Skip to main content
Log in

Reframing the question of forbidden knowledge for modern science

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I use the concept of forbidden knowledge to explore questions about putting limits on science. Science has generally been understood to seek and produce objective truth, and this understanding of science has grounded its claim to freedom of inquiry. What happens to decision making about science when this claim to objective, disinterested truth is rejected? There are two changes that must be made to update the idea of forbidden knowledge for modern science. The first is to shift from presuming that decisions to constrain or even forbid knowledge can be made from a position of omniscience (perfect knowledge) to recognizing that such decisions made by human beings are made from a position of limited or partial knowledge. The second is to reject the idea that knowledge is objective and disinterested and accept that knowledge (even scientific knowledge) is interested. In particular, choices about what knowledge gets created are normative, value choices. When these two changes are made to the idea of forbidden knowledge, questions about limiting or forbidding lines of inquiry are shown to distract attention from the more important matters of who makes and how decisions are made about what knowledge is produced. Much more attention should be focused on choosing directions in science, and as this is done, the matter of whether constraints should be placed on science will fall into place.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shattuck, R. (1996) Forbidden Knowledge, St. Martin’s Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Smith, B., ed. (1996) The Monist 79 2 (1996).

  3. Johnson, D.G. (1996) Forbidden Knowledge and Science as Professional Activity, The Monist 79 2: 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rescher, N. (1987) Forbidden Knowledge and Other Essays on the Philosophy of Cognition, D. Reidel, Dortdecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haraway, D. (1991) Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective, Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Knorr-Cetina, K. and M. Mulkay (1983) Science Observed Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage Publications Ltd.

  7. Longino, H. (1990) Science As Social Knowledge, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Restivo, S. (1995) The Theory Landscape in Science Studies, in Jasanoff, S., et. al., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage Publications, pp. 95–110.

  9. Dickson, D. (1984) The New Politics of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Racker, E. (1989) A View of Misconduct in Science, Nature 339: 91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ashford, N. (1983) A Framework for Examining the Effects of Industrial Funding on Academic Freedom and the Integrity of the University, Science, Technology, & Human Values 8 (2): 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tranoy, K.E. (1996) Ethical Problems of Scientific Research: An Action-Theoretic Approach, The Monist 79 (2): 186.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rawls, J. (1955) Two Concepts of Rules, The Philosophical Review 64; 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson, D.G. (1994) Chapter 3: Professional Ethics in: Johnson, D.G., Computer Ethics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bimber, B. and D.H. Guston (1995) Politics by the Same Means: Government and Science in the United States, in: Jasanoff, S., et al., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage Publications, pp. 554–571.

  16. Hilts, P.J. (1992) The Science Mob: The David Baltimore Case—And Its Lessons, The New Republic, May 18: 25, 28–31.

  17. Roberts, L. (1991) Misconduct: Caltech’s Trial by Fire, Science 253: 1344–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah G. Johnson PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, D.G. Reframing the question of forbidden knowledge for modern science. SCI ENG ETHICS 5, 445–461 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0045-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0045-2

Keywords

Navigation