Abstract
The general consensus amongst philosophers is that values play an integral role in scientific inquiry. This requires a reorientation towards delineating legitimate from illegitimate values in science, or the new demarcation problem. Although it has been argued that alternatives to the value-free ideal (VFI) for science should at least serve the same purposes as the ideal given that some of its aims remain desirable, redrawing the boundaries between acceptable and inappropriate values does not address how the VFI is interwoven into institutional structures that support science. Viable VFI replacements will have to work within or reconstruct these pillars in order to succeed it. At the height of the VFI's influence (immediately after WWII) the VFI relied on the linear model for science funding. Public funds invested in basic (or pure) scientific research, with oversight and distribution by scientists, financed basic research in academic institutions. The findings from research would then be taken up by scientists working in privately funded labs who could produce public goods. Under this model, scientists interested in basic science could not be held accountable for the societal impact of their work. The VFI thrived because scientists were absolved from considering the social or ethical implications of their work, which separated science from society. Scientists were simultaneously called to advise policy-makers where they were able to occupy political spaces and maintain their independence by providing advice without the responsibility of making any decisions themselves. The science advisor’s role was to protect the integrity of science, respect for scientific knowledge and the institutions that housed it, rather than to consider the public impact of the decisions. Instead politicians were seen as morally responsible and accountable for the consequences of scientifically informed decisions. At the same time, an increasingly technical society was believed to impair the public’s ability to make informed decisions. Addressing this worry became the role of science communicators who helped to develop concepts like science literacy— or a familiarity with science thought to be desirable for the overall well-being of individuals and the state. Science literacy was cultivated through the deficit model which described the public as homogeneously ignorant of science and unable to engage it directly. Science understood as something central to civic life meant creating a foundation of scientific understanding. Even if science literacy could include more than scientific facts, in practice science literacy required information about science to be neatly encapsulated, evaluated and communicated. Science educators developed the consensus view, a focus on scientific information with the most agreement, and emphasised the empirical findings of science. As values remain a contentious area in science, they are not taught under the consensus view, strengthening the VFI. In sum, the linear model, independent science advisor, science communication and science education have reinforced the VFI and challenge progress towards dismantling and establishing alternative ideals for science. For any replacement to be successful, it will have to reimagine how science interfaces with these institutions or construct new institutions to support science altogether.
