Scientific Objectivity and the Pursuit of the Public Good.
Scientists are increasingly expected to not only produce objective science but also to use their science and expertise to support the public good. Prior studies indicate that scientists see both responsibilities as important; however, it is not clear how scientists manage these responsibilities when...
| Published in: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 32; no. 4; pp. 1 - 32 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Aug2026
|
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=195755584&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 195755584 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2026 vid: 32 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 195755584 10.1007/s11948-026-00601-3 ppf: 1 ppct: 31 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 3.8MB tig: atl: Scientific Objectivity and the Pursuit of the Public Good. aug: au: Hundemer, Sadie Loizzo, Jamie Peterson, Anna L. Stoutamire, Stephanie Paxson, S. B. affil: https://ror.org/02y3ad647 Agricutural Education and Communication, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA https://ror.org/02y3ad647 Religion, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA sug: keyword: Advocacy Ethics Public impact RCR Social responsibility Tradeoffs ab: Scientists are increasingly expected to not only produce objective science but also to use their science and expertise to support the public good. Prior studies indicate that scientists see both responsibilities as important; however, it is not clear how scientists manage these responsibilities when they are perceived to be in tension. In this study, scientists at land-grant institutions (n = 87) were presented with binary choices to identify where tensions may exist and how scientists make decisions between competing responsibilities. We examined nine categories of potential tensions: direct conflicts between objectivity and public impact, engagement in public outreach, communication priorities and approach, political engagement and perceived bias, the media, funding and disclosure, supporting/protecting specific causes, diversity, and ethical decision making. Results indicate that scientists belong to three cultures of ethical thought: arbiters, advocates, and brokers. These cultures roughly align with the scientist roles described by Pielke and suggest different prioritizations of commitment to public service relative to commitment to objective science, though both commitments were valued. There was variation across cultures of thought on whether scientists should openly support policies based on their research. Broad areas of agreement across cultures of thought were also identified. Scientists of all cultures of thought indicated a willingness to see themselves in a public role, communicating openly with non-experts on issues where scientific research intersects with the public good. There was also an expressed need for scientists to receive better training and tools to manage conflicting responsibilities. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2026. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2026 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|