Is Science Ever Neutral?

Reflections on Scientific Neutrality and the Social Dimensions of Knowledge Production 

Abstract 

Knowledge-producing practices in the sciences include, but are not limited to, the selection of what counts as a scientifically interesting problem, the formulation of hypotheses, the design and aims of research, the criteria for evidence, the collection and interpretation of data, the decisions about when to stop research, and the dissemination of results within scientific communities.

In the tradition of logical positivism, a sharp distinction was drawn between the context of discovery and the context of justification. According to this view, the scientist’s creativity, personality, and values could legitimately influence the former, but were assumed to play no role in the latter, which was regarded as objective and value-free. Over the past several decades, however, a wide range of philosophical approaches—from Kuhnian historicism to feminist epistemology—have challenged this assumption, showing how both the natural and social sciences are deeply shaped by the cultural, social, and historical contexts in which they are produced.

Despite the difficulty many practitioners of the natural sciences still experience in engaging with questions of non-neutrality and non-objectivity, critical reflection on scientific practices is essential if contemporary science and its applications are to become less partial, less biased, and more socially responsible. Drawing on feminist philosophy and science and technology studies, this talk critically examines the ideal of scientific neutrality, arguing that acknowledging the role of social values and background assumptions in scientific research is not a threat to objectivity, but a necessary step toward more reflexive, inclusive, and interdisciplinary scientific practices.