In this blog post, we will examine various perspectives on the value-neutrality of science and explore the evidence supporting the position that science is value-neutral in and of itself.
The Meaning of Value-Neutrality and the Debate Surrounding Science
Before discussing the value-neutrality of science, let’s first examine what value-neutrality actually means. Value neutrality means that an object exists as a fact in and of itself, without being biased toward any specific values or attitudes. The German sociologist Max Weber addressed value neutrality from a sociological perspective, explaining that when encountering an idea, one must set aside one’s own emotions and value judgments and instead consider and understand it as a factual reality. So, what does value neutrality mean from a scientific perspective? The value neutrality of science refers to the idea that scientific facts or descriptions are thoroughly neutral in themselves and do not inherently imply any separate social values or moral meanings. For example, if there is research on bacteria, that research is merely intended to satisfy intellectual curiosity about bacteria; it does not, in and of itself, carry any sociological significance or political implications. Ultimately, this means that facts are simply facts in and of themselves and do not give priority to any particular ideology or value.
However, the question of whether science is truly value-neutral has been debated for a long time, and the controversy continues among many experts to this day. This debate has intensified as the relationship between science and human society has grown increasingly close. With the rapid advancement of science since the modern era, science and human life have become deeply intertwined. Unlike in the past, when pure natural sciences were central, the emergence of vast fields of applied science has led science to influence nearly every aspect of daily life. Science no longer merely explains natural phenomena but is widely applied to everyday life, transforming human existence.
In this process, some scientific discoveries are utilized for purposes beyond their original research objectives; a prime example is Nobel’s dynamite. Furthermore, as scientific research is applied to industry and the economy, it has increasingly come to possess economic value in its own right. The automotive and semiconductor industries are prime examples. As science has come to interact closely with politics, society, and culture in this way, a debate has emerged: “When considering the influences that spurred a particular line of research and the impact that research subsequently has on society, is science truly value-neutral?” From the author’s perspective—that science is value-neutral—the term “science” here encompasses not only pure natural sciences but also applied sciences that influence various aspects of human life.
Science can be utilized for various purposes
Regarding the question of whether science is value-neutral, the author maintains that science is indeed value-neutral. The first basis for this view is that scientific facts and research outcomes can be utilized for diverse purposes across various fields. In other words, a single scientific achievement can be utilized in a wide variety of ways. For example, dynamite, developed by Nobel, can be used in a negative way to harm people in war, but it can also be fully utilized for socially useful purposes, such as mining or tunnel construction.
Based on this, it can be said that scientific results themselves do not pursue any specific value, nor can they judge good and evil on their own. It can be said that the value attributed to them is determined solely by those who use them.
Some might argue that certain scientific achievements cannot be utilized in diverse ways and instead pursue only a single value. For example, consider the development of nuclear weapons, one of the greatest international security issues today. The argument is that, as the term “nuclear weapons” itself suggests, the development of nuclear weapons can be viewed as inherently pursuing a negative value.
However, scientific achievements related to nuclear weapons possess not only the negative aspect of potentially being used in war but also the positive aspect of contributing to the advancement of nuclear physics. In other words, the use of nuclear weapons for negative purposes is entirely a human choice, and some may conduct nuclear-related scientific research solely for the advancement of nuclear physics and academic inquiry.
Taken as a whole, all scientific achievements—even if developed for a single purpose—have the potential to be utilized for various purposes. Therefore, rather than viewing a scientific object as inherently embodying a specific value, it can be argued that it possesses a value-neutral nature.
Science Does Not Replace Human Judgment
The second argument for the value-neutrality of science is that, since science does not pursue specific values, it does not replace human decision-making but rather serves to aid judgment. In other words, when making a decision, people base their judgment on scientific facts; science does not make the decision for them.
For example, suppose a person suffering from a certain illness is told by a doctor that there is a 50% chance of a complete cure through surgery. The final decision on whether to undergo surgery rests solely with the patient. The scientific fact that the probability of surgical success is 50% is merely information that aids in the decision-making process; it does not compel a specific decision.
Some might argue that this example is valid only because the 50% success rate is a neutral figure, and that in most cases, scientific findings do influence judgment in a specific direction. For instance, they might claim that if the probability of surgical success were 90%, the scientific finding itself would effectively determine the person’s choice to undergo surgery.
However, people do not act based solely on scientific findings when making decisions. They make their final decision by taking into account their current circumstances, values, financial situation, and lifestyle. In other words, even if the probability of surgical success is 90%, someone might choose not to undergo surgery because of the cost or because they prefer medication.
Those who argue that science embodies values also claim that, since scientists are human, values influence the direction of research itself depending on the researcher’s social, religious, and political background. However, as can be seen from the evidence presented earlier, human value judgments do not depend on science as a value-laden entity, but rather are based on scientific information that enables those value judgments. In other words, while science is value-neutral, people interpret scientific results in light of their own circumstances and values before making a final decision.
How Should We Utilize Science?
The question of whether science is value-neutral has been a topic of discussion among many experts to date and is likely to remain a subject of ongoing debate. Based on the two arguments presented above, I believe that science is value-neutral. However, I believe that those who utilize science should view and apply it in a way that benefits the entire community.
In particular, I hope that South Korean scientists—who possess world-class research capabilities in various fields, including life sciences, artificial intelligence, and information and communications technology—will lead scientific progress to enrich human lives and enable more people to live safe and comfortable lives. I also hope that instances of scientific achievements being used for malicious purposes or in ways that harm humanity will decrease.
