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 enduring importance of epistemology, both ancient and modern, helps us understand, and sometimes misunderstand, the true value of knowledge.
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 to 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. Consider the catalytic converter: developed via advances in chemistry and risk assessment, its widespread adoption after 1975 formed a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. Together with other Clean Air Act measures, catalytic converters have 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
Modern philosophy highlights the intricate relationship between scientific knowledge and the social values that shape its pursuit. As discussed in Dr. Helen Longino’s review in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosphy, 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.
Early in my scientific career, it is clear 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 integrate without compromising truth-seeking? The nuances of philosophy of science are evolving, especially as public debates on vaccine safety, climate change, and science communication drive new challenges for the discipline.
Social values can dramatically impact the questions serving as the foundation for risk assessment activities undertaken to inform policy and regulatory decisions. For example, should the burden of proof in regulatory decisions be based on the demonstration of harm or the demonstration of safety of substances relevant to industry? I would argue risk assessors are now faced with a newly emergent, foundational question: should regulatory decisions be based on promoting economic prosperity, as suggested by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin? Is it relevant if the protection of economic prosperity falls outside of EPA’s mission to protect human health the environment?
Recent scholarship recognizes the principle of equitable access—the “right to science.” This is at the heart of a movement articulated in a 2022 document from the Swiss Commission for UNESCO and explored in a set of essays in Frontiers in Sociology. The movement demands global access, protection from harm, and freedom for researchers, exposing the persistent inequalities and epistemic hierarchies shaping science. Caroline Gatt’s opinion explores the risks of “epistemic coloniality”—the privileging of Western knowledge—and “epistemic violence,” from historic pseudoscientific racism to the destruction and genocide of Indigenous cultures via residential schools.
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.
The ancient distinction, made by Plato, between knowledge and opinion still resonates. Perhaps training in epistemology should be required for policymakers. If scientific independence and integrity are not collectively reinforced, future generations may end up relearning hard-won lessons, at considerable cost to society.
