Abstract
Debates over the politicization of science have led some to claim that scientists have or should have a “right to research.” This article examines the political meaning and implications of the right to research with respect to different historical conceptions of rights. The more common “liberal” view sees rights as protections against social and political interference. The “republican” view, in contrast, conceives rights as claims to civic membership. Building on the republican view of rights, this article conceives the right to research as embedding science more firmly and explicitly within society, rather than sheltering science from society. From this perspective, all citizens should enjoy a general right to free inquiry, but this right to inquiry does not necessarily encompass all scientific research. Because rights are most reliably protected when embedded within democratic culture and institutions, claims for a right to research should be considered in light of how the research in question contributes to democracy. By putting both research and rights in a social context, this article shows that the claim for a right to research is best understood, not as a guarantee for public support of science, but as a way to initiate public deliberation and debate about which sorts of inquiry deserve public support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells” (California Constitution, Art. 35, sec. 5). Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_35 (last accessed April 13, 2009).
The first such ban by the U.S. House of Representatives was the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003 (H.R. 534). See also http://olpa.od.nih.gov/legislation/109/pendinglegislation/cloning.asp (last accessed April 13, 2009).
“The government routinely refrains from funding activities it otherwise permits, or even guards as constitutionally protected rights. A line of Supreme Court decisions stretching from 1977 to 1991, dealing with abortion and government funding, established the principle that the Constitution does not require government to fund even those activities that the Constitution protects” (President’s Council on Bioethics 2003).
Note that the argument here has little to do with the basic human rights of scientists (i.e., the rights scientists share with all people), the protection of which has long been the admirable mission of the Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. See http://shr.aaas.org (last accessed April 13, 2009).
Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 8 May 1825 (Jefferson 1984, p. 1501).
References
Alexander, B. (2004). Free to clone. The New York Times Magazine (Sept. 26), 26.
American Bar Association (ABA), Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. (2002). Recommendation on freedom to pursue scientific knowledge (August). Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://www.abanet.org/leadership/recommendations02/117b.pdf.
Andrews, L. B. (1998). Is there a right to clone? Constitutional challenges to bans on human cloning. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 11(3), 643–681.
Arendt, H. (1968). Truth and politics. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Between past and future. New York: Viking Press.
Barber, B. R. (2000). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brown, M. B. (2006). Ethics, politics, and the public: Shaping the research agenda. In D. H. Guston & D. Sarewitz (Eds.), Shaping science & technology policy: The next generation of research (pp. 10–32). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bruck, C. (2004). Hollywood science: Should a ballot initiative determine the fate of stem-cell research? The New Yorker (October 18), 62–82.
Center for Genetics and Society. (2006). The California stem cell program at one year: A progress report. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=315.
Coleman, J. (1996). Playing God or playing scientist: A constitutional analysis of laws banning embryological procedures. Pacific Law Journal, 27, 1331–1399.
Dagger, R. (1989). Rights. In T. Ball, J. Farr, & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dagger, R. (1997). Civic virtues: Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1985). A preface to economic democracy. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Daniels, G. H. (1971). Science in American society: A social history. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Delgado, R., & Millen, D. R. (1978). God, Galileo, and government: Toward constitutional protection for scientific inquiry. Washington Law Review, 53, 394–399.
Ezrahi, Y. (1990). The descent of Icarus: Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foer, F. (2004). Closing of the presidential mind. The New Republic, 231, 17–21.
Graham, L. (1993). Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A short history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, P. R., & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Guston, D. H. (1993). The essential tension in science and democracy. Social Epistemology, 7(1), 3–23.
Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holton, G., & Morison, R. S. (1979). Limits of scientific inquiry. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Irwin, D. R. (2005). Freedom of thought: The First Amendment and the scientific method. Wisconsin Law Review, 2005(6), 1479–1533.
Jefferson, T. (1984). Writings (M. D. Peterson, Ed.). New York: Library of America.
Keane, S. (2006). The case against blanket First Amendment protection of scientific research: Articulating a more limited scope of protection. Stanford Law Review, 59(2), 505–550.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, A. (1991). Make no law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment. New York: Random House.
Macrakis, C. (1993). Surviving the swastika: Scientific research in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.
Madison, J. ([1788] 1961). The federalist, No. 48. (Clinton Rossiter, Ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Merton, R. K. ([1949] 1957). Science and democratic social structure. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (rev. and enlarged ed.). London and Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Originally published as: Science and technology in a democratic society. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1942), 115–126.
Mill, J. S. ([1859] 1978). On liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
Mooney, C. (2005). The Republican war on science: Reflections of a science journalist at work. New York: Basic Books.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). (1997). Cloning human beings: Report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, Maryland: NBAC.
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–73.
President’s Council on Bioethics. (2003). Staff working paper: Monitoring stem cell research: The ethical debates reviewed. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/background/monitor_stem_cell.html#_edn23.
Proctor, R. (1988). Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Robertson, J. (1977). The scientist’s right to research: A constitutional analysis. Southern California Law Review, 51, 1203–1281.
Sarewitz, D. (2006). Scientizing politics. Issues in Science and Technology, 22(Winter), 91–93.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shklar, J. N. (1991). American citizenship: The quest for inclusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, W. J. (2004). Constitutional cloning: Do scientists have a First Amendment right to do whatever they please? The Weekly Standard (Sept. 28).
Smith, D. (2005). Political science. The New York Times Magazine (September 4).
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). (2004a). Scientific integrity in policy making: An investigation into the Bush administration’s misuse of science. Cambridge, MA: UCS.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). (2004b). Scientific integrity in policy making: Further investigation into the Bush administration’s misuse of science. Cambridge, MA: UCS.
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1997). Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights (November 11). Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13177&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
US House of Representatives. (2003). Politics and science in the Bush administration. Committee on Government Reform, Minority Staff. Retrieved April 16, 2009, from http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm.
Waldron, J. (1993). Liberal rights: Collected papers 1981–1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warren, M. E. (1999). What is political? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(2), 207–231.
Weinstein, J. (2009). Democracy, individual rights and the regulation of science. Science and Engineering Ethics (this issue).
Wilholt, T. (2006). Scientific autonomy and planned research: The case of space science. Poiesis & Praxis, 4(4), 253–265.
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Acknowledgements
For their helpful comments on this article we would like to thank, without implicating, Ted Brown, Jennet Kirkpatrick, Carl Mitcham, John Parsi, Dan Sarewitz, Justin Tosi, Torsten Wilholt, and two anonymous reviewers. Thanks also for valuable feedback from audience members at the fourth annual meeting of the Science and Democracy Network, hosted at Harvard University, 24–26 June 2005. Mark Brown’s research for this article was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under award number 0451289. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, M.B., Guston, D.H. Science, Democracy, and the Right to Research. Sci Eng Ethics 15, 351–366 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9135-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9135-4