In the article “Is Scientific Research Value-Neutral?” Leslie Stevenson argues that scientific research as it is traditionally practiced is not a value-free activity as many claims. The author suggests that in the present time, “pure science” does not exist since scientists are hardly in a position to pursue knowledge for its own sake since there is mostly an end that the scientist aims to achieve by his work. The author highlights the huge proportion of scientists currently engaged in government defense research as well as the huge amount of effort dedicated to weaponry and especially perfecting nuclear bombs as proof that scientific research is conducted with specific goals in mind. The author takes care to note that huge costs are incurred in research work which makes control by large institutes which fund the research almost inevitable. Politics also play a part in the decision-making of scientific research work.
The author reveals that the objectivity of science as a whole has been questioned since one has to take up a point of view when determining objectivity. The different perspectives may include; religious, political, or ancient world-views amongst others. Thus what may pass as objectiveness from one viewpoint may be seen as subjective from another perspective. By these arguments, the objectivity of values is greatly questioned and if this does not exist, it is impossible to have value-neutrality in science.
The author considers the option of distinguishing between pure science and applied science. This consideration holds that pure science is objective in nature and is aimed at simply demonstrating how the world works without any values being imposed on a person. Pure science, therefore, aims at expanding human knowledge for the sake of itself. The author goes on to state that according to this option, the scientific knowledge gained is for the society and it is the society that decides on the application of the scientific knowledge. Stevenson challenges all the options on various grounds.
On the point that scientists are concerned with knowledge for its own sake, the author documents that most scientists are inclined to advance their reputation and profession and reap the power and rewards that come from their findings. The author also shows that the scientist is increasingly reliant on external funds for his research and these funders impose some values on the scientist thus obstructing any commitment to increasing human knowledge that the scientist might have. With regard to the option that the society decides on the use of scientific knowledge, the author shows that the decisions are made by institutes, governments, and universities. Also, most research takes place in great secrecy and the public is only made aware of the results of scientific research at a later stage when little changes can be made.
The author quotes various writers who have questioned the objectivity of science including Paul Feyerabend who recommends a separation of science and state, Harbert Marcuse who states that pure science aims at advancing domination from the very onset, Jeremy Rifkin who argues that we must rethink our assumptions of knowledge since up to this point, we pursue knowledge to gain power and control, and Nicholas Maxwell who argues that science should be committed to improving human life and therefore have goals of human value. The author mentions these writers to assert his view that there is great and credible opposition to the notion of “value-less science”.
The author concludes by stating that scientific research cannot be value-neutral since it is a human activity and it, therefore, involves people making choices on how to spend time and resources. The author supports his conclusion by noting that all scientific inquiries require time and effort on the part of the person and as such, there must be some intrinsic value for one to choose to do something.