Maybe, but probably not. Science isn't evil; what we do with it can be. I'd argue for a case based analysis. I try to teach this point, along with whether reproductive genetics is public health prevention or undesirable eugenics, using the films Twilight of the Golds and Gattaca.

Hi Brian,

I am assuming that you are using the word “scientists” very broadly and thus are including social scientists such as sociologists and social psychologists. My answer to your question, based on this assumption, is that “YES, scientists should definitely modify their research agendas if they think that their expected findings would likely result in intolerable political consequences.”

Indeed, I feel sociologists and social psychologists who are examining marginalized populations should be constantly on guard for how their “learned” reports will be used by legislative bodies in their home country. As an example, when new social policies are to be adopted in the U.S., our Congress forms an investigatory subcommittee to get clarity on the best way to attack the social problem that motivates the need for “new” social policy. These investigatory subcommittees seek input from studies conducted by sociologists and social psychologists affiliated with prominent university research centers. (On occasion, they may accept testimony that is anecdotal in nature from social workers that have worked with the particular disadvantaged populations.)

It is important to keep in mind that the members of these legislative committees are politicians with backgrounds in professions ranging from law to working in the Entertainment Industry. Thus, they are impressed by and ill-equipped to critically evaluate the work of people with Ph.D. behind their names.

Thus, in the U.S., the “learned” reports of sociologists and social psychologists led to the adoption of a social policy to PROMOTE MARRIAGE as part of a massive overhaul of welfare in America. The preface of the welfare reform law actually states that, “Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.” Of course, it is possible that a bad marriage in which spousal abuse occurs may be harmful to the interests of children. Nonetheless, under the new welfare reform law, marriage was touted as the cure for poverty.

The specious conclusions of the social scientists who supplied the learned reports in connection with the welfare overhaul bill (“TANF”) are beside the point. Even if marriage were a cure for poverty, no one with half a brain would think that being married or not was simply a matter of choice for unwed mothers on welfare. Thus, in concocting such a hypothesis and carrying out the necessary fieldwork, the scientists did harm to the human subjects used in their study. So why conduct such a study? In a paper posted on RG (“IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST: Children and Welfare Reform”), I irrefutably show that it is not the MARITAL status of parents that determines the welfare of their children, rather it is their FINANCIAL status. This was easily demonstrated by a comparison of the welfare of children in the U.S. with that of children in Sweden where unwed parents are as common as blondes with blue eyes.

Gwen

If you are an ethical consequentialist: of course. Although consequentialism requires you to think through not just first order consequences but also possible second order consequences: somebody else, less scrupulous, might do the research; the research might not pan out; by doing the research you end up in a position of authority to influence how it is seen; you might want to do the research badly to deliberately discredit the field, and so on and on... In the end, hopefully some balance of the considerations emerges, especially in the light of the uncertainty of higher-order consequences.

A deontological researcher might think there are duties to truth. But following Kant, if one has reason to think the research will lead to immoral consequences one should not do it. A virtue ethics researcher might instead think of what doing or not dot doing the researcher does with the character of themselves.

Finally, it is worth recognizing the limitations of our forecasting ability. We overestimate how well we control or predict the consequences of anything. Even predicting the political consequences of the nuclear bomb was likely not feasible back in 1945 - in fact, one of the main tools for understanding such ramifications, game theory, was developed later in order to understand the cold war. One can still make educated guesses of course, especially using historical or outgroup analogies. But it does not work well for unprecendented findings.

Well said on Consequentialism and Deontology Anders, but I didn't quite follow on Virtue. What is your point there? Are you saying that pursuing a research agenda with "intolerable consequences" may actually harm one's character? If so, I have been trying to envision what that might look like. From a Virtue point of view, I think that were I to pursue such an agenda that it would either indicate a sensationalist thirst for attention on my part, or else a callous disregard for possible collateral damage that could be caused by my research.

Certain discoveries have made life terrible. However, what can be done about that? Quest for knowledge can not be stopped after all.