Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feminist Values, Commercial Values, and the Bias Paradox in Biomedical Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Meta-Philosophical Reflection on Feminist Philosophies of Science

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science ((BSPS,volume 317))

Abstract

Growing concerns about the commercialization of biomedical research and its potential to lead to biased inquiry has sparked calls for a renewed commitment to impartiality. Feminists, however, have roundly rejected the idea that objectivity requires scientists to be value-neutral or disinterested. Indeed, some feminists have argued that concerns about profit-driven would be best addressed by incorporating feminist values into scientific practices. This is thought to present feminists with a paradox: If commercial interests are problematic in research because they are partial to non-epistemic interests, then it would seem that feminist values would also be problematic on similar grounds. Here we argue that this apparent tension trades on an equivocation about the sense in which commercial values are problematically partial. We show not only that the bias paradox can be resolved by feminist theorists, but that feminist values can play important roles in addressing concerns related to bias in profit-driven research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adam, M. (2008). Promoting disinterestedness or making use of bias? In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice (pp. 235–254). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (2004). Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia, 19(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antony, L. (1993). Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In L. Antony & C. Witt (Eds.), A mind of one’s own (pp. 110–153). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgerson, K. (2011). Amending and defending critical contextual empiricism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, F. T., Murthy, S., & Mandl, K. D. (2010). Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(3), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, H. (2007). Hooked: Ethics, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical industry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, D. M., & Detsky, A. S. (2008). Everyone’s a little bit biased (even physicians). Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(24), 2893–2895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (2006). Well-ordered science: Evidence for use. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 981–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colagiuri, R., Colagiuri, S., Yach, D., & Pramming, S. (2006). The answer to diabetes prevention: Science, surgery, service delivery, or social policy? American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1562–1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crasnow, S. (2006). Feminist anthropology and sociology: Issues for social science. In S. Turner & M. Risjord (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 15, pp. 827–860)., Philosophy of anthropology and sociology Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currat, L., de Francisco, A., Al-Tuwaijri, S., Ghaffar, A., & Jupp, S. (2004). 10/90 report on health research 2003–2004. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. (2008). Just health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    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 Winter, J. (2012). How to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted. Theoria, 27, 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. (2001). Human nature and the limits of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men (2nd ed.). New York, NY: BasicBooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenberg, M. (2013). How can feminist theories of evidence assist clinical reasoning and decision-making? Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy. doi:10.1080/02691728.2013.794871

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, B. (1994). What could a feminist science be? Monist, 77(4), 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (1998). Manifesto of a passionate moderate: Unfashionable essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. G. (2004). A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from Standpoint Theory’s Controversiality. Hypatia, 19(1), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hundleby, C. (1997). Where standpoint stands now. Women & Politics, 18(3), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K. (2010). Sciences from below: Feminisms, postcolonialities, and modernities. Hypatia, 25(2), 464–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intemann, K., & de Melo-Martin, I. (2014). Addressing problems in profit-driven research: How can feminist conceptions of objectivity help? European Journal For Philosophy of Science, 4(2), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M. J., Cook-Johnson, R. J., & Cleland, L. G. (2007). Selective COX-2 inhibitors, eicosanoid synthesis and clinical outcomes: A case study of system failure. Lipids, 42(9), 779–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, A. W., Hilden, J., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2006). Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review. BMJ, 333(7572), 782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., Caplan, A. L., & Merz, J. F. (2003). All gifts large and small—toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. American Journal of Bioethics, 3(3), 39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. N., Mermer, M. J., Myers, E., & Sandhu, H. S. (2008). The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature. American Journal of Orthopedics, 37(12), E205–E212. discussion E212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilama, W. L. (2009). The 10/90 gap in sub-saharan Africa: Resolving inequities in health research. Acta Tropica, 112(Suppl. 1), S8–S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2003). A philosophy of science for the twenty-first century. Philosophy of Science, 70(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O. A., & Bero, L. (2012). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12, MR000033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, R. S. (2009). Rethinking global health challenges: Towards a “global compact” for reducing the burden of chronic disease. Public Health, 123(3), 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarity, T. O., & Wagner, W. (2008). Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkansah, N., Nguyen, T., Iraninezhad, H., & Bero, L. (2009). Randomized trials assessing calcium supplementation in healthy children: Relationship between industry sponsorship and study outcomes. Public Health Nutrition, 12(10), 1931–1937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, T. W. M. (2009). The health impact fund and its justification by appeal to human rights. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4), 542–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, T. W. M. (2002). World poverty and human rights: Cosmopolitan responsibilities and reforms. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2007). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2008). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29(2), 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2012). The web of valief. An assessment of feminist radical empiricism. In S. L. Crasnow & A. M. Superson (Eds.), Out from the shadows: Analytical feminist contributions to traditional philosophy (pp. 435–450). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P. (2008). Diseases of poverty and the 10/90 gap. In P. Stevens (Ed.), Fighting the diseases of poverty (pp. 126–140). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, X., Briel, M., Busse, J. W., You, J. J., Akl, E. A., Mejza, F., et al. (2011). The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: Systematic review. BMJ, 342, d1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tricco, A. C., Tetzlaff, J., Pham, B., Brehaut, J., & Moher, D. (2009). Non-cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(4), 380–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidyasagar, D. (2006). Global notes: The 10/90 gap disparities in global health research. Journal of Perinatology, 26(1), 55–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2008). The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Amico, K. R., Friedland, B., Gafos, M., Mansoor, L., et al. (2013). Microbicide clinical trial adherence: Insights for introduction. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 16, 18505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A., & Nelson, L. H. (2007). Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from feminist science studies scholarship. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupre, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free science? Ideals and illusions (pp. 58–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yach, D., Hawkes, C., Gould, C. L., & Hofman, K. J. (2004). The global burden of chronic diseases: Overcoming impediments to prevention and control. JAMA, 291(21), 2616–2622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zycher, B., DiMasi, J., & Milne, C. (2010). Private sector contributions to pharmaceutical science: Thirty-five summary case histories. American Journal of Therapeutics, 17(1), 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA

    Kristen Intemann

  2. Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    Inmaculada de Melo-Martín

Authors
  1. Kristen Intemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inmaculada de Melo-Martín
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristen Intemann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Classics, Philosophy, Hist, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy

    Maria Cristina Amoretti

  2. Faculty of Humanities, University of Genoa,, Genova, Italy

    Nicla Vassallo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Intemann, K., de Melo-Martín, I. (2016). Feminist Values, Commercial Values, and the Bias Paradox in Biomedical Research. In: Amoretti, M., Vassallo, N. (eds) Meta-Philosophical Reflection on Feminist Philosophies of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 317. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26348-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation