David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Poiesis and Praxis 4 (4):253-265 (2006)
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)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark B. Brown & David H. Guston (2009). Science, Democracy, and the Right to Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):351-366.
Similar books and articles
Philip Kitcher (2007). Scientific Research–Who Should Govern? NanoEthics 1 (3):177-184.
Heidi Kjærnet (2010). At Arm's Length? Applied Social Science and its Sponsors. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):161-169.
Jukka Varelius (2008). Ethics Consultation and Autonomy. Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (1):65-76.
Dudley Shapere (1964). The Causal Efficacy of Space. Philosophy of Science 31 (2):111-121.
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.
Kurt Bayertz (2006). Three Arguments for Scientific Freedom. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):377 - 398.
Péter Kakuk (2009). The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):545-562.
Gerard Radnitzky (1976). Prinzipielle Problemstellungen der Forschungspolitik. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 7 (2):367-403.
David B. Resnik (2008). Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight. Episteme 5 (2):pp. 220-238.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #162,810 of 1,088,392 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,392 )
How can I increase my downloads?