Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal

225 Pages·2009·1.196 MB·English

by  Heather E. Douglas

Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal

ScIence, PolIcy,
and the
Value-Free Ideal
HeaTHer e . douGlaS
L
university of Pittsburgh Press
Published by the University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15260
Copyright © 2009, University of Pittsburgh Press
All rights reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America
Printed on acid-free paper
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Douglas, Heather E.
Science, policy, and the value-free ideal / Heather E. Douglas.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-8229-6026-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-8229-6026-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Science—Social aspects. 2. Science—Moral and ethical aspects. 3. Scientists—
Professional ethics. I. Title.
Q175.5.D68 2009
174'.95—dc22 2009005463
conTenTS L
lIST oF abbreVIaTIonS VII
PreFace Ix
cHaPTer 1. Introduction: Science Wars and Policy Wars 1
cHaPTer 2. The Rise of the Science Advisor 23
cHaPTer 3. Origins of the Value-Free Ideal for Science 44
cHaPTer 4. The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists 66
cHaPTer 5. The Structure of Values in Science 87
cHaPTer 6. Objectivity in Science 115
cHaPTer 7. The Integrity of Science in the Policy Process 133
cHaPTer 8. Values and Practices 156
ePIloGue 175
noTeS 179
reFerenceS 193
Index 205
v

abbreVIaTIonS L
AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
DOD Department of Defense
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FCST Federal Council for Science and Technology
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GAC General Advisory Committee
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
NACA National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics
NDRC National Defense Research Committee
NIH National Institutes of Health
NRC National Research Council
NRB National Resources Board
NCB Naval Consulting Board
NSF National Science Foundation
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
ODM Office of Defense Mobilization
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ONR Office of Naval Research
OST Office of Science and Technology
OSRD Office of Scientific Research and Development
PSAC Presidential Science Advisory Committee
SAB Science Advisory Board
SAC Science Advisory Committee

vii

PreFace L
This book has been a long time in the making. I first conceived of the
project in 2001 as an arc through the historical, philosophical, and practical
terrain of science in policymaking. It seemed to me that the chronic debates
and misconceptions that plague this terrain stemmed from the embrace
of a particular ideal for scientific reasoning, the value-free ideal. Articu-
lated clearly and defended by philosophers of science for over forty years,
it was also pervasive in the science policy communities with which I was
in conversation, particularly the risk assessment community I found at the
Society for Risk Analysis (SRA). At the SRA’s annual meetings, I found not
only a dynamic and open set of people deeply committed to hashing out
the scientific implications of toxicology, epidemiology, biochemistry, and
other disciplines, but also a community that believed that social and ethical
values were not supposed to be involved in the assessment of this science,
even though they continually found themselves unable to do a complete
assessment without those values. The tensions were palpable, even as the
fundamental norms causing those tensions were not made explicit. I wanted
to bring those norms out in the open, examine their historical roots, see if
they were in fact the correct norms, and, if possible, attempt to resolve the
tensions.
This book is the result. As a consequence, I began the project with
three distinct audiences in mind. First, the book was to make a contribu-
tion to the philosophy of science, for that is the discipline that articulates
most clearly and guards most zealously the norms of science. If I could not
make arguments that were at least provocative, if not convincing, to this
community, I would doubt the reliability of my own arguments. However,
as I delved into the material, I began to see more clearly the historical roots
ix