Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:57:44.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - What Is the Relation between Facts and Values in Biological Science?

Biology in Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2020

By
Carrie Friese  and
Barbara Prainsack
Edited by
Kostas Kampourakis  and
Tobias Uller
Kostas Kampourakis
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Tobias Uller
Affiliation:
Lunds Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

It is well-known that the dividing line between facts and values can be blurry. This is the case for several reasons. One is that every statement about the world is expressed in human language, which always reflects values and judgments in human societies. Even if we use, for example, the seemingly neutral and factual word, “table,” we cannot fully understand the meaning of the word without knowing what people normally do with tables: eating or working on it, and not putting one’s dirty feet on it. Another reason that facts and values are not mutually exclusive is that statements about what happens in the world necessarily reflect how the world is organized and valued by those inhabiting it. For example, we could say that Mara is a reliable person. We could prove this “fact” by showing a record of all our interactions with Mara since we first met her to prove that she kept her promises and never let us down. At the same time, our statement that Mara is reliable is also a value statement in that it reflects societal (and possibly also personal) values in terms of what kinds of behavior are, or should be, expected from a person in our societies. Keeping a promise is valued by people because it is seen as contributing to the functioning of human interaction and social and political institutions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Philosophy of Science for Biologists , pp. 255 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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.)

References

Agar, N. (2008). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Allen, G. E. & Turda, M. (2015). Eugenics as a Basis of Population Policy. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., pp. 218–223. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Arluke, A. (1991). Going into the Close with Science: Information Control among Animal Experimenters. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 20(3): 306–330.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). Is There a Reproducibility Crisis? A Nature Survey Lifts the Lid on How Researchers View the “Crisis” Rocking Science and What They Think Will Help. Nature 533(7604): 452–455.Google Scholar
Berg, L. D., Huijbens, E. H., & Larsen, H. G. (2016). Producing Anxiety in the Neoliberal University. The Canadian Geographer 60(2): 168–180.Google Scholar
Bittel, C .J. (2005). Science, Suffrage, and Experimentation: Mary Putnam Jacobi and the Controversy over Vivisection in Late Nineteenth-Century America. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 79: 664–694.Google Scholar
Camporesi, S. & Cavaliere, G. (2018). Eugenics and Enhancement in Contemporary Genomics. In Gibbon, S. et al. (eds.), pp. 195–202. Routledge Handbook of Genomics, Health and Society.Google Scholar
Cavaliere, G. (2018). Looking into the Shadow: The Eugenics Argument in Debates on Reproductive Technologies and Practices. Monash Bioethics Review 36(1–4): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cetina, K. K. (2009). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chase, C. (1998). Hermaphrodites with Attitude: Mapping the Emergence of Intersex Political Activism. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 4: 189–211.Google Scholar
Conrad, P. (1992). Medicalization and Social Control. Annual Review of Sociology 18(1): 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, P. (2005). The Shifting Engines of Medicalization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
Davies, G., Greenhough, B., Hobson-West, P., et al. (2018). Science, Culture, and Care in Laboratory Animal Research: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the History and Future of the 3Rs. Science, Technology, & Human Values 43: 603–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. (2015). Contesting Intersex: The Dubious Diagnosis. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Elston, M. A. (2006). Attacking the Foundations of Modern Medicine? In Keleher, D., Gabe, J., & Williams, G. (eds.), Challenging Medicine, 2nd ed., pp. 162–185. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough. The Sciences, March–April 1993, 20–24.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sex. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (2012 [1935]). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
French, R. D. (1975). Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. (2007). A Life (Un) Worthy of Living: Reproductive Genetics in Israel and Germany. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Heard, E. & Martienssen, R. A. (2014). Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Myths and Mechanisms. Cell 157(1): 95–109.Google Scholar
Hedgecoe, A. (2001). Schizophrenia and the Narrative of Enlightened Geneticization. Social Studies of Science 31(6): 875–911.Google Scholar
