Scientists working for the World Health Organization recently found no evidence for links between cellphone radiation and brain cancer. But other scientists argue that there is good evidence linking cellphone use with increased tumor risk. Disagreement runs deep throughout science, so how can we trust its results? Some claim that to be trustworthy, science should strive to be unpolluted by ethical and political values. This is a mistake, argues Kevin C. Elliott. Aiming for the ideal of value-free science makes scientists less, not more trustworthy. It sweeps under the carpet the values that are unavoidably part of interpreting evidence and choosing between different scientific models. Instead, these values should be brought into the open, so that they can be subjected to much-needed scrutiny.

This is Part 1 of a 2-part series. Part 2 is available here.

How to make science worthy of trust