XVI Seminário Internacional de
FILOSOFIA E HISTÓRIA DA CIÊNCIA


Sobre a interação entre ciência e valores:
autonomia, neutralidade, precaução e democracia

Prof. Dr. Hugh Lacey
(Swarthmore College - EUA)

De 03 de abril a 15 de junho de 2009

O seminário consistirá de uma série de seis apresentações básicas, que podem ser desdobradas em sessões adicionais, caso seja necessário para o aprofundamento dos temas. O objetivo do seminário é revisitar o modelo da interação entre a pesquisa científica e os valores, aprofundando alguns dos temas que haviam sido tratados até aqui somente de modo preliminar. Assim, discutir-se-ão, temas como a relação da ciência com a sustentabilidade da natureza e com o florescimento humano; as relações entre o progresso tecnológico, os valores democráticos, os interesses privados e públicos e a responsabilidade social dos cientistas; questões éticas ligadas ao princípio de precaução e a responsabilidade ética da ciência e da tecnologia; e uma revisão detalhada dos conceitos de “neutralidade” e de “autonomia”.

1o. seminário – 03/04/2009 – Revisiting a model of the interaction of scientific research and values
In recent writings (Lacey 1998, 1999, 2005a, b, 2008a) I have developed a model of the interaction of scientific activities and value commitments. (This has been widely discussed in Brazil, intensively so by members of the Thematic Project). I am now elaborating it more completely and formally, and using revised terminology. Much of this is in response to criticisms and questions received in discussions from members of the Thematic Project, and also to published material (Kitcher 2001, Longino 1990, Machamer & Wolters 2004, Santos 2004). I will present what I now consider the ‘canonical’ form of this model.

2o. seminário – 15/04/2009 – Science, the integrity of nature and human flourishing
I will discuss the question: How should scientific research be conducted so as to ensure that the sustainability of nature might be respected and the well being of everyone everywhere enhanced? It will be addressed in conjunction with a second question: How might research, conducted in this way, have impact on – and depend on – strengthening democratic values and practices?

3o. seminário – 22/04/2009 – Democratic values, technoscientific progress, and the responsibilities of scientists
Scientific developments, having made possible the technoscientific progress that today is integral to economic growth, have contributed causally to the current environmental crisis with its often devastating social aspects. On the other hand, science has not produced the knowledge that would be needed to deal adequately with this crisis; moreover, the benefits of technoscientific progress have not been distributed evenly among rich and poor – worse, under prevailing socioeconomic conditions, many poor people have suffered greatly, materially and socially, as a consequence of this progress. This has weakened key democratic values – in particular respect for human rights and the capacity of citizens to assume active, responsible, participatory roles in shaping the practices that address their basic necessities. What responsibilities do scientists incur in the face of present-day science, increasingly serving technoscientific progress oriented by the interests of capital and the market, becoming integrated into economic practices that may weaken democratic values?

4o. seminário – 06/05/2009 – Revisiting the notions of “neutrality” and “autonomy” of science
I have maintained (In the books cited above) that the modern scientific tradition aims to embody in scientific practices and results the values of objectivity, neutrality and autonomy. Discussions with members of the Thematic Project have made clear to me that there are a number of ambiguities in my use of these notions, which I hope to remedy in this seminar. Regarding ‘autonomy’, in particular, I will propose a significant re-interpretation.

5o. seminário – 20/05/2009 – The Precautionary Principle: what is it opposed to, and what kind of research does it propose?
Much technoscientific innovation is implicitly guided by an ethical principle, that I call the Principle of Presupposing the Legitimacy of Technoscientific Innovations: ‘normally, unless currently available evidence confirms that there are serious risks, it is legitimate to implement – without delay – efficacious applications of objectively confirmed technoscientific knowledge, and even to tolerate a measure of social and environmental disruption for its sake’. This principle is opposed to the Precautionary Principle (and the Principle of Responsibility: Jonas 1984) which proposes delays in the implementation of technoscientific innovations pending adequate research being conducted on the full array of risks (including indirect ones) and alternatives. The Precautionary Principle is inseparable from the general ethical stance that it is irresponsible to engage in the kind of research that leads to technoscientific innovations, unless commensurate systematic and rigorous research is also conducted on the long-term ecological and social consequences (risks) of implementing them, taking into account the socio-economic conditions of the planned implementations, and unless adequate research, located in a well chosen space of alternatives (this idea will be developed fully using examples of transgenics, energy use, nantechnology and agri-fuels) pertinent to appraising the general social value (benefits) of the implementations is conducted.

6o. seminário – 03/06/2009 – “Science in the private interest”, and the responsibilities of scientists.
Contemporary science is increasingly becoming “science in the private interest” (Krimsky 2003) and this has been said to create a ‘new ethos’ of scientific practice and organization (Garcia 2007). What this means will be elaborated, and in this context themes from seminars 2, 3 and 5 will be developed further.

7o. seminário – 15/06/2009 – Science and democracy.
Reflections on the results, consequences and implications of the “Science and Democracy World Forum of Belém 2009”.

 

Short bibliography of relevant works

My writings:
Lacey, H. (1998) Valores e Atividade Científica. São Paulo: Discurso Editorial.
_____. (1999) Is Science Value Free? Values and scientific understanding. London: Routledge.
_____. (2005a) Values and Objectivity in Science. The current controversy about transgenic crops. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
_____. (2005b) “On the interplay of the cognitive and the social in scientific practices,” Philosophy of Science 72 (5), 2005: 977–988.
_____. (2006) “O Princípio de Precaução e a autonomia da ciência”, Scientia Studia 4 (3): 373–392.
_____. (2007) “On the aims and responsibilities of science”, Principia 11 (1), 2007: 45–62.
_____. (2008a) Valores e Atividade Científica 1. São Paulo: Associação Filosófica ‘Scientiae Studia’ e Editora 34 (second edition of Lacey 1998).
_____. (2008b) “Crescimento econômico, meio-ambiente e sustentabilidade social: a responsabilidade dos cientistas e a questão dos transgênicos”. In: G. Dupas (Ed.). Tensões entre Meio-ambiente e Cresimento Econômico. São Paulo: Editora UNESP (in press).
_____. (2008c) “The ethics of science and technology,” in Carlos Galles & Pablo Lorenzano (Ed.). History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, a volume of Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Oxford: UNESCO Publishers–EOLSS publishers (in press).

Other writings:
COMEST – World Commission on the Ethics of Science and Technology (2005) The Precautionary Principle. Paris: UNESCO.
Cartagena Protocol (2002) Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity, http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/protocol.asp?lg=1.
Garcia, J.L. (2007) “O novo ethos científico e a biotecnologia”, Revista de Comunicação e Linguagens, N.º 38 (no prelo).
Jonas, H. (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kitcher, P. (2001) Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krimsky, S. (2003) Science in the Private Interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Longino, H. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
Machamer, P. & Wolters, G. (eds) (2004) Science, Values and Objectivity. Pittsburgh, USA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Oliveira, M. B. de (2003) “Considerações sobre a neutralidade da ciência,” Transformação 26: 161–172.
Pestre, D. (2008) "What about participation, governance and politics? Remarks on contemporary techno-science and the field of STS", Science as Culture (in press).
Santos, B., de (2004) (ed.) Conhecimento Prudente para uma Vida Decente. São Paulo: Editora Cortez.
Shrader–Frechette, K. (2007) Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our duties to protect environmental and public health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Organização:

Associação Filosófica Scientiæ Studia
Instituto de Estudos Avançados da Universidade de São Paulo
Departamento de Filosofia - USP