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-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:52:37.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Science

Values in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2022

Kevin C. Elliott
Kevin C. Elliott
Affiliation:
Michigan State University

Summary

This Element introduces the philosophical literature on values in science by examining four questions: (1) How do values influence science? (2) Should we actively incorporate values in science? (3) How can we manage values in science responsibly? (4) What are some next steps for those who want to help promote responsible roles for values in science? It explores arguments for and against the “value-free ideal” for science (i.e., the notion that values should be excluded from scientific reasoning) and concludes that it should be rejected. Nonetheless, this does not mean that value influences are always acceptable. The Element explores a range of strategies for distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate value influences. It concludes by proposing an approach for managing values in science that relies on justifying, prioritising, and implementing norms for scientific research practices and institutions.
Get access

Keywords

science and valuesscience communicationresponsible researchresearch ethicsscience and society
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science
Online ISBN: 9781009052597
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 23 June 2022

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

Alexandrova, A. 2018. ‘Can the Science of Well-Being be Objective?’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69: 421–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, D. and Fineberg, H. 2020. ‘EPA’s Proposed Transparency Rule: Factors to Consider, Many; Planets to Live on, One’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117: 5084–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, E. 2004. ‘Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce’. Hypatia 19: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barras, V. and Greub, G. 2014. ‘History of Biological Warfare and Bioterrorism’. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 20: 497–502.Google Scholar
Betz, G. 2013. ‘In Defence of the Value Free Ideal’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3: 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betz, G. 2017. ‘Why the Argument from Inductive Risk Doesn’t Justify Incorporating Non-Epistemic Values in Scientific Reasoning’. In Elliott, K. and Steel, D. (eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science, 94–110. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. 2013. ‘State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44: 124–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. and Kukla, R. 2017. ‘The Geography of Epistemic Risk’. In Elliott, K. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 215–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biddle, J. and Leuschner, A. 2015. ‘Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science be Epistemically Detrimental?’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5: 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. and Winsberg, E. 2010. ‘Value Judgments and the Estimation of Uncertainty in Climate Modeling’. In Magnus, P. D. and Busch, J. (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Science, 172–97. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bluhm, R. 2017. ‘Inductive Risk and the Role of Values in Clinical Trials’. In Elliott, K. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 193–212. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boulicault, M. and Schroeder, A. 2021. ‘Public Trust in Science: Exploring the Idiosyncrasy-Free Ideal’. In Vallier, K. and Weber, M. (eds.), Social Trust: Foundational and Philosophical Issues, 102–21. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. 2020. ‘How to Philosophically Tackle Kinds without Talking About “Natural Kinds”’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: 1–24. http://doi.org/10.1017/can.2029.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggle, A. 2015. A Field Philosopher’s Guide to Fracking: How One Texas Town Stood Up to Big Oil and Gas. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Bright, L. K. 2018. ‘Du Bois’ Democratic Defence of the Value Free Ideal’. Synthese 195: 2227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronen, R. and Cochran, P. 2021. ‘Decolonize Climate Adaptation Research’. Science 372: 1245.Google Scholar
Brown, M. 2018. ‘Weaving Value Judgment into the Tapestry of Science’. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10: 8. http://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. 2020. Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Cartieri, F. and Potochnik, A. 2014. ‘Toward Philosophy of Science’s Social Engagement’. Erkenntnis 79: 901–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cech, E., Settles, I. H., Cheruvelil, K. S. et al. 2021. ‘The Social is Professional: The Effects of Team Climate on Professional Outcomes for LGBTQ Persons in Environmental Science’. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 27: 25–48.Google Scholar
Chastain, D. B., Osae, S. P., Henao-Martínez, A. F. et al. 2020. ‘Racial Disproportionality in Covid Clinical Trials’. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(9): e59.Google Scholar
