Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T17:31:58.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expanding Philosophy of Science into the Moral Domain: Response to Brown and Kourany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Noretta Koertge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Janet Kourany argues that philosophers of science should place more emphasis on the moral and political aspects of scientific research. As a possible site for philosophical intervention she discusses professional codes of ethics. James Brown describes various systemic problems in pharmaceutical research and proposes that socializing medical research is the best way to remedy the situation. I criticize each of their examples, but concur with many overall aspects of their expanded agenda for philosophy of science.

Information

Type
Toward a More Political Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 779 - 785
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aldhous, Peter, and Reich, Eugenie Samuel (2007), “Fresh Questions on Stem Cell Findings”, New Scientist (March 24): 12–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, James (2008), “Politics, Method, and Medical Research”, Politics, Method, and Medical Research 75, in this issue.Google Scholar
Cohen, Patricia (2007), “As Ethics Panels Expand, No Research Field Is Exempt”, New York Times (February 28).Google Scholar
Friedberg, Mark (1999), “Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology”, Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology 282 (15): 1453–1457..Google Scholar
Gilbert, Scott (2006), “When Does Life Begin?” in DevBio: A Companion to Developmental Biology, Chapter 2, http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. (1988), Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1985), Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. (2008), “Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Future”, Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Future 75, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1945), The Open Society and Its Enemies. vol. 1. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1994), “The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist”, in Notturno, M. A. (ed.), The Myth of the Framework. London: Routledge, 33–64.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael (1981), “McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project: Testimony of Dr. Michael Ruse,” http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html.Google Scholar
Sawka, Anna M., and Thabane, Lehana (2003), “Letter: Effect of Industry Sponsorship on the Results of Biomedical Research”, Letter: Effect of Industry Sponsorship on the Results of Biomedical Research 289 (19): 2502–2503..Google ScholarPubMed
Whitesides, John Gregory (2004), Genes, Minds and Selves: American Science, Religion and the Industry of Faith and Reason. PhD Dissertation. Santa Barbara: University of California.Google Scholar