Skip to main content

Duties of Science to Society (and Vice Versa)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Ethics ((BRIEFSETHIC))

Abstract

Science is an amorphous, distributed, and dynamic institution, composed of many other institutions and falling under the control of no central body. Rather, the body of knowledge that science develops becomes a part of our common heritage. Over time, as science improves our understanding of the universe and our place in it, we are enriched in ways that are both tangible and intangible. Because of its nature as an institution composed of institutions, with many connections both tangential and integral to nearly every part of society, we must be particularly mindful of the value, impact, and responsibilities of science and those working in it. As well, we should take care to relate the reciprocal duties of science to society and vice versa. Scientists do not work in a vacuum, and the work that scientists do benefits us all, whether we know it or not. It is incumbent upon scientists to communicate with the public, and to interact in ways that are both educational and ethical because science and the public stand in mutually beneficial relationships to one another, and are also mutually dependent. In this chapter, I consider to what extent science and society owe duties to each other.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

  • Birnholtz, Jeremy P., and Matthew J. Bietz. 2003. Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. In Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, Christine L. 2012. The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(6): 1059–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fienberg, Stephen E., Margaret E. Martin, and Miron L. Straf (eds.). 1985. Sharing research data. Washington, DC: National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, Michael D. 2012. How lysenkoism became pseudoscience: dobzhansky to velikovsky. Journal of the History of Biology 45(3): 443–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, Reiner. 2013. “Climategate” and The Scientific Ethos. Science, Technology & Human Values 38(1): 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliman, Richard. 2011. Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in the digital age. Journalism 12(7): 832–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krementsov, Nikolai. 2000. Lysenkoism in Europe: Export-import of the Soviet model. Academia in upheaval: Origins, transfers, and transformations of the Communist Academic Regime in Russia and East Central Europe, 179–202. New York: Garland Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz, Anthony A., et al. 2013. Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist 57(6): 818–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, Richard, and Richard Levins. 1976. The problem of Lysenkoism. In The radicalization of science, ed. H. &. S. Rose. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maibach, Edward, et al. 2012. The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(3): 289–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai, Arti Kaur. 1999. Regulating scientific research: Intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwestern University Law Review 94: 77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonneborn, T.M. 1950. Heredity, environment, and politics. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science 111: 529–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, Carol, et al. 2011. Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PloS One 6(6): e21101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, Andrew J. 2006. Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials 7(1): 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, Jillian C., Elizabeth Rolando, and Christine L. Borgman. 2013. If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PloS One 8(7): e67332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, John. 2002. Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koepsell, D. (2017). Duties of Science to Society (and Vice Versa). In: Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51277-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics