The myth of value-free science

What do scientists owe us?

To what extent should the distinct environments of scientific knowledge creation and dissemination be free from their implications, and should they have some duty of care to the publics or societies that will be impacted by their research? Melanie Challenger wrangles with the dilemmas of knowledge production, misinterpretation, meaning and objectivity.

 

We demand a lot from scientists. They are required to be objective, rigorous, and accurate, and to conduct their work free from the constraints of religion or politics. Few other areas of human endeavour are expected to be or valued as being so free from human error. At the same time, scientists are tasked with assessing and considering the potential consequences and applications of their work, and to act responsibly to maintain public trust in their whole system of knowledge. That is a burden that scientists must feel acutely today, as they come under attack from the instruments of misinformation.

The dangers of science behind closed doors SUGGESTED READING The dangers of science behind closed doors By Martin Rees

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

Byrd Franklin 7 August 2023

I’m impressed by the details that you have on this web site. It reveals how nicely you understand this subject.

Ben Gibran 21 May 2023

This article is riddled with basic misconceptions about science, yet claims "the field of ethics" (which the author is in) should have a role in deciding what concepts to use in science! Is ethics/philosophy value-free? What methods do ethicists/philosophers use to correct each other's biases? Which of these methods are not used in science? The article states "Meaning is not the domain of science." Meaning is the domain of ALL of us, including scientists. Ethicists/philosophers have ZERO epistemic privilege in discerning, let alone dictating, the 'right' concepts. They can't even agree with each other! Which philosophers/ethicists are scientists supposed to defer to?