Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:57:59.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Taxonomy of Transparency in Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2020

Kevin C. Elliott Open the ORCID record for Kevin C. Elliott [Opens in a new window]
Kevin C. Elliott*
Affiliation:
Lyman Briggs College, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
*
Email: kce@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both scientists and philosophers of science have recently emphasized the importance of promoting transparency in science. For scientists, transparency is a way to promote reproducibility, progress, and trust in research. For philosophers of science, transparency can help address the value-ladenness of scientific research in a responsible way. Nevertheless, the concept of transparency is a complex one. Scientists can be transparent about many different things, for many different reasons, on behalf of many different stakeholders. This paper proposes a taxonomy that clarifies the major dimensions along which approaches to transparency can vary. By doing so, it provides several insights that philosophers and other science studies scholars can pursue. In particular, it helps address common objections to pursuing transparency in science, it clarifies major forms of transparency, and it suggests avenues for further research on this topic.

Keywords

open sciencetransparencyvalues and sciencevalue judgmentsscience communicationresearch ethics
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 52 , Issue 3: Engaging with Science, Values, and Society , April 2022 , pp. 342 - 355
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

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

Angler, M. 2017. Science Journalism: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauchner, H., and Fontanarosa, P. B.. 2019. “The Challenges of Sharing Data in an Era of Politicized Science.” Journal of the American Medical Association 322: 2290–91.Google Scholar
Betz, G. 2013. “In Defence of the Value-Free Ideal.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3: 207–20.Google Scholar
Biddle, J. 2013. “Institutionalizing Dissent: A proposal for an Adversarial System of Pharmaceutical Research.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23: 325–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, J. 2018. “‘Antiscience Zealotry’? Values, Epistemic Risk, and the GMO Debate.” Philosophy of Science 85: 360–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. 2020. “On Predicting Recidivism: Epistemic Risk, Tradeoffs, and Values in Machine Learning.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J., and Winsberg, E., 2010. Value Judgements and the Estimation of Uncertainty in Climate Modeling. In New Waves in Philosophy of Science, edited by Magnus, P. D. and Busch, J., 172–97. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R., 2010. “One-Shot Science.” In The Commodification of Academic Research, edited by Radder, Hans, 90–109. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Brown, M. 2018. “Weaving Value Judgment into the Tapestry of Science.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10 (10). http://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.010.Google Scholar
Cavalier, D., and Kennedy, E., eds. 2016. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science. Tempe: Arizona State University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., and Godlee, F.. 2013. “All Trials Must Be Registered and the Results Published.” BMJ 346: f105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheruvelil, K. S., and Soranno, P.. 2018. “Data-Intensive Ecological Research Is Catalyzed by Open Science and Team Science.” BioScience 68 (1): 813–22.Google Scholar
Corburn, J. 2005. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity.” Synthese 138: 453–73.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2010. “Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles, Energy Policy, and the Ethics of Expertise.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 27: 376–93.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2012. “Epistemic and Methodological Iteration in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43: 376–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2016. “Environment.” In Miseducation: A History of Ignorance Making in American and Abroad, edited by Angulo, A. J., 96–119. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2017. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2018a. “Addressing Industry Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity.” Philosophy of Science 85: 857–68.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2018b. “A Tapestry of Values: Response to My Critics.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10 (11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2019. “Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement.” Frontiers in Communication 4: 71.Google Scholar
Elliott, K., McCright, A., Allen, S., and Dietz, T.. 2017. “Values in Environmental Research: Citizens’ Views of Scientists Who Acknowledge Values.” PLoS ONE 12: e0186049.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K., and Resnik, D.. 2019. “Making Open Science Work for Science and Society.” Environmental Health Perspectives 127 (7): 075002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K., and Rosenberg, J.. 2019. “Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4: 9.Google Scholar
Else, H. 2018. “Radical Open-Access Plan Could Spell End to Journal Subscriptions.” Nature 561: 17–18.Google ScholarPubMed
FDAAA, Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-85 § 801. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf.Google Scholar
