Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T18:24:09.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

David B. Resnik
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

When scientific research collides with social values, science's right to self-governance becomes an issue of paramount concern. In this article, I develop an account of scientific autonomy within a framework of public oversight. I argue that scientific autonomy is justified because it promotes the progress of science, which benefits society, but that restrictions on autonomy can also be justified to prevent harm to people, society, or the environment, and to encourage beneficial research. I also distinguish between different ways of limiting scientific autonomy, and I argue that government involvement in scientific decision-making should usually occur through policies that control the process of science, rather than policies that control the content of science.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2008, pp. 220 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

References

REFERENCES

Alberts, B. 2005. “Modeling Attacks on the Food Supply.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 9737–8.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. and Brock, D.. 2004. Deciding for Others. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, J. 1995. The Day the Universe Changed. 2nd ed. Boston: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
Bush, V. 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htmGoogle Scholar
Calamari, J. and Perillo, J.. 1998. The Law of Contracts. 4th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. New York: Fawcett Crest.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. 45 C.F.R. 46. “Protection of Human Subjects.”Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services. 2006. “HIPAA Administrative Simplification.” Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/AdminSimpRegText.pdfGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, J. 2002. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dresser, R. 2001. When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, G. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J. 2006. “Censorship is alleged at NOAA.” Washington Post, February 6, A7.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1987. Harm to Others. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guston, D. 2000. Between Science and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, S. 2003. Defending Science – Within Reason. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Harrelson, J. and Falletta, J.. 2007. “The Privacy Rule (HIPAA) as It Relates to Clinical Research.” Cancer Treatment Research 132: 199–207.Google Scholar
Hossfeld, U. and Olsson, L.. 2002. “From the Modern Synthesis to Lysenkoism, and Back?” Science 297: 55–6.Google Scholar
Hull, D. 1988. Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joravsky, D. 1986. The Lysenko Affair. Reprint ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, J. 2004. “Sex studies ‘properly’ approved.” Science 303: 741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kantorovich, A. 1993. Scientific Discovery. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S.. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1986. Science and Values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C. 2001. Collective Rationality and Collective Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, C. 2005. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences. 2002. Integrity in Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. 2005. “Welcome.” Retrieved November 21, 2006, from http://www.biosecurityboard.gov/index.aspGoogle Scholar
Nowak, J. and Rotunda, R.. 2004. Constitutional Law. 7th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 1998. The Ethics of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 2006. “Openness vs. Secrecy in Scientific Research.” Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 2: 135–47.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. 2007. The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. 1977. “The Scientist's Right to Research: A Constitutional Analysis.” Southern California Law Review 51: 1203–78.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. 1985. The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. 1995. Philosophy of Social Science. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Shamoo, A. and Resnik, D., 2003. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, H. 1993. Marxism and the Philosophy of Science. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. 1994. Ethics of Scientific Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2004. Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. Washington: Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wein, L. and Liu, Y.. 2005. “Analyzing a Bioterror Attack on the Food Supply: The Case of Botulinum Toxin in Milk.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 9984–9.Google Scholar
Ziman, J. 2000. Real Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar