Philosophical work on values in science is held back by widespread ambiguity about how values bear on sci entific choices. Here, I disambiguate several ways in which a choice can be value-laden and show that this disambiguation has the potential to solve and dissolve philosophical problems about values in science. First, I characterize four ways in which values relate to choices: values can motivate, justify, cause, or be impacted by the choices we make. Next, I put my proposed taxonomy to (...) work, using it to clarify one version of the argument from inductive risk. The claim that non-epistemic values must play a role in scientific choices that run inductive risk makes most sense as a claim about values being needed to justify such choices. The argument from inductive risk is not unique: many philosophical arguments about values in science can be more clearly understood and assessed by paying close attention to how values and choices are related. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

This book fills a gap in the literature on the Precautionary Principle by placing the principle within the wider context of precautionary reasoning and uses philosophical arguments and case studies to demonstrate when it does—and does not—apply. The book invites the reader to take a step back from the controversy surrounding the Precautionary Principle and consider the overarching rationales for responding to threats to the environment or public health. It provides practical guidance and probing insight for the intended audience, including (...) scholars, students, journalists, and policymakers. (shrink)

Normatively inappropriate scientific dissent prevents warranted closure of scientific controversies and confuses the public about the state of policy-relevant science, such as anthropogenic climate change. Against recent criticism by de Melo-Martín and Intemann of the viability of any conception of normatively inappropriate dissent, I identify three conditions for normatively inappropriate dissent: its generation process is politically illegitimate, it imposes an unjust distribution of inductive risks, and it adopts evidential thresholds outside an accepted range. I supplement these conditions with an inference-to-the-best-explanation (...) account of knowledge-based consensus and dissent to allow policy makers to reliably identify unreliable scientific dissent. (shrink)

“Female sexual dysfunction” is the type of contested disease that has sparked concern about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in medical science. Many policies have been proposed to manage industry influence without carefully evaluating whether the proposed policies would be successful. We consider a proposal for incorporating citizen stakeholders into scientific research and show, via a detailed case study of the pharmaceutical regulation of flibanserin, that such programs can be co-opted. In closing, we use Holman’s asymmetric arms race framework (...) as a tool for evaluating policies in industry-funded science. (shrink)

The precautionary principle holds that we should not allow scientific uncertainty to prevent us from taking precautionary measures in response to potential threats that are irreversible and potentially disastrous. Critics of the principle claim that it deters progress and development, is excessively risk-aversive and is unscientific. This paper argues that the principle can be scientific provided that the threats addressed by the principle are plausible threats, and the precautionary measures adopted are reasonable. The paper also argues that one may use (...) epistemic criteria, such as consistency, coherence and explanatory power, to determine whether a threat is plausible, and that one may use practical considerations, such as effectiveness, proportionality, cost-effectiveness, realism and consistency, to determine whether a response to a threat is reasonable. (shrink)

The last couple of decades have witnessed a renewed interest in the notion of inductive risk among philosophers of science. However, while it is possible to find a number of suggestions about the mitigation of inductive risk in the literature, so far these suggestions have been mostly relegated to vague marginal remarks. This paper aims to lay the groundwork for a more systematic discussion of the mitigation of inductive risk. In particular, I consider two approaches to the mitigation of inductive (...) risk—the individualistic approach, which maintains that individual scientists are primarily responsible for the mitigation of inductive risk, and the socialized approach, according to which the responsibility for the mitigation of inductive risk should be more broadly distributed across the scientific community or, even more broadly, across society. I review some of the argument for and against the two approaches and introduce two new problems for the individualistic approach, which I call the problem of precautionary cascades and the problem of exogenous inductive risk, and I argue that a socialized approach might alleviate each of these problems. (shrink)

In the first part of the paper, three objections to the precautionary principle are outlined: the principle requires some account of how to balance risks of significant harms; the principle focuses on action and ignores the costs of inaction; and the principle threatens epistemic anarchy. I argue that these objections may overlook two distinctive features of precautionary thought: a suspicion of the value of “full scientific certainty”; and a desire to distinguish environmental doings from allowings. In Section 2, I argue (...) that any simple distinction between environmental doings and allowings is untenable. However, I argue that the appeal of such a distinction can be captured within a relational account of environmental equity. In Section 3 I show how the proposed account of environmental justice can generate a justification for distinctively “precautionary” policy-making. (shrink)