Foster, E., and Deardorff, A.. 2017. “Open Science Framework (OSF).” Journal of the Medical Library Association 105: 203–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havstad, J. C. 2020. “Archaic Hominin Genetics and Amplified Inductive Risk.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havstad, J. C., and Brown, M. J.. 2017. “Inductive Risk, Deferred Decisions, and Climate Science Advising.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, edited by Elliott, K. and Richards, T., 101–25. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heald, D. 2006. “Varieties of Transparency.” In Transparency: The Key to Better Governance ?, edited by Hood, C. and Heald, D., 23–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holloway, T., Jacob, D. J., and Miller, D.. 2018. “Short History of NASA Applied Science Teams for Air Quality and Health.” Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 12 (4): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. 2007. “What Happens When Transparency Meets Blame Avoidance?” Public Management Review 9 (2): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, I. 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5: 217–32.Google Scholar
Intemann, I. 2020. “Understanding the Problem of Hype: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, S. 2018. “Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity, and Honesty.” Social Epistemology 32: 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, R., Lane, M., and Oppenheimer, M.. 2014. “The Ethics of Scientific Communication under Uncertainty.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13: 343–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. 2018. “Adding to the Tapestry.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 10 (9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, J. 2020. “The New Worries about Science.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovaka, K. 2019. “Climate Change Denial and Beliefs about Science.” Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02210-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupferschmidt, K. 2018. “A Recipe for Rigor.” Science 361: 1192–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Lacey, H. 2017. “The Safety of Using Genetically Engineered Foods: Empirical Evidence and Value Judgments.” Public Affairs Quarterly 31: 259–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C., and Moher, D.. 2017. “Promote Scientific Integrity via Journal Peer Review Data.” Science 357: 256–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonelli, S. 2016. Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E., and Schweizer, V.. 2014. “Objectivity and a Comparison of Methodological Scenario Approaches for Climate Change Research.” Synthese 191: 2049–88.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, J., Best, B., Scarborough, C., Afflerbach, J., Frazier, M., O’Hara, C., Jiang, N., and Halpern, B.. 2017. “Our Path to Better Science in Less Time Using Open Data Science Tools.” Nature Ecology and Evolution 1: 160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malakoff, D. 2018. “EPA Science Advisers Want Chance to Comment on Controversial Transparency Plan.” Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.. 2013. “Backtracking and the Ethics of Framing: Lessons from Voles and Vasopressin.” Accountability in Research 20: 206–226.Google ScholarPubMed
Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt Is Their Product. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ware, J. J., and Ioannidis, J. P.. 2017. “A Manifesto for Reproducible Science.” Nature Human Behaviour 1 (1): 0021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NAS (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2018. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G.C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., and Contestabile, M.. 2015. “Promoting an Open Research Culture.” Science 348 (6242): 1422–25.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Malley, M., Elliott, K., and Burian, R.. 2010. “From Genetic to Genomic Regulation: Iterative Methods in miRNA Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41: 407–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, O. 2006. “Transparency and the Ethics of Communication.” In Transparency: The Key to Better Governance?, edited by Heald, D. and Hood, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., and Conway, E.. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury.Google ScholarPubMed
Ottinger, G., and Cohen, B., eds. 2011. Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parker, W., and Lusk, G.. 2019. “Incorporating User Values into Climate Services.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0325.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society, Royal. 2012. Science as an Open Enterprise. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Schroeder, A. 2017. “Using Democratic Values in Science: An Objection and (Partial) Response.” Philosophy of Science 84: 1044–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, A. 2019. “Democratic Values: A Better Foundation for Public Trust in Science.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, G., Kirschbaum, D., Anderson, E., and Rashid, K.. 2016. “Role of Earth Observation Data in Disaster Response and Recovery: From Science to Capacity Building.” In Earth Science Satellite Applications, edited by Hossain, Faisal, 119–46. Cham, Switz.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuurbiers, D., and Fisher, E., 2009. Lab‐Scale Intervention. EMBO Reports 10: 424–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shienke, E., Baum, S., Tuana, N., Davis, K., and Keller, K.. 2011. “Intrinsic Ethics Regarding Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Change.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17: 503–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanev, R. 2017. “Inductive Risk and Outcomes in Composite Outcome Measures.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, edited by Elliott, K. and Richards, T., 171–92. New York: Oxford University Press.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar