Science, Policy, and the Transparency of Values
Science, Policy, and the Transparency of Values
复制标题
DOI：
10.1289/ehp.1408107
复制
发表时间：
2014-07-01
影响因子：
10.4
通讯作者：
Resnik, David B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elliott, Kevin C.;Resnik, David B.
背景资料：反对派科学家最近就欧盟委员会（EC）关于内分泌干扰化学品监管政策的初步报告展开了激烈的争论。除了科学问题之外，一个核心问题是科学家如何在向政策制定者提供信息时保持客观性。目标：根据当前关于科学研究中的客观性和利益冲突的伦理、概念和实证研究，我们提出了以促进客观性、公众信任和政策相关性的方式传播科学发现的指导原则。讨论：科学推理的概念研究和实证研究都表明，防止政策相关的科学研究受到价值判断的影响是不现实的。从概念上讲，目前对欧共体报告的争议说明了科学家在为公共政策提供信息时如何被迫对适当的证据标准做出价值判断。实证研究提供了进一步的证据表明，科学家们受到各种潜在的潜意识的金融，社会，政治和个人利益和value.Conclusions的影响：当科学证据是不确定的，重大的监管决策处于危险之中，这是不现实的，认为价值观可以排除在科学推理。因此，压制或隐藏利益或价值观的努力实际上可能会损害科学的客观性和公众的信任，而将隐含的利益和价值观公开的意愿可能是促进良好科学和政策的最佳途径。
Background: Opposing groups of scientists have recently engaged in a heated dispute over a preliminary European Commission (EC) report on its regulatory policy for endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In addition to the scientific issues at stake, a central question has been how scientists can maintain their objectivity when informing policy makers.Objectives: Drawing from current ethical, conceptual, and empirical studies of objectivity and conflicts of interest in scientific research, we propose guiding principles for communicating scientific findings in a manner that promotes objectivity, public trust, and policy relevance.Discussion: Both conceptual and empirical studies of scientific reasoning have shown that it is unrealistic to prevent policy-relevant scientific research from being influenced by value judgments. Conceptually, the current dispute over the EC report illustrates how scientists are forced to make value judgments about appropriate standards of evidence when informing public policy. Empirical studies provide further evidence that scientists are unavoidably influenced by a variety of potentially subconscious financial, social, political, and personal interests and values.Conclusions: When scientific evidence is inconclusive and major regulatory decisions are at stake, it is unrealistic to think that values can be excluded from scientific reasoning. Thus, efforts to suppress or hide interests or values may actually damage scientific objectivity and public trust, whereas a willingness to bring implicit interests and values into the open may be the best path to promoting good science and policy.