may play a substantial role in all aspects of scientific inquiry. Consequently, in the last few years, work in science and values has become more specific: Which values may influence science, and in which ways? Or, how do we distinguish illegitimate from illegitimate kinds of influence? In this paper, I argue that this problem requires philosophers of science to take a new direction. I present two case studies in the influence of values on scientific inquiry: feminist values in archaeology and commercial values in pharmaceutical research. I offer a preliminary assessment of these cases, that the influence of values was legitimate in the feminist case, but not in the pharmaceutical case. I then turn to three major approaches to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate influences of values, including the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic values and Heather Douglas’ distinction between direct and indirect roles for values. I argue that none of these three approaches gives an adequate analysis of the two cases. In the concluding section, I briefly sketch my own approach, which draws more heavily on ethics than the others, and is more promising as a solution to the current problem. This is the new direction in which I think science and values should move.
KeywordsScience and values Feminism Pharmaceuticals Commercial science Relativism Epistemic values Direct and indirect roles
- Amsterdam, J., & McHenry, L. (2012). The Paroxetine 352 bipolar trial: A study in medical ghostwriting. International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 24, 221–231. doi:10.3233/JRS-2012-0571.
- Anderson, E. (2005, 2008). Dewey’s moral philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Dordrecht: Reidel. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/dewey-moral/.
- Aristotle, (1984). Nicomachean ethics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (pp. 1729–1867). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge. In M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism (pp. 21–47). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Berenson, A. (2005). Evidence in Vioxx suits shows intervention by Merck officials. New York Times, April 24.Google Scholar
- Biddle, J. (2009). Advocates or unencumbered selves? On the role of mill’s political liberalism in Longino’s sociopragmatism. Philosophy of Science, 76(5), 612–623.Google Scholar
- Brown, M. (2011). Inquiry and evidence: From the experimenter’s regress to evidence-based policy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved August 20, 2012. http://utdallas.academia.edu/MatthewBrown/Papers/300331/Inquiry_and_Evidence_From_the_Experimenters_Regress_to_Evidence-Based_Policy
- Brown, M. (2012). John Dewey’s logic of science. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 2(2), 258–306.Google Scholar
- Brown, M. (2013a). Review of Philip Kitcher, science in a democratic society. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved March 12, 2014. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29284-science-in-a-democratic-society/.
- Callaway, E. (2010). Questions over ghostwriting in drug industry. Nature News Blog. doi:10.1038/news.2010.453. Retrieved August 22, 2011, from http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100907/full/news.2010.453.html.
- Dewey, J. (1988). Theory of valuation. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 13: 1938–1939, pp. 189–251). Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale and Edwardsville.Google Scholar
- Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.02.001.
- Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (2001). Dynamics of reason. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language/Information.Google Scholar
- Hicks, D. (2012). Scientific practices and their social context. Phd thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
- Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lacey, H. (2005b). Values and objectivity in science: The current controversy about transgenic crops. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Ledford, H. (2013). Virtual reality. Nature, 498, 9–127.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- MacIntyre, A. (2006). Moral relativism, truth, and justification. Selected essays: The task of philosophy (pp. 52–73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- McKaughan, D. (2007). Toward a Richard vocabulary for epistemic attitudes: Mapping the cognitive landscape. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
- McMullin, E. (1983). Values in science. In P. Asquith & T. Nickles (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (PSA 1982) (Vol. 2, pp. 3–28). Chicago: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
- Okruhlik, K. (1994). Gender and the biological sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy (Supplement), 20, 21–42.Google Scholar
- Psaty, B., & Kronmal, R. (2008). Reporting mortality findings in trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: A case study based on documents from Rofecoxib litigation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(15), 1813–1817. doi:10.1001/jama.299.15.1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Radder, H. (Ed.). (2010). Mertonian values, scientific norms, and the commodification of academic research, Chap. 10. In The commodification of academic research. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Resnik, D. (2010). Financial interests and the norms of academic science, Chap. 4. In Radder (Ed.).Google Scholar
- Rooney, P. (1992). On values in science: Is the epistemic/non-epistemic distinction useful. In D. Hull, M. Forbes, & K. Okruhlik (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (PSA 1992) (Vol. 2, pp. 13–22). Chicago: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
- Rorty, R. (1991). The priority of democracy to philosophy. Objectivity, relativism and truth (pp. 175–195). Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ross, J., Hill, K., Egilman, D., & Krumholz, H. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to Rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from Rofecoxib litigation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(15), 1800–1812. doi:10.1001/jama.299.15.1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science?. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Sung, S. C., Wisniewski, S. R., Balasubramani, G. K., Zisook, S., Kurian, B., Warden, D., et al. (2013). Does early-onset chronic or recurrent major depression impact outcomes with antidepressant medications? A CO-MED trial report. Psychological Medicine, 43(5), 945–960. doi:10.1017/S0033291712001742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tuana, N. (2012). Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: Bringing humanities to the sciences. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0171-2.
- van den Belt, H. (2010). Robert Merton, intellectual property, and open science, Chap. 9. In Radder (Ed.).Google Scholar
- Wylie, A. (2001). Doing social science as a feminist: The engendering of archeology. In A. Creager, E. Lunbeck, & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), Feminism in twentieth-century science, technology, and medicine. Women in culture and society (pp. 23–45). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Wylie, A., & Nelson, L. H. (2007). Chap. 3. In H. Kindcaid, J. Dupré, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from feminist science studies scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar