Intellectual Liberty and the Public Regulation of Scientific Research

Thumbnail Image
Supplemental Files
Date
2012-01-01
Authors
Wolf, Clark
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Person
Wolf, Clark
Professor
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Philosophy and Religious Studies
The Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies focuses on two areas of study. Its major in Philosophy seeks to examine human experience and reality through critical reflection and argument, developing skills in critical analysis and knowledge of ethics and philosophy. The major in Religious Studies seeks to investigate and reflect upon world religions in an objective, critical, and appreciative manner, providing students with knowledge of religion’s nature and its roles in social and individual life.
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Philosophy and Religious Studies
Abstract

Calls to regulate or restrict scientific research are often a matter of politics, and public desire to regulate science may have its source in several different underlying interests: on one side, people may be motivated by an interest to control risks, prevent harms, or limit access to powerful or dangerous technologies. These interests are easy to understand, and often provide entirely appropriate and creditable grounds for regulation. In a darker vein, people may be motivated by more general mistrust of science, or by moral or religious disapproval of some kinds of research. While these motives may be easy to understand, clearly they should be resisted. But if researchers hope to avoid inappropriate regulations, we need to be prepared to explain our research to the public. And when research is funded by tax dollars, it is especially important that scientists should be able to justify its benefit to taxpayers and legislators.

Comments

From Debating Science: Deliberation, Values, and the Common Good, edited by Dane Scott and Blake Francis (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2012), pp. 83–99. Copyright © 2012 by Dane Scott and Blake Francis. All rights reserved.

Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Source
Copyright
Sun Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2012
Collections