Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-kc48j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-26T19:51:56.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trust in Scientific Expertise and the Varying Demands of Value Transparency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2025

Hanna Metzen Open the ORCID record for Hanna Metzen [Opens in a new window]
Hanna Metzen*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, https://ror.org/02hpadn98 Bielefeld University , Bielefeld, Germany
*
Email: hanna.metzen@uni-bielefeld.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Value transparency is thought to promote trust in scientific expertise. Yet, transparency is a complex concept. I will argue that transparency requirements come with a varying extent of engagement: merely disclosing information, providing information that is publicly accessible, or having additional mechanisms for criticism in place. It is often not clear in which sense transparency requirements are to be understood in the context of trust in expertise. However, each sense can backfire in different ways. Merely talking about transparency in a general sense hides these possible trade-offs. This furthermore shows that requiring transparency may come with a greater regulatory force.

Keywords

transparencytrust in sciencevalues in sciencescience communicationpublicityaccountability

Information

Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , First View , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Inc

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baume, S. (2018). Publicity and transparency: The itinerary of a subtle distinction. In Alloa, E. & Thomä, D. (Eds.), Transparency, society and subjectivity (pp. 203–224). Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-77161-8_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (2012). Between tribalism and trust: The IPCC under the ‘Public Microscope’. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 151–173.10.3167/nc.2012.070203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, M. (2020). Should i do as I’m told? Trust, experts, and Covid-19. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 30(3–4), 243–263.10.1353/ken.2020.0014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. B., Kidd, I. J., & Leuschner, A. (2017). Epistemic corruption and manufactured doubt: The case of climate science. Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(3), 165–187.10.2307/44732791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262013246.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueter, A. (2017). Androcentrism, feminism, and pluralism in medicine. Topoi, 36(3), 521–530.10.1007/s11245-015-9339-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, M. (2022). What does good science-based advice to politics look like? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53(1), 5–21.10.1007/s10838-021-09574-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cologna, V., Baumberger, C., Knutti, R., Oreskes, N., & Berthold, A. (2022). The communication of value judgements and its effects on climate scientists’ perceived trustworthiness. Environmental Communication, 16(8), 1094–1107.10.1080/17524032.2022.2153896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2009). How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. The FASEB Journal, 23(6), 1638–1642.10.1096/fj.08-125963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2018). The fight against doubt. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190869229.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. E. (2008). The role of values in expert reasoning. Public Affairs Quarterly, 22(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. E. (2018). From tapestry to loom: Broadening the perspective on values in science. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 10(8), 1–8.10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. E. (2021). Squaring expertise with accountability. In Science, values, and democracy (pp. 67–96). Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.Google Scholar
EASAC. (2014). Good practice in the dialogue between science academies and policy communities. European Academies Science Advisory Council. https://easac.eu/fileadmin/ppt/Science-Policy-Dialogue/Short_EASAC_Guidelines_PDF.pdf. Accessed 27.7.24.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. C. (2008). Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-of-interest policies. Accountability in Research, 15(1), 1–29.10.1080/08989620701783725CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190260804.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. (2022). A taxonomy of transparency in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 342–355.10.1017/can.2020.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C., McCright, A. M., Allen, S., & Dietz, T. (2017). Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values. PLos One, 12(10), e0186049.10.1371/journal.pone.0186049CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C. & Resnik, D. B. (2014). Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(7), 647–650.10.1289/ehp.1408107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C., & Resnik, D. B. (2019). Making open science work for science and society. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 075002.10.1289/EHP4808CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elster, J. (2015). Introduction. In Elster, J. (Ed.), Secrecy and publicity in votes and debates (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316015360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389–404.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00366.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernàndez Pinto, M. (2020). Commercial interests and the erosion of trust in science. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 1003–1013.10.1086/710521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furman, K. (2020). Emotions and distrust in science. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28(5), 713–730.10.1080/09672559.2020.1846281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Game, E. T., Schwartz, M. W., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Policy relevant conservation science. Conservation Letters, 8(5), 309–311.10.1111/conl.12207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, M. J. (2023). Public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 366–378.10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of Canada. (2024). Covid-19 vaccine task force. Government of Canada. https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/biomanufacturing/en/covid-19-vaccine-task-force. Accessed 27.7.24.Google Scholar
Gundersen, T. (2024). Trustworthy science advice: The case of policy recommendations. Res Publica, 30, 125–143.10.1007/s11158-023-09625-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D. J., & Lobato, E. J. C. (2022). Values disclosures and trust in science: A replication study. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 1017362.10.3389/fcomm.2022.1017362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–220.10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intemann, K. (2024). Value transparency and promoting warranted trust in science communication. Synthese, 203(2), 42.10.1007/s11229-023-04471-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irzik, G., & Kurtulmus, F. (2019). What Is epistemic public trust in science? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70(4), 1145–1166.10.1093/bjps/axy007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarman, H., Rozenblum, S., Falkenbach, M., Rockwell, O., & Greer, S. L. (2022). Role of scientific advice in Covid-19 policy. BMJ, 378, e070572.10.1136/bmj-2022-070572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, S. (2018). Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87.10.1080/02691728.2017.1410864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books.10.1163/9789401207355_003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogelmann, B. (2021). Secrecy and transparency in political philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 16(4), e12733.10.1111/phc3.12733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovaka, K. (2021). Climate change denial and beliefs about science. Synthese, 198(3), 2355–2374.10.1007/s11229-019-02210-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langvatn, S. A., & Holst, C. (2024). Expert accountability: What does it mean, why is it challenging – and is it what we need? Constellations, 31(1), 98–113.10.1111/1467-8675.12649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstedt, C. & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review, 31(3), 301–322.10.1177/0192512110377602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Sah, S., & Cain, D. M. (2012). The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA, 307(7), 669–670.10.1001/jama.2012.154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansbridge, J. (2009). A ‘Selection Model’ of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4), 369–398.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00337.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzen, H. (2024). Objectivity, shared values, and trust. Synthese, 203(2), 60.10.1007/s11229-024-04493-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, P., Reinap, M., Moat, K., & Kuchenmüller, T. (2023). An ethical analysis of policy dialogues. Health Research Policy and Systems, 21(1), 13.10.1186/s12961-023-00962-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naurin, D. (2006). Transparency, publicity, accountability – the missing links. Swiss Political Science Review, 12(3), 90–98.Google Scholar
Nguyen, C. T. (2022). Transparency is surveillance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 105(2), 331–361.10.1111/phpr.12823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nogrady, B. (2021). ‘I Hope You Die’: How the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists. Nature, 598(7880), 250–253.10.1038/d41586-021-02741-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G. et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.10.1126/science.aab2374CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OECD. (2015). Scientific advice for policy making: The role and responsibility of expert bodies and individual scientists. In OECD science, technology and industry policy papers No. 21. OECD.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2006). Transparency and the ethics of communication. In Hood, C. & Heald, D. (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 74–90). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2009). Ethics for communication?. European Journal of Philosophy, 17(2), 167–180.10.1111/j.1468-0378.2009.00346.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science? Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, W. S., & Lusk, G. (2019). Incorporating user values into climate services. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100(9), 1643–1650.10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0325.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, M. (2009). Delimiting democratic accountability. Political Studies, 57(1), 28–53.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00720.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511818110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, D. B. (2008). Scientific autonomy and public oversight. Episteme, 5(2), 220–238.10.3366/E1742360008000336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2023). Science, values, and the new demarcation problem. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 54(2), 259–286.10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal Society. (2012). Science as an open enterprise. London: The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/. Accessed 27.7.24.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. (2021). Democratic values: A better foundation for public trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 545–562.10.1093/bjps/axz023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMC. (2022). Register of interests policy: Guidance note for scientists. London: Science Media Centre. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/working-with-us/for-scientists/guidance-note-register-of-interests-policy/. Accessed 27.7.24.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. (2021). Trust: The need for public understanding of how science works. Hastings Center Report, 51(S1), S36–S39.10.1002/hast.1227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whyte, K., & Crease, R. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425.10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilholt, T. (2013). Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(2), 233–253.10.1093/bjps/axs007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. (2015). A plurality of pluralisms: Collaborative practice in archaeology. In Padovani, F., Richardson, A., & Tsou, J. Y. (Eds.), Objectivity in science: New perspectives from science and technology studies (pp. 189–210). Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar