Science and society

The ideal of science that reports facts without letting the scientist's values shape the findings — a 'view from nowhere'.

Impartiality (judge by evidence), neutrality (facts not oughts), autonomy (sets its own questions), accountability (open to check).

Through the choices — what to study, which evidence counts, when it's 'enough' — not usually the raw data.

The standards that make something GOOD science — accuracy, testability, breadth.

The personal, social and political values a scientist brings in from outside — politics, funding, hopes.

Not through one neutral mind, but through open, diverse criticism — a community checking each other's values.

Scientists with different values catch each other's blind spots; a group who all think alike miss the same things.

The ideal is widely liked; whether real science reaches it is the debate — Longino says objectivity is social, not solitary.

Mainly through funding — funders choose which projects to back, so money decides which questions get answered.

The facts themselves — a discovery is real once made. But funders decide WHICH truths get found first.

Research so large and costly it needs whole nations or global teams to fund it.

The Human Genome Project (mapping human DNA) and the Large Hadron Collider (the giant particle machine near Geneva).

It pulls whole fields toward the questions armies care about — weapons, defence — and away from others.

Problems with a powerful, paying backer get researched; those without (e.g. poorer-country illnesses) get far less.

Contextual values aren't just in one scientist's head — they're built into the whole funding system's choices.

Society chooses which questions to fund, so what stays unknown reflects who had funding power, not what matters most.

The effects, good and bad, that scientific discoveries have on society — the impact from the lab out into life.

Vaccines and antibiotics save millions; cheaper food, light, travel and communication; freedom from old fears.

The same scientific discovery can be used for good or for harm — like the atom giving both power and the bomb.

A fact is just a fact; the scientist finds the truth and society chooses the use — so the scientist isn't to blame.

They often see the danger, pick their projects and can warn — so they share responsibility for misuse.

Shared and in degrees — not fully to blame, but being a finder of facts doesn't switch off being a chooser.

Section B is a stimulus-free essay on an optional theme; you argue the question, weigh views and conclude.

Is science value-free? → society shapes science (funding) → science shapes society (dual use, responsibility).