Available methods such as technology assessment and risk analysis have failed to predict the effects of technological choices. We need to give up the futile predictive ambitions of previous approaches and instead base decisions on systematic studies of alternative future developments. It will then be necessary to cope with mere possibility arguments, i.e., arguments in which a conclusion is drawn from a mere possibility that a course of action may have certain consequences. A five-step procedure is proposed for the assessment (...) of such arguments. It includes a search for mere possibility arguments pointing in different directions, a scientific evaluation that may lead to the specification or refutation of some of these arguments, two symmetry tests, evaluation of the seriousness of the arguments in terms of novelty, spatio-temporal unlimitedness and interference with complex systems, and hypothetical retrospection that aims at finding a course of action that will be defensible in retrospect. (shrink)

This paper re-interprets the precautionary principle as a ‘social epistemic rule’. First, it argues that sometimes policy-makers should act on claims which have not been scientifically established....

The volume contributes to the ongoing nanoethics debate in four topical areas. The first part tackles questions of what could be called ‘meta-nanoethics’. Its focus lies on basic concepts and the issue of what - if anything - is truly novel and special about the new field of nanoethics or its subject matter. The second part of this volume presents a selection of interesting perspectives on some of the opportunities and challenges of nanotechnology. Part three takes a more in depth (...) look at one of the most pressing current concerns: how to deal with the risks and uncertainties surrounding nanotechnology in a responsible manner. In its fourth and final part the volume touches on issues of public debate and policy. (shrink)

The controversy over glyphosate-based herbicides, where there is extreme divergences in health and environmental assessments, is rooted in several methodological and normative factors. Foremost among them are the differences found in testing pure glyphosate compared to the testing of glyphosate formulations. The adjuvant chemicals found in formulations can be more toxic than the so-called “active ingredient.” Other factors can also account for why scientists reach different conclusions on the toxicological effects of GBH including the preconceptions and methodological choices they bring (...) into the study. Lack of consensus on the science can be problematic for policymakers. The paper argues that the toxicological science behind the GBH assessments is embedded in a normative substratum, which must be considered in policy decisions. (shrink)

Ethicists and policy makers have spent a good deal of effort considering how to make societal decisions in response to emerging public- and environmental-health risks like those posed by nanomaterials. This paper explores how these sorts of ethical and societal value judgments about responding to nanotechnology’s environmental health and safety risks arise not only in the public-policy domain but also “upstream,” in the performance of scientific research. It focuses especially on the notion that particular forms of research can be more (...) “precautionary” than others, in the sense that they tend to facilitate the identification and prevention of environmental or public health threats to a greater extent than other approaches. This is illustrated in a specific case study of recent research in nanotoxicology, which shows how ethical and societal values could influence at least four aspects of research: the nanomaterials studied; the biological models used to investigate them; the effects examined; and the standards of evidence required for drawing conclusions. The paper concludes by proposing some mechanisms for integrating more careful ethical reflection into these “upstream,” value-laden decisions that pervade research on nanotechnology as well as other policy-relevant areas of science. (shrink)

This paper aims to map the different theoretical options related to the Precautionary Principle (PP). Great part of the literature on it can be systematized by answering to three different questions: is there a basic structure in the PP? If so, in which interpretation of the PP does this structure express itself? Finally, are its damage or knowledge conditions fixed or adjustable? The first question separates realist from non-realist approaches. The second question allows us to discriminate monist, dualist, or pluralist (...) positions in relation to the three interpretations of the PP: decision rule, procedural requirement, or epistemic rule. Finally, the third question distinguishes rigid from non-rigid formulations of the principle. Based on this mapping, one can not only navigate through the different formulations of the PP present both in official documents and in specialized literature, but also deflect some of its common objections, and understand Hans Jonas’ eventual connection with PP. Notwithstanding, this mapping does not capture other important themes attached to PP, which motivates a final distinction between narrow and broader forms of PP. (shrink)

I offer a view of the aims and responsibilities of science, and use it to analyze critically van Fraassen’s view that ‘objectifying inquiry’ is fundamental to the nature of science.