Cho, M. 2006. ‘Racial and Ethnic Categories in Biomedical Research: There Is No Baby in the Bathwater’. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34: 497–9.Google Scholar
ChoGlueck, C. 2018. ‘The Error Is in the Gap: Synthesizing Accounts for Societal Values in Science’. Philosophy of Science 85: 704–25.Google Scholar
Claudio, L. 2000. ‘Reaching Out to New York Neighborhoods’. Environmental Health Perspectives 108: A450–A451.Google Scholar
Clough, S. and Loges, W. 2008. ‘Racist Value Judgements as Objectively False Beliefs: A Philosophical and Social-Psychological Analysis’. Journal of Social Philosophy 39: 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwall, W. 2020. ‘Should Researchers Shelve Plans to Deliberately Infect People with the Coronavirus?’. Science (20 November). doi: 10.1126/science.abf8131Google Scholar
Daniels, N. 2016. ‘Reflective Equilibrium’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, I. and Intemann, K. 2009. ‘How Do Disclosure Policies Fail? Let Us Count the Ways’. The FASEB Journal 23: 1638–42.Google ScholarPubMed
de Melo-Martín, I. and Intemann, K. 2016. ‘The Risk of Using Inductive Risk to Challenge the Value-Free Ideal’. Philosophy of Science 83: 500–520.Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, I. and Intemann, K. 2018. The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap between Scientists and the Public. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Vos, A. 2020. ‘The Problem of “Colonial Science”’. Scientific American. (1 July).www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-of-colonial-science/Google Scholar
de Winter, J. 2016. Interests and Epistemic Integrity in Science: A Framework to Assess Interest Influences in Scientific Research Processes. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
DeVito, S. C. 2016. ‘On the Design of Safer Chemicals: A Path Forward’. Green Chemistry 18: 4332–47.Google Scholar
DiMarco, M. and Khalifa, K. 2019. ‘Inquiry Tickets: Values, Pursuit, and Underdetermination’. Philosophy of Science 86: 1016–28.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2000. ‘Inductive Risk and Values in Science’. Philosophy of Science 67: 559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2008. ‘The Role of Values in Expert Reasoning’. Public Affairs Quarterly 22: 1–18.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2013. ‘The Value of Cognitive Values’. Philosophy of Science 80: 796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2014. ‘The Moral Terrain of Science’. Erkenntnis 79: 961-979.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2016. ‘Values in Science’. In Humphreys, P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science, 609–32. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2017. ‘Why Inductive Risk Requires Values in Science’. In Elliott, K. and Steel, D. (eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science, 81–93. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2018. ‘From Tapestry to Loom: Broadening the Perspective on Values in Science’. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10: 8. http://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.008Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2021. The Rightful Place of Science: Science, Values, and Democracy. The 2016 Descartes Lectures, ed. Tempe, T. Richards: Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. and Elliott, K. 2022. ‘Addressing the Reproducibility Crisis: A Response to Hudson’. Journal of General Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09606-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. 2007. ‘Fact and Value’. In Kincaid, H., Wylie, A., and Dupré, J. (eds.), Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions, 27–41. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilperin, J. 2021. ‘Judge Throws Out Trump Rule Limiting What Science EPA Can Use’. Washington Post (1 February). www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/02/01/trump-secret-science/Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2008. ‘Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies’. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 15: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. 2009. ‘The Ethical Significance of Language in the Environmental Sciences: Case Studies from Pollution Research’. Ethics, Place & Environment 12: 157–73.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2011a. ‘Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science’. Philosophy of Science 78: 303–24.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2011b. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2013. ‘Douglas on Values: From Indirect Roles to Multiple Goals’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44: 375–83.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2016. ‘Standardized Study Designs, Value Judgments, and Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research’. Perspectives on Science 24: 529–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2018. ‘A Tapestry of Values: Response to My Critics’. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10 (11).Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2020a. ‘Framing Conservation: “Biodiversity” and the Values Embedded in Scientific Language’. Environmental Conservation 47: 260–8.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2020b. ‘A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. http://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2021. ‘The Value-Ladenness of Transparency in Science: Lessons from Lyme Disease’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 88: 1–9.Google Scholar
