Value-Free or Value-Laden Science

The idea of value-free refers to “social, ethical, and political values should have no influence over the reasoning of scientists, and that scientists should proceed in their work with a little concern as possible for such values” Douglas (2009, 1).

From the statement of value-free science above, what I understand is that reasoning of scientists should be free from any influences from society, ethics, and politics. Reasoning is defined as “the process of making inferences from a body of information” (Mohanan 2011). He further gives an example of Zeno. When we say that Zeno is a spider, then the reasoning is that Zeno has eight legs. How this reasoning is free from influence of society, ethical, and political values? There is a rule of reasoning, [(1) information (premises) à (2) reasoning à (3) inference (conclusion)] (Mohanan 2011). From the rule mentioned, I see that the reasoning is logical. Let me refer to Mohanan’s (2011) good and bad reasoning example as follows:

Good reasoning	Bad reasoning
All humans are mammals. Mohanan is a human. Therefore Mohanan is a mammal.	All humans are mammals. Mohanan is a mammal. Therefore Mohanan is a human.

The good reasoning follows the logical structure whereas the bad one does not appear as logical. Therefore, reasoning needs to be “logic”. Now what I would like to point out is that why “we” see this reasoning as “good” or “bad”. Is that our “values” assigned to the reasoning of the scientists? If a scientist has only information, “Mohanan is a mammal” and he reaches a conclusion of “Therefore Mohanan is a human”. What would our value judgment on the reasoning of the scientist? Bad reasoning! Therefore, I would say that science is not value-free.

Then, when it is not value-free, it must be loaded with values or value-laden, according to Lekkha-Kowalik (2010). Among the three aspects of value-ladenness, I would like to point out one aspect: connection between costs or funding sources and the science. A scientist seeking a funding from a tobacco company might be loaded with values from underlying wish of the tobacco company. The company may wish to see the there are no relationship between smoking and cancer. When the scientist accepts the money/funding, he may have agreed findings to support the desired relationship. Recently, I had attended a lecture of a speaker from Arizona Department of Health who claimed that there were many tobacco studies that were funded by the companies and their findings reveal no relationship between smoking and lung cancer.

Since there cannot be a value-free science, we see the science is value-laden. Douglas (2009) points out that value-free or value-neutral are impossible and they have limited implementation. Therefore, the best alternative would be searching for “unacceptable” values. Well, I would argue that “unacceptable” values are also value-laden. Whose unacceptability is that? Who is going to make decision on “unacceptable” values based on whose value judgments. The only answer I have is “I do not know”.

References

Douglas, H.E. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Lekka-Kowalik, A. 2010. Why Science cannot be Value-Free Understanding the Rationality and Responsibility of Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 16(1):33-41.

Mohanan, K.P. What is Reasoning? 2011. 3-15-2011.