Rather than being free of values, good science is transparent about them

November 7, 2017 by Kevin Elliott, The Conversation
It’s good for scientists to work in glass laboratories. Credit: Len Rubenstein, CC BY

Scientists these days face a conundrum. As Americans are buffeted by accounts of fake news, alternative facts and deceptive social media campaigns, how can researchers and their scientific expertise contribute meaningfully to the conversation?

There is a common perception that science is a matter of hard facts and that it can and should remain insulated from the social and political interests that permeate the rest of society. Nevertheless, many historians, philosophers and sociologists who study the practice of science have come to the conclusion that trying to kick values out of science risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Ethical and social values – like the desire to promote economic development, or environmental protection – often play integral roles in . By acknowledging this, scientists might seem to give away their authority as a defense against the flood of misleading, inaccurate information that surrounds us. But I argue in my book "A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science" that if scientists take appropriate steps to manage and communicate about their values, they can promote a more realistic view of science as both value-laden and reliable.

Values can be good or bad

There is no question, of course, that values can cause problems in science. Powerful organizations like the tobacco and lead industries have manipulated science to boost their profit margins and prevent regulation of their products. The fossil fuel industry has engaged in similar tactics to spread misinformation about climate change.

And it's not just big business that spreads misleading science – many different groups peddle questionable claims about everything from vaccines and alternative medicines to and diet strategies. In these cases, economic values or ideological commitments have inclined people to ignore or suppress evidence that runs counter to their preferences.

But I'd argue that it would be a grave mistake to try to eliminate all value considerations from scientific research. At the very least, most people want scientists to respect human rights and animal welfare when they design potentially harmful experiments.

We as citizens also want scientists to keep social priorities in mind when deciding what research projects to undertake. In part, this involves choosing among an array of possible topics – for example, deciding how to divide up medical research investments among cancer, AIDS, diabetes and mental health.

What research gets funded, from a limited pool of money, is a value-laden decision. Credit: Andrew Robles on Unsplash, CC BY

It also involves deciding how scientists study these topics. Should they focus more attention on preventing environmentally induced cancers? Or treating cancers that are already present? How much money should go toward developing new drugs for treating depression as opposed to studying how to mitigate some cases by modifying diet, exercise or the social environment? Social values are obviously relevant to making these judgments.

Between hard facts and unfounded advocacy

A great deal of science is now performed in an effort to inform policymakers who need to make practical decisions about real-world problems such as regulating industrial chemicals or managing wildlife populations or preventing disease outbreaks. This sort of research can be plagued by uncertainties; there's almost never one clear-cut "right" answer.

In these research contexts, scientists must decide how to extrapolate beyond the available data and weigh complex bodies of evidence in order to help policymakers draw conclusions. Values have a role to play in making these decisions. If one errs in one direction, one often risks overregulation and economic losses. Err the other way, and public health and environmental resources are often at stake. It makes sense to think about these consequences when deciding which way to lean.

Even the language employed by scientists is often laden with values. For example, environmental scientists have debated the merits of talking about "invasive," "nonnative," "exotic" or "alien" species, given that these are metaphorical terms that have great significance in contemporary social and political debates. In biomedical research, scientists have struggled to decide whether the benefits of employing racial categories outweigh the dangers of promoting misleading notions about race as a biological phenomenon. And the World Health Organization suggested in 2015 that scientists should stop using disease names like swine flu, athlete's foot or Marburg disease, because they could stigmatize animals, people or places. In cases like these, there may be no strictly value-neutral ways of categorizing and describing phenomena.

Recognizing values helps science's integrity

Even if we cannot turn science into a value-free endeavor, researchers can still take important steps to preserve its legitimacy. One way to do that is for the scientific community to promote as much transparency in science as possible so that the influences of values can be recognized. Depending on the context, this can involve many different activities: consistently publishing results, using open-access journals, making data publicly available, providing data analysis plans before studies begin, making materials and methods available to other researchers and disclosing conflicts of interest.

Both citizens and scientists also need to scrutinize and discuss the influences of values as effectively as possible, using many different venues: Journals can promote thoughtful peer-review processes, government agencies can maintain effective science advisory boards, scientific societies can create reports on debated topics, citizens can get involved in research projects and the scientific community can encourage new perspectives by promoting greater diversity in its membership. By taking these steps, scientists and stakeholders can decide how best to handle important judgments, and they can distinguish scientific conclusions that are well supported from those that are more tenuous.

By virtue of the fact that science is done by and for human beings, values are entangled in the enterprise whether we acknowledge it or not. Rather than dismissing scientists who discuss their values, we ought to encourage and other stakeholders to engage in open, thoughtful reflection about how values influence research. Far from threatening the integrity of science, this is the path to promoting that is trustworthy and socially responsible.

Explore further: Can open and honest scientists win public trust?

Related Stories

Can open and honest scientists win public trust?

October 25, 2017

With the increased politicization of science, more and more people continue to be skeptical of research, especially when it comes to hot-button topics such as climate change and vaccines.

Why presenting "just the facts" won't work for GM foods

February 14, 2017

When it comes to controversial science issues, scientists need to rethink their approach to engaging the public, according to the authors of a new study looking at women's attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods.

Recommended for you

On-chip, electronically tunable frequency comb

March 18, 2019

Lasers play a vital role in everything from modern communications and connectivity to bio-medicine and manufacturing. Many applications, however, require lasers that can emit multiple frequencies—colors of light—simultaneously, ...

Alligator study reveals insight into dinosaur hearing

March 18, 2019

To determine where a sound is coming from, animal brains analyze the minute difference in time it takes a sound to reach each ear—a cue known as interaural time difference. What happens to the cue once the signals get to ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Nov 07, 2017
Basically, it sounds like paving the way to admit finally that "science" is doping what it always did, selling its imprimatur for money and power, but making it sound necessarily decent. "Science" has been a shill for big money for a long time. The article tries to invoke things like denying climate change, questioning vaccines to downgrade some pursuits. In fact, climate, the combination of all factors, is not changing, only the atmosphere is, and that's caused by chemtrails. And, if industries like tobacco can fix data, why is it assumed that pharmaceutical companies or those who shill for marijuana and vaccines can't and don't? Like the discredited "body mass index", the lunatic "food pyramid", products like Vioxx, Nexium, Prilosec, thalidomide, Bextra, the bladder sling. So many "science" devotees live by the rule that, if the "news" doesn't mention something, like a failure of a product to work, then that doesn't exist.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.