Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-vpjdr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-27T09:45:47.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Democratic Values in Science: An Objection and (Partial) Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

S. Andrew Schroeder
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many philosophers of science have argued that social and ethical values have a significant role to play in core parts of the scientific process. This naturally suggests the following question: when such value choices need to be made, which or whose values should be used? A common answer to this question turns to democratic values—the values of the public or its representatives. I argue that this imposes a morally significant burden on certain scientists, effectively requiring them to advocate for policy positions they strongly disagree with. I conclude by discussing under what conditions this burden might be justified.

Information

Type
Values in Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 1044 - 1054
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

For comments on previous versions of this article, I thank Alex Rajczi, the students in a seminar on science and values at Claremont McKenna College, and especially the attendees at the 2016 Philosophy of Science Association meeting. For discussions on related topics, I thank Gil Hersch, Daniel Steel, and Branwen Williams. This work was supported in part by a research grant from Claremont McKenna College’s Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

References

Barry, Dwight, and Oelschlaeger, Max. 1996. “A Science for Survival: Values and Conservation Biology.” Conservation Biology 10:905–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brettschneider, Cory. 2007. Democratic Rights: The Substance of Self-Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67:559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather 2005. “Inserting the Public into Science.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, ed. Maasen, Sabine and Weingart, Peter, 153–69. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Weingart, Peter 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, John. 2016. “Toward a Political Philosophy of Science.” In The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher, ed. Couch, Mark and Pfeifer, Jessica, 182–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. 2006. “An Ethics of Expertise Based on Informed Consent.” Science and Engineering Ethics 12:637–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin C. 2011. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C., and Resnik, David B. 2014. “Science, Policy, and the Transparency of Values.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122:647–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Guston, David. 2004. “Forget Politicizing Science. Let’s Democratize Science!” Issues in Science and Technology 21 (1): 25–28.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1994. “Toward an Ethics of Expertise.” In Professional Ethics and Social Responsibility, ed. Wueste, Daniel E., 83–101. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 2015. Valuing Health: Well-Being, Freedom, and Suffering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, George, and Stempsey, William. 2008. “The Hormesis Concept and Risk Assessment: Are There Unique Ethical and Policy Considerations?” BELLE Newsletter 14:11–17.Google Scholar
Intemann, Kristin. 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5:217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Lane, Melissa, and Oppenheimer, Michael. 2014. “The Ethics of Scientific Communication under Uncertainty.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 13:343–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2010. “Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment.” Environmental Communication 4:70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marris, Emma. 2006. “Should Conservation Biologists Push Policies?” Nature 442:13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Mike, and Schinzinger, Roland. 2010. Introduction to Engineering Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nisbet, Matthew, and Mooney, Chris. 2007. “Framing Science.” Science 316:56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiss, Julian. 2013. Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, David. 2001. “Ethical Dilemmas in Communicating Medical Information to the Public.” Health Policy 55:129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. 1996. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. Andrew. 2017. “Value Choices in Summary Measures of Population Health.” Public Health Ethics 10 (2): 176–87.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2008. “Ideological Toxicology: Invalid Logic, Science, Ethics about Low-Dose Pollution.” BELLE Newsletter 14:39–47.Google Scholar
Steele, Katie. 2012. “The Scientist qua Policy Advisor Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 79:893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph E., Sen, Amartya, and Fitoussi, Jean-Paul. 2010. Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard, and Sunstein, Cass. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar