Mixing
Is it inappropriate for politicians to make rules governing scientific research?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In a recent article in The Atlantic, law professor Wendy Wagner said:
People who are not scientists are telling us how scientific synthesis and analysis should be done... Politics has gone to a place that should be off limits, and no one is noticing and calling them on that fact.
The article draws attention to unequal treatment under the EPA of government grantees and industrial scientists, which may well be an example of inappropriate self-dealing by the Republican-controlled federal government. But leaving this aside, more generally, is it true that politicians should not be involved in making rules for scientists, as Dr. Wagner asserts?
philosophy-of-science politics
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In a recent article in The Atlantic, law professor Wendy Wagner said:
People who are not scientists are telling us how scientific synthesis and analysis should be done... Politics has gone to a place that should be off limits, and no one is noticing and calling them on that fact.
The article draws attention to unequal treatment under the EPA of government grantees and industrial scientists, which may well be an example of inappropriate self-dealing by the Republican-controlled federal government. But leaving this aside, more generally, is it true that politicians should not be involved in making rules for scientists, as Dr. Wagner asserts?
philosophy-of-science politics
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
1
Counterexample: Nazi experimentation on humans. Case closed you are wrong. Yes politicians can and MUST place appropriate ethical limits on scientific research.
– user4894
3 hours ago
1
@Gordon, I think user4894's comment makes sense in that "Nazi experimentation was pure unrestricted science... or it was science supported by evil politics. Clearly good politics is necessary for good science."
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
@Gordon You're right, I should have emphasized that this is a case where politicians SHOULD HAVE placed ethical limits. The fact that they didn't doesn't change my point, which I hope is now more clear.
– user4894
2 hours ago
1
If you have a bad set of politicians, of whatever kind, yes bad things can happen. Now this can theoretically be corrected in a democracy, but in an age when most people are playing on the internet (like I am doing now) we may not pay enough attention to what our politicians are doing. At the end of the day, many scientists need public money for research, and with the money comes the politicians. Strings will be attached.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
@user4849 Sorry, I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I think we probably can all agree that politicians are no gauarantee of ethical and beneficial research. In a democracy we can throw them out if we know about some bad trend in research funding. The thing is we often don't pay attention to the details of funding. It is not easy to do.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
In a recent article in The Atlantic, law professor Wendy Wagner said:
People who are not scientists are telling us how scientific synthesis and analysis should be done... Politics has gone to a place that should be off limits, and no one is noticing and calling them on that fact.
The article draws attention to unequal treatment under the EPA of government grantees and industrial scientists, which may well be an example of inappropriate self-dealing by the Republican-controlled federal government. But leaving this aside, more generally, is it true that politicians should not be involved in making rules for scientists, as Dr. Wagner asserts?
philosophy-of-science politics
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
In a recent article in The Atlantic, law professor Wendy Wagner said:
People who are not scientists are telling us how scientific synthesis and analysis should be done... Politics has gone to a place that should be off limits, and no one is noticing and calling them on that fact.
The article draws attention to unequal treatment under the EPA of government grantees and industrial scientists, which may well be an example of inappropriate self-dealing by the Republican-controlled federal government. But leaving this aside, more generally, is it true that politicians should not be involved in making rules for scientists, as Dr. Wagner asserts?
philosophy-of-science politics
philosophy-of-science politics
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
asked 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,73818
2,73818
1
Counterexample: Nazi experimentation on humans. Case closed you are wrong. Yes politicians can and MUST place appropriate ethical limits on scientific research.
– user4894
3 hours ago
1
@Gordon, I think user4894's comment makes sense in that "Nazi experimentation was pure unrestricted science... or it was science supported by evil politics. Clearly good politics is necessary for good science."
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
@Gordon You're right, I should have emphasized that this is a case where politicians SHOULD HAVE placed ethical limits. The fact that they didn't doesn't change my point, which I hope is now more clear.
– user4894
2 hours ago
1
If you have a bad set of politicians, of whatever kind, yes bad things can happen. Now this can theoretically be corrected in a democracy, but in an age when most people are playing on the internet (like I am doing now) we may not pay enough attention to what our politicians are doing. At the end of the day, many scientists need public money for research, and with the money comes the politicians. Strings will be attached.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
@user4849 Sorry, I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I think we probably can all agree that politicians are no gauarantee of ethical and beneficial research. In a democracy we can throw them out if we know about some bad trend in research funding. The thing is we often don't pay attention to the details of funding. It is not easy to do.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Counterexample: Nazi experimentation on humans. Case closed you are wrong. Yes politicians can and MUST place appropriate ethical limits on scientific research.
– user4894
3 hours ago
1
@Gordon, I think user4894's comment makes sense in that "Nazi experimentation was pure unrestricted science... or it was science supported by evil politics. Clearly good politics is necessary for good science."
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
@Gordon You're right, I should have emphasized that this is a case where politicians SHOULD HAVE placed ethical limits. The fact that they didn't doesn't change my point, which I hope is now more clear.
– user4894
2 hours ago
1
If you have a bad set of politicians, of whatever kind, yes bad things can happen. Now this can theoretically be corrected in a democracy, but in an age when most people are playing on the internet (like I am doing now) we may not pay enough attention to what our politicians are doing. At the end of the day, many scientists need public money for research, and with the money comes the politicians. Strings will be attached.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
@user4849 Sorry, I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I think we probably can all agree that politicians are no gauarantee of ethical and beneficial research. In a democracy we can throw them out if we know about some bad trend in research funding. The thing is we often don't pay attention to the details of funding. It is not easy to do.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
1
1
Counterexample: Nazi experimentation on humans. Case closed you are wrong. Yes politicians can and MUST place appropriate ethical limits on scientific research.
– user4894
3 hours ago
Counterexample: Nazi experimentation on humans. Case closed you are wrong. Yes politicians can and MUST place appropriate ethical limits on scientific research.
– user4894
3 hours ago
1
1
@Gordon, I think user4894's comment makes sense in that "Nazi experimentation was pure unrestricted science... or it was science supported by evil politics. Clearly good politics is necessary for good science."
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
@Gordon, I think user4894's comment makes sense in that "Nazi experimentation was pure unrestricted science... or it was science supported by evil politics. Clearly good politics is necessary for good science."
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
@Gordon You're right, I should have emphasized that this is a case where politicians SHOULD HAVE placed ethical limits. The fact that they didn't doesn't change my point, which I hope is now more clear.
– user4894
2 hours ago
@Gordon You're right, I should have emphasized that this is a case where politicians SHOULD HAVE placed ethical limits. The fact that they didn't doesn't change my point, which I hope is now more clear.
– user4894
2 hours ago
1
1
If you have a bad set of politicians, of whatever kind, yes bad things can happen. Now this can theoretically be corrected in a democracy, but in an age when most people are playing on the internet (like I am doing now) we may not pay enough attention to what our politicians are doing. At the end of the day, many scientists need public money for research, and with the money comes the politicians. Strings will be attached.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
If you have a bad set of politicians, of whatever kind, yes bad things can happen. Now this can theoretically be corrected in a democracy, but in an age when most people are playing on the internet (like I am doing now) we may not pay enough attention to what our politicians are doing. At the end of the day, many scientists need public money for research, and with the money comes the politicians. Strings will be attached.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
@user4849 Sorry, I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I think we probably can all agree that politicians are no gauarantee of ethical and beneficial research. In a democracy we can throw them out if we know about some bad trend in research funding. The thing is we often don't pay attention to the details of funding. It is not easy to do.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
@user4849 Sorry, I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I think we probably can all agree that politicians are no gauarantee of ethical and beneficial research. In a democracy we can throw them out if we know about some bad trend in research funding. The thing is we often don't pay attention to the details of funding. It is not easy to do.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
In general, no, it is not inappropriate. Scientific research can take many forms, some of which could have negative effects on people. Pharmaceutical research, for example, follows a tightly controlled set of steps in researching a drug and getting it approved and marketed. You can't just brew something up in your garage and start dosing people with it. We're potentially limiting scientific advancement (one of those concoctions could be the cure for cancer), but the laws protect people from being harmed by unfettered scientific research. There are many examples of people being harmed by scientific research, from Nazi medical experiments to the Tuskegee study, and these sorts of methods are now outlawed in many places.
There should always be a good reason to pass laws governing scientific research - there needs to be a tradeoff between speedy advancement and possible harm. Good reasons include protecting people from injurious methods or limiting ethically/morally objectionable research. Political reasons, like limiting research simply because it may contradict proposed policy, are not good reasons. In this particular case, the tradeoff may not be sufficient, as only minor harm may be avoided with this law. But in general, it's absurd to say that no laws should ever restrict what is allowed in pursuit of scientific inquiry.
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
In general, no, it is not inappropriate. Scientific research can take many forms, some of which could have negative effects on people. Pharmaceutical research, for example, follows a tightly controlled set of steps in researching a drug and getting it approved and marketed. You can't just brew something up in your garage and start dosing people with it. We're potentially limiting scientific advancement (one of those concoctions could be the cure for cancer), but the laws protect people from being harmed by unfettered scientific research. There are many examples of people being harmed by scientific research, from Nazi medical experiments to the Tuskegee study, and these sorts of methods are now outlawed in many places.
