Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-22T14:18:37.609Z 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, 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 , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , July 2024 , pp. 364 - 379
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.Google Scholar
Beck, S. (2012). Between tribalism and trust: The IPCC under the ‘Public Microscope’. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 151–173.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bueter, A. (2017). Androcentrism, feminism, and pluralism in medicine. Topoi, 36(3), 521–530.Google Scholar
Carrier, M. (2022). What does good science-based advice to politics look like? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53(1), 5–21.Google 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.Google 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.Google ScholarPubMed
de Melo-Martín, I., & Intemann, K. (2018). The fight against doubt. Oxford University Press.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C. (2017). A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. C. (2022). A taxonomy of transparency in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 52(3), 342–355.Google 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C. & Resnik, D. B. (2014). Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(7), 647–650.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, K. C., & Resnik, D. B. (2019). Making open science work for science and society. Environmental Health Perspectives, 127(7), 075002.Google ScholarPubMed
Elster, J. (2015). Introduction. In Elster, J. (Ed.), Secrecy and publicity in votes and debates (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389–404.Google Scholar
Fernàndez Pinto, M. (2020). Commercial interests and the erosion of trust in science. Philosophy of Science, 87(5), 1003–1013.Google Scholar
Furman, K. (2020). Emotions and distrust in science. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28(5), 713–730.Google Scholar
Game, E. T., Schwartz, M. W., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Policy relevant conservation science. Conservation Letters, 8(5), 309–311.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, M. J. (2023). Public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 366–378.Google 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.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. J., & Lobato, E. J. C. (2022). Values disclosures and trust in science: A replication study. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 1017362.Google Scholar
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Intemann, K. (2024). Value transparency and promoting warranted trust in science communication. Synthese, 203(2), 42.Google 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.Google Scholar
Jarman, H., Rozenblum, S., Falkenbach, M., Rockwell, O., & Greer, S. L. (2022). Role of scientific advice in Covid-19 policy. BMJ, 378, e070572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, S. (2018). Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology, 32(2), 75–87.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Kogelmann, B. (2021). Secrecy and transparency in political philosophy. Philosophy Compass, 16(4), e12733.Google Scholar
Kovaka, K. (2021). Climate change denial and beliefs about science. Synthese, 198(3), 2355–2374.Google 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.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, C. & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption. International Political Science Review, 31(3), 301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Sah, S., & Cain, D. M. (2012). The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA, 307(7), 669–670.Google ScholarPubMed
Mansbridge, J. (2009). A ‘Selection Model’ of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4), 369–398.Google Scholar
Metzen, H. (2024). Objectivity, shared values, and trust. Synthese, 203(2), 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, P., Reinap, M., Moat, K., & Kuchenmüller, T. (2023). An ethical analysis of policy dialogues. Health Research Policy and Systems, 21(1), 13.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nogrady, B. (2021). ‘I Hope You Die’: How the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists. Nature, 598(7880), 250–253.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, M. (2009). Delimiting democratic accountability. Political Studies, 57(1), 28–53.Google Scholar
Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, D. B. (2008). Scientific autonomy and public oversight. Episteme, 5(2), 220–238.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Whyte, K., & Crease, R. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425.Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. (2013). Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(2), 233–253.Google 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.Google Scholar