Bioscience – https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag041
Scientists have historically upheld an ideal of political and ethical neutrality when engaging in research activities. At the same time, they recognize that human values inevitably influence their practices. These two claims are not in conflict. By subscribing to an ideal of value neutrality, scientists must reflect on the ways that values might be influencing their own work. In addition, perhaps more importantly, they have a basis for holding their peers accountable for such biases. Hence, the ideal of value neutrality plays an important epistemic role in science. In a recent paper, we defend this ideal of value neutrality against the Values in Science (VIS) movement. VIS scholars argue that scientists should consult the morally correct ethical and political values when designing experiments, collecting, and interpreting data. We argue that this well-intentioned suggestion would undermine the reliability of science while rendering scientific results less useful for policy making.
Just as everyone recognizes that there is probably no such thing as a perfect democracy, they assumed that science was ever free of such biases. We all know that such biases find their way into our work. However, by the ideal of neutrality, scientists hold each other accountable for their biases.
Removal of personal bias, to the extent that is humanly possible, is a defining ambition for science. In a recent publication, we defend this ideal against recent arguments suggesting that scientists ought to incorporate the morally correct values into their work.
Ethical and political biases are perhaps some of the most difficult to values can bias in our understanding of the world. Therefore, it makes sense that scientists are usually encouraged to strive for ethical and political neutrality when conducting their work.
Leave a Reply