Poiesis and Praxis 4 (4):253-265 (2006)
|Abstract||Scientific research that requires space flight has always been subject to comparatively strong external control. Its agenda has often had to be adapted to vacillating political target specifications. Can space scientists appeal to one or the other form of the widely acknowledged principle of freedom of research in order to claim more autonomy? In this paper, the difficult question of autonomy within planned research is approached by examining three arguments that support the principle of freedom of research in differing ways. Each argument has its particular strengths and limitations. Together they serve to demonstrate particular advantages of scientific autonomy, but in the case of space science, their force ultimately remains limited. However, as the arguments highlight the interrelations between scientific autonomy, the democratic process and the collective interest in scientific knowledge, they suggest that a coherent and sustained space science agenda might best be ensured by increasing the transparency of science policy decisions and involving the democratic public|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gerard Radnitzky (1976). Prinzipielle Problemstellungen der Forschungspolitik. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 7 (2):367-403.
Péter Kakuk (2009). The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4).
Kurt Bayertz (2006). Three Arguments for Scientific Freedom. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):377 - 398.
Alberto Cordero (2008). Epistemology and "the Social" in Contemporary Natural Science. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 96 (1):129-142.
Dudley Shapere (1964). The Causal Efficacy of Space. Philosophy of Science 31 (2):111-121.
Jukka Varelius (2008). Ethics Consultation and Autonomy. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (1).
Heidi Kjærnet (2010). At Arm's Length? Applied Social Science and its Sponsors. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):161-169.
Philip Kitcher (2007). Scientific Research–Who Should Govern? NanoEthics 1 (3).
David B. Resnik (2008). Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight. Episteme 5 (2):pp. 220-238.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #160,428 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?