Elliott, K., McCright, A. M., Allen, S. and Dietz, T. 2017. ‘Values in Environmental Research: Citizens’ Views of Scientists Who Acknowledge Values’. PloS One 12: e0186049.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. and McKaughan, D. J. 2009. ‘How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal’. Philosophy of Science 76: 598–611.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. and McKaughan, D. J. 2014. ‘Nonepistemic Values and the Multiple Goals of Science’. Philosophy of Science 81: 1–21.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. and Resnik, D. B. 2014. ‘Science, Policy, and the Transparency of Values’. Environmental Health Perspectives 122: 647–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. and Resnik, D. B. 2019. ‘Making Open Science Work for Science and Society’. Environmental Health Perspectives 127: 075002.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. and Richards, T. 2017a. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. and Richards, T. 2017b. ‘Exploring Inductive Risk: Future Questions’. In Elliott, K. C. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 261–77. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. and Willmes, D. 2013. ‘Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science’. Philosophy of Science 80, 807–17.Google Scholar
Fehr, C. and Plaisance, K. S. 2010. ‘Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction’. Synthese 177: 301–16.Google Scholar
Fernández Pinto, M. and Hicks, D. J. 2019. ‘Legitimizing Values in Regulatory Science’. Environmental Health Perspectives 127: 035001.Google Scholar
Franco, P. 2017. ‘Assertion, Non-Epistemic Values, and Scientific Practice’. Philosophy of Science 84: 160–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, D. 2017. ‘Making Uncertainties Explicit: The Jeffreyan Value-Free Ideal and Its Limits’. In Elliott, K. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 79–100. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frodeman, R., Klein, J. and Dos Santos Pache, R.co, eds. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, S. and Klein, E. 2020a. ‘Embedding Ethics in Neural Engineering: An Integrated Transdisciplinary Collaboration’. In Brister, E. and Frodeman, R. (eds.), A Guide to Field Philosophy: Case Studies and Practical Strategies, 17–34. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, S. and Klein, E. 2020b. ‘Fostering Neuroethics Integration with Neuroscience in the BRAIN Initiative: Comments on the NIH Neuroethics Roadmap’. AJOB Neuroscience 11: 184–8.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, M. J. 2021. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R. 2017. Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Harvard, S. and Werker, G. 2021. ‘Health Economists on Involving Patients in Modeling: Potential Benefits, Harms, and Variables of Interest’. PharmacoEconomics 39: 823–33.Google Scholar
Harvard, S. and Winsberg, E. 2021. ‘The Epistemic Risk in Representation’. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 32: 1–31.Google Scholar
Havstad, J. 2021. ‘Sensational Science, Archaic Hominin Genetics, and Amplified Inductive Risk’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. http://doi.org/10.1017/can.2021.15Google Scholar
Havstad, J. and Brown, M. 2017. ‘Inductive Risk, Deferred Decisions, and Climate Science Advising’. In Elliott, K. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 101–23. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. 2014. ‘A New Direction for Science and Values’. Synthese 191: 3271–95.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, S., Hurlbut, J. B. and Jasanoff, S. 2021. ‘Was “Science” on the Ballot?’. Science 371: 893–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B. H. 2015. The Fundamental Antagonism: Science and Commerce in Medical Epistemology. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Holman, B. and Bruner, J. 2017. ‘Experimentation by Industrial Selection’. Philosophy of Science 84: 1008–19.Google Scholar
Holman, B. and Elliott, K. C. 2018. ‘The Promise and Perils of Industry-Funded Science’. Philosophy Compass 13: e12544.Google Scholar
Holman, B. and Wilholt, T. 2022. ‘The New Demarcation Problem’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 211–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, D. 2009. ‘Better Red Than Dead – Putting an End to the Social Irrelevance of Postwar Philosophy of Science’. Science and Education 18: 199–220.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 2021. ‘Should We Strive to Make Science Bias-Free? A Philosophical Assessment of the Reproducibility Crisis’. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 52: 389–405.Google Scholar
Iacobucci, G. 2021. ‘Covid-19: How Will a Waiver on Vaccine Patents Affect Global Supply?’. British Medical Journal 373. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1182Google Scholar
Intemann, K. 2005. ‘Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science’. Philosophy of Science 72: 1001–12.Google Scholar
