Should scientists remain objective

Donald Kennedy's Editorial “Research fraud and public policy” (18 April, p. [393][1]) yields a questionable conclusion. Kennedy recommends that “[o]nce the experiments are done and the data are out there, scientists may argue forcefully for the appropriateness of their conclusions and for the policies they believe should follow.” Recognizing that some might object to this recommendation because it threatens scientific objectivity, Kennedy nevertheless extends his conclusion. He instructs social scientists who have reliable data to advocate “policies based on what they have learned.” He gives prominence to this recommendation by stating that it is not only “good for them to take sides. Indeed, it's their responsibility.” Consider these recommendations in the context of the political wars fought over an abortion policy. During Reagan's presidency, an attempt was made to instill fear in women contemplating abortion. It was suggested that abortion would likely produce depression. This assumption was objectively tested by Major ([1][2]). Her findings over a 2-year period revealed that the risk of depression following an abortion is no greater than if an unplanned pregnancy is brought to term. Was it the responsibility of Major to argue that her scientific data supported a pro-choice policy? To her credit, she abided by the implications of the “naturalistic fallacy,” more pointedly described as the “fact/value dichotomy.” According to this concept, which has its origins in the philosophy of ethics, facts cannot logically generate value judgments. Whatever is known abut the factual consequences of abortion, they are irrelevant to the ethical judgment about abortion, whether it is morally right or wrong. Although scientific information cannot dictate ethical judgments and their public policy implications, it nevertheless can assist a democracy in its policy-making decisions ([2][3]). In the words of Philip Handler ([3][4]), former President of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists “best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics” (p. 1093). Another factor should be considered. Coupling social science with political advocacy will lead to public mistrust that will deny a democracy the opportunity to base its public policies on reliable scientific evidence. 1. 1.[↵][5]1. B. Major , “Beyond choice: Myths and facts about adjustment to abortion,” 1997 Wellness Lectures, California Wellness Foundation and University of California Wellness Lecture Program (abstract available online at [www.ucop.edu/ucophome/healaff/wellpgm/lec97.html][6]). 2. 2.[↵][7]1. H. H. Kendler , Amoral Thoughts About Morality: The Intersection of Science, Psychology, and Ethics (Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 2000). 3. 3.[↵][8]1. P. Handler , Science 208, 1093 (1980). [OpenUrl][9][FREE Full Text][10] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.300.5618.393 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [6]: http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/healaff/wellpgm/lec97.html [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2. in text" [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3. in text" [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DHANDLER%26rft.auinit1%253DP.%26rft.volume%253D208%26rft.issue%253D4448%26rft.spage%253D1093%26rft.epage%253D1093%26rft.atitle%253DPublic%2BDoubts%2BAbout%2BScience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.208.4448.1093%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17783053%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6MzoiUERGIjtzOjExOiJqb3VybmFsQ29kZSI7czozOiJzY2kiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTM6IjIwOC80NDQ4LzEwOTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMjoiL3NjaS8zMDEvNTYzMS8zMTAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9