Scientific Research and Human Rights: A Response to Kitcher on the Limitations of Inquiry

• Published in: Science and engineering ethics 2014-12, Vol.20 (4), p.1045-1063
• Main Author: Victor, Elizabeth
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Balancing; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering; Civil Rights; Constraining; Conversation; Counting; Democracy; Education; Engineering; Ethics; Ethics, Research; Freedom; Grounds; Human behavior; Human Rights; Humans; Inquiry method; Medicine/Public Health; Original Paper; Philosophy; Philosophy of Science; Prey; Research ethics; Research Personnel - ethics; Science; Science - ethics; Social conditions; Social Responsibility; United States; Vulnerable Populations
• ISSN: 1353-3452; 1471-5546
• DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9497-5

In his recent work exploring the role of science in democratic societies Kitcher (Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books, New York, 2011 ) claims that scientists ought to have a prominent role in setting the agenda for and limits to research. Against the backdrop of the claim that the proper limits of scientific inquiry is John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle (Kitcher in Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, 2001 ), he identifies the limits of inquiry as the point where the outcomes of research could cause harm to already vulnerable populations. Nonetheless, Kitcher argues against explicit limitations on unscrupulous research on the grounds that restrictions would exacerbate underlying social problems. I show that Kitcher’s argument in favor of dissuading inquiry through conventional standards is problematic and falls prey to the same critique he offers in opposition to official bans. I expand the conversation of limiting scientific research by recognizing that the actions that count as ‘science’ are located in the space between ‘thinking’ and ‘doing’. In this space, we often attempt to balance freedom of research, as scientific speech, against the disparate impact citizens might experience in light of such research. I end by exploring if such disparate impact justifies limiting research, within the context of the United States, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or under international human rights standards more generally.