Intemann, K. 2015. ‘Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5: 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, K. 2017. ‘Feminism, Values, and the Bias Paradox’. In Elliott, K. and Steel, D. (eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science, 130–44. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Intemann, K. 2020. ‘Understanding the Problem of “Hype”: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.45Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1956. ‘Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses’. Philosophy of Science 23: 237–46.Google Scholar
Jenco, M. 2020. ‘AAP: Include Children in COVID-19 Trials’. AAP News (17 November). www.aappublications.org/news/2020/11/17/covidvaccinetrials111720Google Scholar
John, S. 2015a. ‘The Example of the IPCC Does Not Vindicate the Value Free Ideal: A Response to Gregor Betz’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5: 1–13.Google Scholar
John, S. 2015b. ‘Inductive Risk and the Contexts of Communication’. Synthese 192: 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, S. 2018. ‘Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity and Honesty’. Social Epistemology 32: 75–87.Google Scholar
John, S. 2019. ‘Science, Truth, and Dictatorship: Wishful Thinking or Wishful Speaking?’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 78: 64–72.Google Scholar
Johnson, C., Kastanis, A. and Stafford, K. 2021. ‘AP Analysis: Racial Disparity Seen in U.S. Vaccination Drive’. AP News (30 January). https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-health-coronavirus-pandemic-hispanics-d0746b028cf56231dbcdeda0fba24314Google Scholar
Katikireddi, S. V. and Valles, S. A. 2015. ‘Coupled Ethical–Epistemic Analysis of Public Health Research and Practice: Categorizing Variables to Improve Population Health and Equity’. American Journal of Public Health 105: e36–e42.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, E., ed. 2007. ‘The Risks and Advantages of Framing Science’. Science 317: 1168–69.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. and Longino, H., eds. 1996. Feminism and Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendi, I. 2016. Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. New York: Bold Type Books.Google Scholar
Kincaid, H., Dupré, J. and Wylie, A., eds. 2007. Value-Free Science: Ideals and Illusions? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Konings, F., Perkins, M. D., Kuhn, J. H. et al. 2021. ‘SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Interest and Concern Naming Scheme Conducive for Global Discourse’. Nature Microbiology 6: 821–23Google Scholar
Korf, R. 2022. ‘Can Democratic Processes Yield Democratic Values? The Influence of Science on Social Values’. Unpublished paper delivered at the Values in Science and Political Philosophy conference, Claremont, CA, 1 April.Google Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2013. ‘Meeting the Challenges to Socially Responsible Science: Reply to Brown, Lacey, and Potter’. Philosophical Studies 163: 93–103.Google Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2018. ‘Adding to the Tapestry’. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10: 9. http://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.009Google Scholar
Kourany, J. A. 2020. ‘The New Worries about Science’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: 1–19. http://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.34Google Scholar
Kreber, C. 2009. The University and its Disciplines: Teaching and Learning within and beyond Disciplinary Boundaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1977. ‘Objectivity, Value Judgement, and Theory Choice’. In Kuhn, T. (ed.), The Essential Tension, 320–9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lacey, H. 1999. Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lacey, H. 2017. ‘Distinguishing between Cognitive and Social Values’. In Elliott, K. and Steel, D. (eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science, 15–30. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Larson, B. 2011. Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining Our Relationships with Nature. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Le Bihan, S. and Amadi, I. 2017. ‘On Epistemically Detrimental Dissent: Contingent Enabling Factors versus Stable Difference-Makers’. Philosophy of Science 84: 1020–30.Google Scholar
Leuschner, A. and Fernández Pinto, M. 2021. ‘How Dissent on Gender Bias in Academia Affects Science and Society: Learning from the Case of Climate Change Denial’. Philosophy of Science 88: 573–93.http://doi.org/10.1086/713903Google Scholar
Levi, I. 1960. ‘Must the Scientist Make Value Judgements?’. Journal of Philosophy 57: 345–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1996. ‘Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy’. In Hankinson Nelson, L. and Nelson, J. (eds.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, 39–58. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D. 2016. ‘Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal’. Erkenntnis 81: 1253–72.Google Scholar
Lusk, G. 2020. ‘Political Legitimacy in the Democratic View: The Case of Climate Services’. Philosophy of Science 87: 991–1002.Google Scholar
Machamer, P. and Wolters, G. 2004. Science, Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malakoff, D. 2019. ‘“Secret Science” Plan is Back, and Critics Say It’s Worse’. Science 366: 783–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGarity, T. and Wagner, W. 2008. Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McKaughan, D. and Elliott, K. C. 2015. ‘Introduction: Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53: 57–61.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 1983. ‘Values in Science’. In Asquith, P. and Nickles, T. (eds.), PSA 1982, 3–28. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Mervis, J. and Kaiser, J. 2018. ‘NSF Issues Sexual Harassment Policy as NIH Promises Action’. Science 361: 6409–10.Google Scholar
Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, B. 2021. ‘When Is Scientific Dissent Epistemically Inappropriate?’. Philosophy of Science 88: 918–28.Google Scholar
Moermond, C. T., Kase, R., Korkaric, M. and Ågerstrand, M. 2016. ‘CRED: Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data’. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35: 1297–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, J. P., vom Saal, F. S., Akingbemi, B. T. et al. 2009. ‘Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A’. Environmental Health Perspectives 117: 309–15.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS). 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. H. 1990. Who Knows: From Quine to a Feminist Epistemology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. and Mooney, C. 2007. ‘Science and Society. Framing Science’. Science 316: 56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norton, J. 2021. ‘The Material Theory of Induction’. www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/material_theory/Material_Induction_March_14_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C. et al. 2015. ‘Promoting an Open Research Culture’. Science 348: 1422–5.Google Scholar
OECD. 2021. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021: Times of Crisis and Opportunity. Paris: OECD. http://doi.org/10.1787/75f79015-enGoogle Scholar
Okruhlik, K. 1994. ‘Gender and the Biological Sciences’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20(Supplementary): 21–42.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Parker, W. and Lusk, G. 2019. ‘Incorporating User Values into Climate Services’. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 100: 1643–50.Google Scholar
Pease, R. 2021. ‘Accusations of Colonial Science Fly after Eruption’. Science 372: 1248–9.Google Scholar
Plaisance, K. and Elliott, K. 2021. ‘A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science’. Philosophy of Science 88: 594–615.Google Scholar
Plutynski, A. 2018. Explaining Cancer: Finding Order in Disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. 1962. ‘The Republic of Science’. Minerva 1: 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, A. 2021. ‘Transparency and Secrecy in Citizen Science: Lessons from Herping’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 85: 208–17.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B. 1998. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B. 2007. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B. and Elliott, K. C. 2019. ‘Value-Entanglement and the Integrity of Scientific Research’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 75: 1–11.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B., Elliott, K. C. and Miller, A. 2015. ‘A Framework for Addressing Ethical Issues in Citizen Science’. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 475–81.Google Scholar
Reverby, S., ed. 2000. Tuskegee’s Truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Durham: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Rolin, K. 2015. ‘Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration’. Philosophy of Science 82: 157–77.Google Scholar
Rooney, P. 1992. ‘On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-epistemic Distinction Useful?’ in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Okruhlik, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1, p. 13–22. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Rooney, P. 2017. ‘The Borderlands between Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values’. In Elliott, K. and Steel, D. (eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science, 31–45. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rudner, R. 1953. ‘The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgements’. Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6.Google Scholar
Schienke, E. W., Baum, S.D., Tuana, N., Davis, K.J., and Keller, K. 2011. ‘Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Management’. Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 503–23.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. 2017. ‘Using Democratic Values in Science: An Objection and (Partial) Response’. Philosophy of Science 84: 1044–54.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. 2019. ‘Which Values Should Be Built into Economic Measures?’. Economics and Philosophy 35: 521–36.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. 2020. ‘Thinking about Values in Science: Ethical vs. Political Approaches’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. http://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.41Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. 2021. ‘Democratic Values: A Better Foundation for Public Trust in Science’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72:511–43. http://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz023Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. 2022. ‘An Ethical Framework for Presenting Scientific Results to Policy-Makers’. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 32: 33–67.Google Scholar
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G. and Moher, D. 2010. ‘CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials’. Trials 11(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, S. and Bilsky, W. 1987. ‘Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 550–62.Google Scholar
Scriven, M. 1974. ‘The Exact Role of Value Judgements in Science’. In Schaffner, K. and Cohen, R. (eds.), PSA 1972, 219–47. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Settles, I. H., Brassel, S. T., Montgomery, G. M. et al. 2018. ‘Missing the Mark: A New Form of Honorary Authorship Motivated by Desires for Inclusion’. Innovative Higher Education 43: 303–19.Google Scholar
Settles, I. H., Brassel, S. T., Soranno, P. A. et al. 2019. ‘Team Climate Mediates the Effect of Diversity on Environmental Science Team Satisfaction and Data Sharing’. PloS One 14: e0219196.Google Scholar
Shamoo, A. and Resnik, D. B. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 2014. Tainted: How Philosophy of Science Can Expose Bad Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sismondo, S. 2018. Ghost-Managed Medicine: Big Pharma’s Invisible Hands. Manchester: Mattering Press.Google Scholar
Smith, R. 2005. ‘Medical Journals are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies’. PloS Medicine 2: e138.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Soranno, P. A., Cheruvelil, K. S., Elliott, K. C. and Montgomery, G. M. 2015. ‘It’s Good to Share: Why Environmental Scientists’ Ethics are Out of Date’. BioScience 65: 69–73.Google Scholar
Staley, K. W. 2017. ‘Decisions, Decisions: Inductive Risk and the Higgs Boson’. In Elliott, K. C. and Richards, T. (eds.) Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 37–55. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanev, R. 2017. ‘Inductive Risk and Values in Composite Outcome Measures’. In Elliott, K. C. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 171–91. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2010. ‘Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk’. Philosophy of Science 77: 14–34.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2015. ‘Acceptance, Values, and Probability’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53: 81–88.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2017. ‘Qualified Epistemic Priority: Comparing Two Approaches to Values in Science’. In Elliott, K. and Steel, D. (eds.), Current Controversies in Values and Science, 49–63. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Steel, D. and Whyte, K. 2012. ‘Environmental Justice, Values, and Scientific Expertise’. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22: 163–82.Google Scholar
Steele, K. 2012. ‘The Scientist Qua Policy Advisor Makes Value Judgements’. Philosophy of Science 79: 893–904.Google Scholar
Stegenga, J. 2017. ‘Drug Regulation and the Inductive Risk Calculus’. In Elliott, K. and Richards, T. (eds.), Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 17–36. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stegenga, J. 2018. Medical Nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valles, S. A. 2018. Philosophy of Population Health: Philosophy for a New Public Health Era. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Valles, S. A. 2020. ‘The Predictable Inequities of COVID-19 in the US: Fundamental Causes and Broken Institutions’. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30: 191–214.Google Scholar
Viala-Gaudefroy, G. and Lindaman, D. 2020. ‘Donald Trump’s “Chinese Virus”: The Politics of Naming’. The Conversation (21 April). https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-chinese-virus-the-politics-of-naming-136796Google Scholar
Ward, Z. 2021. ‘On Value-Laden Science’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 85: 54–62.Google Scholar
Weingart, P. and Padberg, B., eds. 2014. University Experiments in Interdisciplinarity: Obstacles and Opportunities. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
Whyte, K. P., Dockry, M., Baule, W. and Fellman, D. 2014. ‘Supporting Tribal Climate Change Adaptation Planning through Community Participatory Strategic Foresight Scenario Development’. In: Project Reports. D. Brown, W. Baule, L. E. Briley and E. Gibbons, eds. Available from the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA) Center. http://glisa.umich.edu/media/files/projectreports/GLISA_ProjRep_Strategic-Foresight.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wickson, F. and Wynne, B. 2012. ‘Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe’. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15: 321–40.Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. 2009. ‘Bias and Values in Scientific Research’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsberg, E. 2018. Philosophy and Climate Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zihlman, A. 1985. ‘Gathering Stories for Hunting Human Nature’. Feminist Studies 11: 365–77.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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.

Values in Science
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

Values in Science
Available formats
×

Save element 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.

Values in Science
Available formats
×