Herzog, H. A. (1993). The Movement Is My Life: The Psychology of Animal Rights Activism. Journal of Social Issues 49: 103–119.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, S. (2017). Reordering Life: Knowledge and Control in the Genomics Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobson-West, P. (2009). What Kind of Animal Is the “Three Rs”? ATLA 37: 95–99.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine 2(8): e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasper, J. M. & Nelkin, D. (1992). The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of Moral Protest. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jurmain, R., Nelson, H., & Turnbaugh, W. A. (1990). Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archeology. 4th ed. St Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Kean, H. (1998). Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., et al. (2010). The ARRIVE Guidelines. Animal Research: Reporting in Vivo Experiments. PLOS Biology 8: e1000412.Google Scholar
Kirk, R. G. W. (2018). Recovering the Principles of Humane Experimental Technique: The 3Rs and the Human Essence of Animal Research. Science, Technology, & Human Values 43(4): 622–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, P. (1995). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosin, A. & Lehner, B. (2016). Mechanisms, Timescales and Principles of Trans-Generational Epigenetic Inheritance in Animals. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 36: 41–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, L. (2004). The Meaning of Eugenics: Reflections on the Government of Genetic Knowledge in the Past and the Present. Science in Context 17(3): 315–331.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Orig. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Laqueur, T. (1992). Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. & Lien, M. E. (2017). The Practices of Fishy Sentience. In Asdal, K., Druglitro, T., & Hinchliffe, S. (eds.), Humans, Animals and Biopolitics: The More than Human Condition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lederer, S. E. (1992). Political Animals: The Shaping of Biomedical Research Literature in Twentieth Century America. Isis 83(1): 61–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, N. & Leonelli, S. (2017). How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research. Science, Technology, & Human Values 42(2): 280–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lock, M. & Palsson, G. (2016). Can Science Resolve the Nature/Nurture Debate? Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McLeon, C. & Hartley, S. (2018). Responsibility and Laboratory Animal Research Governance. Science, Technology, & Human Values 43(4): 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meloni, M. (2016). Political Biology: Science and Social Values in Human Heredity from Eugenics to Epigenetics. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Message, R. (2016). To Assist, and Control, and Improve, the Operations of Nature: Fish Culture, Reproductive Technology, and Social Order in Victorian Britain. Doctoral Dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. (2018). The Future(s) of Open Science. Social Studies of Science 48(2): 171–203.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B., Hartley, S., Raman, S., & Smith, A. (eds.) (2018). Science and the Politics of Openness. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olssen, M. (2016). Neoliberal Competition in Higher Education Today: Research, Accountability and Impact. British Journal of Sociology of Education 37(1): 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva 38(1): 54–74.Google Scholar
Prainsack, B. & Leonelli, S. (2018). Responsibility. In Nerlich, B. et al. (eds.), Science and the Politics of Openness: Here Be Monsters, pp. 97–106. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (2002). The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J. (2016). How Should We Treat Science’s Growing Pains? The Guardian (June 8, 2016). www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/jun/08/how-should-we-treat-sciences-growing-pains [accessed December 28, 2019].Google Scholar
Rupke, N. A. (1997). Vivisection in Historical Perspective. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Russell, W. M. S. & Burch, R. L. (1959). The Principles of Human Experimental Technique. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Schell, P. (2015). Eugenics in the Americas. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., pp. 246–252. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Marín, E. & Silva-Zolezzi, I. (2010). “The Map of the Mexican’s Genome”: Overlapping National Identity, and Population Genomics. Identity in the Information Society 3(3): 489–514.Google Scholar
Sharp, L. A. (2019). Animal Ethos: The Morality of Human–Animal Encounters in Experimental Lab Science. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sperling, S. (1988). Animal Liberators: Research and Mortality, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stepan, N. (1991). “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, M., (ed.) (2000). Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Trimble, S. W. (1997). Streambank Fish-Shelter Structures Help Stabilize Tributary Streams in Wisconsin. Environmental Geology 32(3): 230–234.Google Scholar
Valdez, N. (2018). The Redistribution of Reproductive Responsibility: On the Epigenetics of “Environment” in Prenatal Interventions. Medical Anthropology Quarterly [online first: https://doi.org/10.1111/maq.12424]Google Scholar
Walport, M. (2017). Animal Research: Then and Now. The 80th Stephen Paget Memorial Lecture at Understanding Animal Research’s Openness Awards. www.gov.uk/government/speeches/animal-research-then-and-now, accessed January 27, 2020.Google Scholar
Watermeyer, R. & Olssen, M. (2016). “Excellence” and Exclusion: The Individual Costs of Institutional Competitiveness. Minerva 54(2): 201–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youssef, N., Lockwood, L., Su, S., Hao, G., & Rutten, B. (2018). The Effects of Trauma, with or without PTSD, on the Transgenerational DNA Methylation Alterations in Human Offsprings. Brain Sciences 8(5): 83.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×