|
Given the commercialized social context within which research in genomics is carried out, concerns have been raised about whether patent applications, consulting agreements, and reliance on industry grants serve to compromise the objectivity of scientists. Traditionally, philosophers of science have defended the objectivity of science against the intrusion of values from the social context in a couple of ways. One defence of scientific objectivity draws a distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification”. The contention is that while scientists might be motivated by profit in their choice of a research problem, logic and empirical data alone serve to justify the hypotheses they propose as solutions. Another defence of scientific objectivity draws a distinction between “theoretical science” and “applied science”. The contention is that commercial applications follow downstream from theoretical developments in a science. In this chapter, I argue that these two defences of scientific objectivity do not succeed in insulating research in genomics from the commercialized social context in which it is carried out. Instead, we find values all the way down. I use case studies to motivate this argument: one draws on intersections of biogeographical ancestry and “race” in population genomics and the other looks at male pattern baldness and stem cell research. In today's world, biology education cannot stick to laboratory methods, empirical facts, and theoretical models as if science occurs in a realm autonomous from society. Students need to grasp an understanding of science as a set of practices fully situated within society.
|