Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities

  • Paper in Philosophy of Science in Practice
  • Published:
European Journal for Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Philosophers of science, particularly those working on science and values, often talk about the need for science to be socially responsible. However, what this means is not clear. In this paper, we review the contributions of philosophers of science to the debate over socially responsible science and explore the dimensions that a fruitful account of socially responsible science should address. Our review shows that offering a comprehensive account is difficult. We contend that broad calls for socially responsible science that fail to attend to relevant dimensions are not the solution, as they preclude meaningful changes to research institutions and practices. We conclude that narrower, more explicit accounts are more likely to lead to substantive transformation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Notes

  1. We assume that there are also responsibilities to ensure the epistemic integrity or soundness of science, but our point here is just that calls for SRS tend to be broader, or involve something in addition to, epistemic integrity. What the relationship is between epistemically sound science and socially responsible science is an open question (and, as we will show, may depend on how SRS is understood). That science is socially responsible may be independent of whether it is epistemically sound, or it could be that these considerations are at least partly interrelated. Whether epistemic or ethical/social considerations are lexically prior is also an open question, one that also depends on how one conceives of SRS. In some contexts, it might make sense to ask whether some science is socially responsible only if it is already epistemically sound, but in other contexts, such as setting research agendas or framing questions, social considerations would be relevant before any methodologies are selected or data is collected or interpreted.

  2. Note that there may also be epistemic obligations for having an adequately diverse pool of human subjects in a clinical trial. Doing so may be necessary for achieving generalizable knowledge. Our point here is that ethical considerations can also give rise to responsibilities to increase diversity or foster participation of certain groups. As mentioned earlier, whether epistemic or ethical/social considerations come first or have lexical priority is an open question. Indeed, it might well be a misguided question insofar as these issues are often interconnected.

References

  • Abbott, L., & Grady, C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. J Empirical Res Human Res Ethics, 6(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Civil Engineers. (2020). Code of ethics. https://www.asce.org/career-growth/ethics/code-of-ethics

  • Biddle, J. B. (2020). Epistemic risks in cancer screening: Implications for ethics and policy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 79, 101200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J. (2006). Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 411–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially responsible science is more than “good science.” Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluhm, R. (2013). New research, old problems: Methodological and ethical issues in fMRI research examining sex/gender differences in emotion processing. Neuroethics, 6(2), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. J. (2013). The source and status of values for socially responsible science. Philosophical Studies, 163(1), 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. J. (2020). Science and moral imagination: A new ideal for values in science. University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dang, H. X. (2019). Do collaborators in science need to agree? Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 1029–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martín, I. (2008). Chimeras and human dignity. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(4), 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martín, I. (2011). Human dignity in international policy documents: A useful criterion for public policy? Bioethics, 25(1), 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martin, I., & Intemann, K. (2011). Feminist resources for biomedical research: Lessons from the HPV vaccines. Hypatia, 26(1), 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martin, I., & Intemann, K. (2016). The risk of using inductive risk to challenge the value-free ideal. Philosophy of Science, 83(4), 500–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2018). The fight against doubt : How to bridge the gap between scientists and the public. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2003). The moral responsibilities of scientists: Tensions between autonomy and responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2014). The moral terrain of science. Erkenntnis, 79, 961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egede, L. E., & Walker, R. J. (2020). Structural racism, social risk factors, and Covid-19-A dangerous convergence for Black Americans. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(12), e77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. A., Shim, J. M., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2014). Attention to local health burden and the global disparity of health research. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e90147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. G., Lipsitch, M., & Levinson, M. (2015). The ethics of biosafety considerations in gain-of-function research resulting in the creation of potential pandemic pathogens. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(11), 901–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender : How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleisher, W., & Šešelja, D. (2022). Responsibility for collective epistemic harms. Philosophy of Science, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.9

  • French, P. A., & Wettstein, H. K. (2006). Shared intentions and collective responsibility, midwest studies in philosophy. Blackwell Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fruchterman, J. (2004). Technology benefiting humanity. Ubiquity 2004 (March). https://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=985620

  • Gilbert, M. (2000). Sociality and responsibility : New essays in plural subject theory. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasswick, H. E. (2010). Scientific and lay communities: Earning epistemic trust through knowledge sharing. Synthese, 177(3), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. G. (2008). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities, and modernities. Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Havstad, J. C. (2021). Sensational science, archaic hominin genetics, and amplified inductive risk. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2021, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfand, B. T., Mongiu, A. K., Roehrborn, C. G., Donnell, R. F., Bruskewitz, R., Kaplan, S. A., Kusek, J. W., Coombs, L., McVary, K. T., & Investigators, M. (2009). Journal of Urology, 181(6), 2674–2679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K. (2015). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. European Journal of Philosophy of Science, 5, 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K. (2020). Understanding the problem of ‘Hype’: Exaggeration, values, and trust in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2021, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2010). Social values and scientific evidence: The case of the HPV vaccines. Biology & Philosophy, 25(2), 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). (2020). Code of ethics. https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Summary for policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf

  • John, S. (2015). Inductive risk and the contexts of communication. Synthese, 192(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, S. (2019). Science, truth and dictatorship: Wishful thinking or wishful speaking? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 78, 64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, I. (2014). Critical subjects: Participatory research needs to make room for debate. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 44(6), 733–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism, Studies in feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2016). Should some knowledge be forbidden? The case of cognitive differences research. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 779–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (2016). Science, respect for nature, and human well-being: Democratic values and the responsibilities of scientists today. Foundations of Science, 21(1), 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leff, N. H. (1984). Externalities, information costs, and social benefit-cost-analysis for economic-development - an example from telecommunications. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 32(2), 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuschner, A., & Pinto, M. F. (2021). How dissent on gender bias in academia affects science and society: Learning from the case of climate change denial. Philosophy of Science, 88(4), 573–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsitch, M., & Galvani, A. P. (2014). Ethical alternatives to experiments with novel potential pandemic pathogens. PLOS Medicine, 11(5), e1001646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge : Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macy, B. (2018). Dopesick : Dealers, doctors, and the drug company that addicted America. Hachette Audio, spoken word.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makhinson, M., Seshia, S. S., Young, G. B., Smith, P. A., Stobart, K., & Guha, I. N. (2021). The iatrogenic opioid crisis: An example of “Institutional Corruption Of Pharmaceuticals”? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 27(5), 1033–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, J. H. (2020). Lessons from corporate influence in the opioid epidemic: Toward a norm of separation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 17(2), 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female relationships. Signs, 16(3), 485–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mello, M. M., & Wolf, L. E. (2010). The Havasupai Indian tribe case–lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(3), 204–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product : How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelson, K. N., Reubenson, G., Weiss, S. L., Fitzgerald, J. C., Ackerman, K. K., Christie, L., Bush, J. L., Nadkarni, V. M., Thomas, N. J., Schreiner, M. S., The sepsis prevalence outcomes, and I. Pediat Acute Lung Injury Sepsis. (2018). Site variability in regulatory oversight for an international study of pediatric sepsis. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, 19(4), E180–E188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. (2011). Collective responsibility, epistemic action and climate change. Moral responsibility: Beyond free will and determinism, 27, 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, H., Matheson, D. H. M., Cairns-Smith, S., George, B. P., Palisch, C., & Dorsey, E. R. (2015). The anatomy of medical research US and international comparisons. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(2), 174–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullard, A. (2021). Landmark Alzheimer’s drug approval confounds research community. Nature, 594(7863), 309–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (US), National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science: ensuring the integrity of the research process. National Academy Press.

  • National Science Board (NSB). (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016. National Science Foundation (NSB-2016-1).

  • Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt : How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, T. (2012). The health impact fund: Enhancing justice and efficiency in global health. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(4), 537–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polito, C. C., Cribbs, S. K., Martin, G. S., O’Keeffe, T., Herr, D., Rice, T. W., & Sevransky, J. E. (2014). Critical Care Medicine, 42(5), 1105–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. § 46. (2023). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46

  • Reiss, J., & Kitcher, P. (2009). Biomedical research, neglected diseases, and well-ordered science. Theoria, 24, 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2016). The ethical challenges of socially responsible science. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance, 23(1), 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, H. S. (2012). Moral entanglements : The ancillary-care obligations of medical researchers. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S. (2012). Sexing the X: How the X became the ‘Female Chromosome’. Signs, 37(4), 909–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S. (2013). Sex itself : The search for male and female in the human genome. The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rolin, K. (2015). Values in science: The case of scientific collaboration. Philosophy of Science, 82(2), 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2006). Public science and social responsibilities. Development, 49(4), 68–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheman, N. (2001). Epistemology resuscitated. Objectivity and trustworthiness. In N. Tuana, & S. Morgen (Eds.), Engendering rationalities (pp. 23–52). SUNY Press.

  • Selgelid, M. J. (2016). Gain-of-function research: Ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 923–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1993). Burying uncertainty : Risk and the case against geological disposal of nuclear waste. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K. (2007). Taking action, saving lives : Our duties to protect environmental and public health. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sicotte, D. M., & Seamon, J. L. (2021). Solving the plastics problem: Moving the US from recycling to reduction. Society & Natural Resources, 34(3), 393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surkova, E., Nikolayevskyy, V., & Drobniewski, F. (2020). False-positive COVID-19 results: Hidden problems and costs. Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(12), 1167–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ginkel, K. C. H., Botzen, W. J. W., Haasnoot, M., Bachner, G., Steininger, K. W., Hinkel, J., Watkiss, P., Boere, E., Jeuken, A., de Murieta, E. S., & Bosello, F. (2020). Climate change induced socio-economic tipping points: Review and stakeholder consultation for policy relevant research. Environmental Research Letters, 15(2), 023001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6395

  • Vennis, I. M., Schaap, M. M., Hogervorst, P. A. M., de Bruin, A., Schulpen, S., Boot, M. A., van Passel, M. W. J., Rutjes, S. A., & Bleijs, D. A. (2021). Dual-use quickscan: A web-based tool to assess the dual-use potential of life science research. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.797076

  • Vodovotz, Y., Barnard, N., Hu, F. B., Jakicic, J., Lianov, L., et al. (2020). Prioritized research for the prevention, treatment, and reversal of chronic disease: Recommendations from the lifestyle medicine research summit. Frontiers in Medicine, 7, 585744. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.585744

  • von Philipsborn, P., Steinbeis, F., Bender, M. E., Regmi, S., & Tinnemann, P. (2015). Poverty-related and neglected diseases - an economic and epidemiological analysis of poverty relatedness and neglect in research and development. Global Health Action, 8, 25818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, N., Giatti, L. L., Bogus, C. M., Akerman, M., Jacobi, P. R., Ferraz, R., de Toledo, R., Mendes, S. A., Bluehorse-Anderson, M., Frazier, S., & Jones, M. (2017). Shared participatory research principles and methodologies: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil-45 years after Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” Societies, 7(2), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R. C., Forrow, L., Hodge, D. A., & Truog, R. D. (2020). Trustworthiness before trust - Covid-19 vaccine trials and the black community. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(22), e121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the anthropocene. English Language Notes, 55(1–2), 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsberg, E. (2012). Values and uncertainties in the predictions of global climate models. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22(2), 111–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (2001). Doing social science as a feminist: The engendering of archaeology. In A. N. H. Creager, E. Lunbeck, & L. Schiebinger (Eds.), (pp. 23–45). University of Chicago Press.

  • Yegros-Yegros, A., van de Klippe, W., Abad-Garcia, M. F., & Rafols, I. (2020). Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: The potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00560-6

Download references

Acknowledgements

I. de Melo-Martín discloses support for this work from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science of the National Institute of Health under award number UL1TR002384.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weill Cornell Medical College—Cornell University, Division of Medical Ethics, New York, NY, USA

    Inmaculada de Melo-Martín

  2. Montana State University, Center for Science, Technology, Ethics & Society, Bozeman, MT, USA

    Kristen Intemann

Authors
  1. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristen Intemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inmaculada de Melo-Martín.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Melo-Martín, I., Intemann, K. Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 13, 33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00537-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00537-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation