Impartiality

Impartiality, or considering information without bias, is important in research, particularly in the social sciences. Because of its subjective nature, social science research depends on the impartiality of researchers, especially in the interpretation of data. In its simplest form, there are multiple examples of impartiality (or lack of it) in the history of science.

During the 20th century, the understanding of scientific impartiality shifted dramatically. In the first half of the century, philosophers and sociologists of science, at least those outside the Marxist tradition, generally agreed on the impartiality of both science and scientists. Logical positivism considered true scientific knowledge as a set of factual judgments, uncontaminated by the scientists’ values. Sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that scientists shared a social norm of disinterestedness, setting their professional boundaries.

With the rise of the social studies of science and standpoint theory from the 1970s onward, impartiality was openly challenged as either an unattainable or undesirable ideal. For members of the so-called Edinburgh school, scientific concepts are shaped by social interests. Social epistemologists such as Miriam Solomon and Helen Longino have argued, in various ways, that scientists should acknowledge their biases and promote pluralism within their communities in order to make their research outcomes generally acceptable.

A common presupposition in these approaches to impartiality is that science should be conducted in the public interest. The more universal the public interest, the more impartial the research. Therefore, in biomedical research, the interests of the patients, being the greater number, should prevail over the particular interests of the drug developers when it comes to deciding about the true effects of a particular treatment. However, in the 21st century, we are gradually discovering how the individual interests of the scientists are often in conflict with the purported common good.

Sometimes, conflict between the interests of scientists and the public good occurs because research is conducted for profit and the financial stakes are high, as can be the case in biomedical research. But even when the financial stakes are low, conflicts of interest may arise due to the increasing pressure of academic competition for funding and positions. This pressure can cause conflicts of interest in fields where the financial stakes are low and is thought to be one reason why some highly cited experimental findings in [Page 806]social psychology are difficult to reproduce for third parties. Scientists are more likely to advance their careers and receive grants when they have had articles published in prestigious journals and when those articles are cited, creating an incentive for scientists to conduct experiments with positive results that attract attention.

There is a growing concern among both philosophers and concerned scientists about individual conflicts of interests. However, the purely methodological corrections for this sort of partiality (e.g., public registration of experimental data) have not been very successful so far. An open question is whether scientific institutions such as universities or journals have the enforcement power required to correct scientific biases in an environment of self-interested scientists.

See also Collaborative Evaluation; Conflict of Interest; Goal-Free Evaluation