En este trabajo analizamos una de las propuestas recientes que defienden modificaciones metodológicas en la evaluación de riesgos respecto a los estándares de prueba: el enfoque basado en el peso de las pruebas (weight of evidence). Este enfoque puede interpretarse como un caso de ciencia precautoria en la investigación sobre riesgos. Esto es, se trata de una metodología que pretende proporcionar resultados más protectores de la salud pública y del entorno que las metodologías usuales en la evaluación de riesgos. Sin (...) embargo, existe la posibilidad de que quienes se muestran en contra de la regulación de ciertas aplicaciones tecnológicas introduzcan artificialmente incertidumbre en el cuerpo de la evidencia. En consecuencia, la metodología del peso de las pruebas no conduce de manera automática a una mayor protección de la salud pública y del ambiente. Por ello es necesario analizar cada innovación valorando los posibles riesgos y los posibles beneficios sociales, y decidir en cada caso cuál de las dos posibilidades, la subregulación o la sobrerregulación, es más aceptable. El conocimiento científico es un elemento necesario para llevar a cabo esta valoración, pero no la determina.This paper analyzes one recent proposal for modifying the metodologies used in risk assessment: the Weight-Of-Evidence (WOE) approach. This approach is an example of precautionary science in risk research, i.e. a methodology which aims at a better protection of human health and the environment. However, some groups opposed to the regulation of certain technologies have started artificially introducing uncertainties into the body of evidence. This means that the WOE approach does not automatically lead to a higher level of health or environmental protection. It is therefore necessary to analyze each innovation on a case-by-case basis in order to evaluate its risks and benefits, and decide if to accept lower or, on the contrary, higher standards for its regulation. Scientific knowledge is a necessary element in this assessment, but not the decisive one. (shrink)

We provide examples of the extent and nature of environmental and human health problems and show why in the United States prevailing scientific and legal burden of proof requirements usually cannot be met because of the pervasiveness of scientific uncertainty. We also provide examples of how may assumptions, judgments, evaluations, and inferences in scientific methods are value-laden and that when this is not recognized results of studies will appear to be more factual and value-neutral than warranted. Further, we show that (...) there is a "tension" between the use of the 95 percent confidence rule as a normative basis to reduce speculation in scientific knowledge and other public policy and moral concerns embodied by the adoption of a precautionary principle. Finally, although there is no precise agreement regarding what a precautionary principle might entail, we make several recommendations regarding the placement of the burden of proof and the standard of proof that ought to be required in environmental and human health matters. (shrink)

Risk governance of GM plants and GMfood products is presently subject to heatedscientific and public controversies. Scientistsand representatives of the biotechnologyindustry have dominated debates concerningsafety issues. The public is suspicious withregard to the motives of scientists, companies,and political institutions involved. Thedilemmas posed are nested, embracing valuequestions, scientific uncertainty, andcontextual issues. The obvious lack of data andinsufficient information concerning ecologicaleffects call for application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP). There are,however, divergent opinions among scientistsabout the relevance of putative hazards,definition of potential ``adverse effects,'' (...) andwhether actions should be taken to preventharm. The reliance on the concept ofsubstantial equivalence in safety evaluation ofGM food is equally controversial. Consequently,value assumptions embedded in a scientificframework may be a barrier for employment ofthe PP. One of our major conclusions is thatprecautionary GMP usage requires riskassessment criteria yet undeveloped, as well asbroader and more long-term conceptions of risk,uncertainty, and ignorance. Conflicts ofinterest and public participation are otherissues that need to be taken intoconsideration. GMP governance regimes that arejustifiable from a precautionary and ethicalpoint of view must transcend traditionalscientific boundaries to include alternativescientific perspectives as well as publicinvolvement. (shrink)