In the first part of this series, I explored the value of science primarily from an economic standpoint, focusing on measurable outcomes within the Knowledge Economy. Today, I’d like to shift the lens to broader societal and philosophical implications—a theme as ancient as philosophy itself. Foundational works by pre-Socratic thinkers like Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Democritus began the task of distinguishing knowledge from perception. Plato famously separated knowledge from opinion, while Aristotle’s contributions on empirical inquiry and logic continue to shape scientific thought. Here, I focus on modern perspectives, examining the intersection between the value of scientific knowledge in society and the role of values in the scientific enterprise.
The Value of Scientific Knowledge to Society
When focusing strictly on quantitative measures like those in the Knowledge Economy, we capture only part of what science contributes to society. The true value of research goes far beyond market metrics. The impact of science is especially clear in health and medicine that have endowed us with magnificent advances in disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment as well as improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and mental health. Research in these fields has saved countless lives. For instance, between 1991 and 2021, the American Association for Cancer Research reported 4.1 million cancer deaths averted in the United States—a 33% decline from peak rates in 1991.
Technological innovations in communication, transportation, computing, and energy connect the world, increase productivity, and ease our daily lives. Advances in agriculture have improved yields, safety, and food security, while environmental science has enabled predictive models to guide disaster response and support sustainability efforts. Scientific discovery spurs economic development, product innovation, infrastructure improvement, and the emergence of entirely new industries.
Progress in science increases safety. Advances in engineering and communications technology help us survive natural disasters and forensic science and risk assessment improve justice and hazard mitigation. Science enriches education, culture, and entertainment and shapes evidence-based approaches to societal problem-solving.
These benefits are often interconnected. For example, advances in chemistry led to the development of catalytic converters, while advances in epidemiological research, including analysis of the Donora, Pennsylvania smog incident,linked air pollution to public health threats. These advances were foundational to passage of the Clean Air Act, which has saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars, one of the most successful returns on investment in public health history according to the EPA and National Geographic.
How can we put a dollar value on the lives saved and economic growth from discoveries in science? The value may well be immeasurable, though I would welcome input from economists on this point. Some technologies pose challenges and risks, but overall scientific knowledge has transformed society—improving billions of lives, launching new industries, reshaping economies, and helping us face global challenges such as climate change.
Social Values and The Pursuit of Knowledge
The value of knowledge is intricately linked to the social values that shape the pursuit of knowledge. Here we will pivot to modern issues in epistemology, or the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. As discussed in Dr. Helen Longino’s review in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, today’s scientific enterprise contends with trust, accountability, reliability, peer review, and the influence of funding sources. Science is not isolated from society; the interplay between “epistemic” values—accuracy, objectivity—and “non-epistemic” values—social, ethical, political, cultural—is more vital than ever. Foundations for this debate have been covered by scholars like Thomas Kuhn, Helen Longino, and Heather Douglas.
As a graduate student, I was firmly rooted in the epistemic, or value-freedom perspective of science, meaning I understood my job primarily from the perspective of seeking out truth. Experience later revealed the impact and complexity of non-epistemic values—social, ethical, cultural, economic and political—in shaping research priorities and outcomes. Philosophers now broadly agree: science cannot be entirely value-free, but integrity can be protected if scientists remain vigilant about the influence of values. The central challenge: whose values matter, and how do they impact the scientific method without compromising truth-seeking? The philosophical dimensions related to these and other questions are evolving. For example, controversies related to vaccine safety and climate change persist, indicating society must again revisit the distinction between knowledge and opinion, originally litigated by Plato 2,400 year ago. Elemental to this controversy is the nature of science communication and debate. At least from my perspective, this controversy challenges all scientists and scientific institutions to reconsider how we communicate research findings and knowledge to society.
Another example of the tension between these values is how they shape the questions driving risk assessment activities undertaken to inform policy and regulatory decisions. For example, should the burden of proof for regulatory decisions be based on the demonstration of harm or the demonstration of safety of chemicals and substances in our environment? I would argue risk assessors are now faced with a newly emergent question: should regulatory decisions be based on promoting economic prosperity, as suggested by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin? From a policy perspective, the EPA administrator raises a legitimate question. However, it is equally legitimate to argue that this question falls outside of EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. This example illustrates the tension between both how research questions are shaped, and where research is conducted.
The interplay between social values and science is highlighted by the “right to science” movement. In 2023, Frontiers in Sociology published a fascinating dive into the challenges of non-epistemic values focused on the right to science movement. This movement, articulated in a 2022 document from Swiss Commission for UNESCO, calls for equitable access to scientific knowledge and methodologies, anticipation of and protection against harm deriving from scientific discovery and technological innovation, and autonomy and freedom of scientific researchers. This series of opinions also described the global inequalities and fragile foundations shaping contemporary scientific practice. The opinion by Caroline Gatt was particularly thought provoking: Her article explores the risks and consequences of “epistemic coloniality” and “epistemic violence,” underscoring the responsibility of scientists in ensuring access, truth, and objectivity in communicating knowledge.
Concerns about the fragility of scientific institutions remain timely. Glen Tiffert’s 2020 report, “Compromising the Knowledge Economy”, describes how censorship, media control, and financial pressures threaten free inquiry. His warning: “Intellectual freedom flourishes only so long as we sustain and invest in the ecosystem that supports it, and that ecosystem is prone to exploitation and despoilment by those with incompatible agendas.”
Reexamining Knowledge and Values in Science
There is no longer—if there ever was—the luxury of focusing on knowledge for its own sake, while ignoring social, ethical, and cultural context. Science must reflect on how values shape research priorities, methods, and applications. Strengthening institutions, building resilience, and expanding access to science are moral and practical imperatives. If scientific independence and integrity are not collectively reinforced, future generations may end up relearning hard-won lessons, at considerable cost to society.
