From Tapestry to Loom: Broadening the Perspective on Values in Science (original) (raw)

2018, Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology

After raising some minor philosophical points about Kevin Elliott's A Tapestry of Values (2017), I argue that we should expand on the themes raised in the book and that philosophers of science need to pay as much attention to the loom of science (i.e., the institutional structures which guide the pursuit of science) as the tapestry of science. The loom of science includes such institutional aspects as patents, funding sources, and evaluation regimes that shape how science gets pursued, and that attending to these aspects will enable us to provide more robust guidance on the values that infuse the tapestry of science. Kevin Elliott's recent book, A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science, is an admirably clear book, written in deft prose, and crammed full of examples to think about the relationship between values and science. The examples make the book particularly rich for teaching—one can track down further details from the examples given using the suggested readings at the end of each chapter and flesh out further the accounts for one's students. For those struggling to let go of the value-free ideal for science, Kevin's book provides an accessible and friendly entrée into the many ways social and ethical values are important for science. The central metaphor of the book, that values weave themselves into scientific practice like the weaving of a tapestry, is a helpful one. The examples Kevin discusses show how value judgments are an important part of scientific work across a range of decision points scientists face. Further, once the values are woven into the fabric of science, they cannot be squeezed out. Instead, the examples show how the values shape the direction and texture of science, and, unlike a dye that could be evaporated off or bleached out, the values are threads that make up the structure and strength of the science. One can untangle the threads, to sort out the precise value influences, but doing so unweaves the science, and one is left with no fabric at all, no scientific knowledge at all, after such an untangling. In addition, we cannot see easily how the science would have gone with different value judgments. We do not know, for example, how research for depression treatments would have gone in an alternate world where there were no drug