There should always be a good reason to pass laws governing scientific research - there needs to be a tradeoff between speedy advancement and possible harm. Good reasons include protecting people from injurious methods or limiting ethically/morally objectionable research. Political reasons, like limiting research simply because it may contradict proposed policy, are not good reasons. In this particular case, the tradeoff may not be sufficient, as only minor harm may be avoided with this law. But in general, it's absurd to say that no laws should ever restrict what is allowed in pursuit of scientific inquiry.
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
In general, no, it is not inappropriate. Scientific research can take many forms, some of which could have negative effects on people. Pharmaceutical research, for example, follows a tightly controlled set of steps in researching a drug and getting it approved and marketed. You can't just brew something up in your garage and start dosing people with it. We're potentially limiting scientific advancement (one of those concoctions could be the cure for cancer), but the laws protect people from being harmed by unfettered scientific research. There are many examples of people being harmed by scientific research, from Nazi medical experiments to the Tuskegee study, and these sorts of methods are now outlawed in many places.
There should always be a good reason to pass laws governing scientific research - there needs to be a tradeoff between speedy advancement and possible harm. Good reasons include protecting people from injurious methods or limiting ethically/morally objectionable research. Political reasons, like limiting research simply because it may contradict proposed policy, are not good reasons. In this particular case, the tradeoff may not be sufficient, as only minor harm may be avoided with this law. But in general, it's absurd to say that no laws should ever restrict what is allowed in pursuit of scientific inquiry.
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
In general, no, it is not inappropriate. Scientific research can take many forms, some of which could have negative effects on people. Pharmaceutical research, for example, follows a tightly controlled set of steps in researching a drug and getting it approved and marketed. You can't just brew something up in your garage and start dosing people with it. We're potentially limiting scientific advancement (one of those concoctions could be the cure for cancer), but the laws protect people from being harmed by unfettered scientific research. There are many examples of people being harmed by scientific research, from Nazi medical experiments to the Tuskegee study, and these sorts of methods are now outlawed in many places.
There should always be a good reason to pass laws governing scientific research - there needs to be a tradeoff between speedy advancement and possible harm. Good reasons include protecting people from injurious methods or limiting ethically/morally objectionable research. Political reasons, like limiting research simply because it may contradict proposed policy, are not good reasons. In this particular case, the tradeoff may not be sufficient, as only minor harm may be avoided with this law. But in general, it's absurd to say that no laws should ever restrict what is allowed in pursuit of scientific inquiry.
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
In general, no, it is not inappropriate. Scientific research can take many forms, some of which could have negative effects on people. Pharmaceutical research, for example, follows a tightly controlled set of steps in researching a drug and getting it approved and marketed. You can't just brew something up in your garage and start dosing people with it. We're potentially limiting scientific advancement (one of those concoctions could be the cure for cancer), but the laws protect people from being harmed by unfettered scientific research. There are many examples of people being harmed by scientific research, from Nazi medical experiments to the Tuskegee study, and these sorts of methods are now outlawed in many places.
There should always be a good reason to pass laws governing scientific research - there needs to be a tradeoff between speedy advancement and possible harm. Good reasons include protecting people from injurious methods or limiting ethically/morally objectionable research. Political reasons, like limiting research simply because it may contradict proposed policy, are not good reasons. In this particular case, the tradeoff may not be sufficient, as only minor harm may be avoided with this law. But in general, it's absurd to say that no laws should ever restrict what is allowed in pursuit of scientific inquiry.
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
answered 4 hours ago
Nuclear Wang
1513
1513
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
Would you be willing to specify what's a political reason and what's a "harm avoidance" reason?
– elliot svensson
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56954%2fis-it-inappropriate-for-politicians-to-make-rules-governing-scientific-research%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Counterexample: Nazi experimentation on humans. Case closed you are wrong. Yes politicians can and MUST place appropriate ethical limits on scientific research.
– user4894
3 hours ago
1
@Gordon, I think user4894's comment makes sense in that "Nazi experimentation was pure unrestricted science... or it was science supported by evil politics. Clearly good politics is necessary for good science."
– elliot svensson
2 hours ago
@Gordon You're right, I should have emphasized that this is a case where politicians SHOULD HAVE placed ethical limits. The fact that they didn't doesn't change my point, which I hope is now more clear.
– user4894
2 hours ago
1
If you have a bad set of politicians, of whatever kind, yes bad things can happen. Now this can theoretically be corrected in a democracy, but in an age when most people are playing on the internet (like I am doing now) we may not pay enough attention to what our politicians are doing. At the end of the day, many scientists need public money for research, and with the money comes the politicians. Strings will be attached.
– Gordon
2 hours ago
@user4849 Sorry, I didn't mean to make a big deal about it. I think we probably can all agree that politicians are no gauarantee of ethical and beneficial research. In a democracy we can throw them out if we know about some bad trend in research funding. The thing is we often don't pay attention to the details of funding. It is not easy to do.
– Gordon
2 hours ago