Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:56:19.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS THERE EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR SECRECY IN SCIENCE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2013

Jeroen de Ridder
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical evidence shows that secrecy in science has increased over the past decades, partly as a result of the commercialization of science. There is a good prima facie case against secrecy in science. It is part of the traditional ethos of science that it is a collective and open truth-seeking endeavor. In this paper, I will investigate whether secrecy in science can ever be epistemically justified. To answer this question, I first distinguish between different sorts of secrecy. Next, I propose an account of what it is for a practice to be epistemically justified, with the help of work by Alvin Goldman and Philip Kitcher. I then discuss motivations for secrecy in science that are found in the literature to see whether they amount to, or can be turned into, epistemic justifications for secrecy. The conclusion is that, although some forms of secrecy – particularly those motivated by universal moral concerns – are epistemically justified, secrecy that arises from special, often commercial, interests is not.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Special Issue 2: Privacy, Secrecy, and Epistemology , June 2013 , pp. 101 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Angell, Marcia. 2004. The Truth about the Drug Companies. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Belt, Henk van den. 2010. ‘Robert Merton, Intellectual Property, and Open Science: An Intellectual History for Our Times.’ In Radder 2010b: 187–230.Google Scholar
Bok, Sissela. 1982. ‘Secrecy and Openness in Science: Ethical Considerations.’ Science, Technology and Human Values, 7(38): 32–41.Google Scholar
Evans, James A. 2010. ‘Industry Collaboration, Scientific Sharing, and the Dissemination of Knowledge.’ Social Studies of Science, 40(5): 757–91.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, Henry. 2008. The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, Roger L. 2004. Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldacre, Ben. 2012. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Daniel S. 2007. Science for Sale. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, Wei, and Walsh, John. 2009. ‘For Money or Glory? Commercialization, Competition, and Secrecy in the Entrepreneurial University.’ Sociological Quarterly, 50: 145–71.Google Scholar
Hull, David. 1985. ‘Openness and Secrecy in Science: Their Origins and Limitations.’ Science, Technology and Human Values, 10(2): 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, Irving. 2010. The Emperor's New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koepsell, David. 2009. Who Owns You: The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2008. ‘Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Future.’ Philosophy of Science, 75(5): 767–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O. A., and Bero, L. 2012. ‘Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome.’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12: MR000033 (doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2).Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1985. ‘Openness and Secrecy in Science: Some Notes on Early History.’ Science, Technology and Human Values, 10(2): 14–23.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert. 1973a [1942]. ‘The Normative Structure of Science.’ In The Sociology of Science, pp. 267–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert 1973b [1957]. ‘Priorities in Scientific Discoveries.’ In The Sociology of Science, pp. 286–324. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Musschenga, Albert, van der Steen, Wim, and Ho, Vincent. 2010. ‘The Business of Drug Research: A Mixed Blessing.’ In Radder 2010b: 110–31.Google Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2010a. ‘Mertonian Values, Scientific Norms, and the Commodification of Academic Research.’ In Radder 2010b: 231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans (ed.). 2010b. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, David B. 2005. ‘Openness versus Secrecy in Scientific Research.’ Episteme, 2(3): 135–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, David B 2007. The Price of Truth. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Savage, Caroline J. and Vickers, Andrew J. 2009. ‘Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals.’ PLoS ONE, 4(9): e7078 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007078.g001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shamoo, Adil, and Resnik, David. 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research, 2nd edn.New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, Seth. 1999. Owning the Future. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Sheila, and Leslie, Larry L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial Univerisity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sterckx, Sigrid. 2000. Biotechnology, Patents, and Morality, 2nd edn.Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sterckx, Sigrid 2010. ‘Knowledge Transfer from Academia to Industry through Patenting and Licensing: Rhetoric and Reality.’ In Radder 2010b: 44–64.Google Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2003. ‘The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.’ Journal of Philosophy, 100(2): 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, Jennifer. 2005. University Inc. The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Robert. 2010. Anatomy of an Epidemic: Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Wicherts, Jelte M., Borsboom, Denny, Kats, Judith, and Molenaar, Dylan. 2006. ‘The Poor Availability of Psychological Research Data for Reanalysis.’ American Psychologist, 61(7): 726–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wicherts, Jelte M., Bakker, Marjan, and Molenaar, Dylan. 2011. ‘Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results.’ PLoS ONE, 6(11): e26828 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828.t002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar