Moral trust & scientific collaboration

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):301-310 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Modern scientific knowledge is increasingly collaborative. Much analysis in social epistemology models scientists as self-interested agents motivated by external inducements and sanctions. However, less research exists on the epistemic import of scientists’ moral concern for their colleagues. I argue that scientists’ trust in their colleagues’ moral motivations is a key component of the rationality of collaboration. On the prevailing account, trust is a matter of mere reliance on the self-interest of one’s colleagues. That is, scientists merely rely on external compulsion to motivate self-interested colleagues to be trustworthy collaborators. I show that this self-interest account has significant limitations. First, it cannot fully account for trust by relatively powerless scientists. Second, reliance on self-interest can be self-defeating. For each limitation, I show that moral trust can bridge the gap—when members of the scientific community cannot rely on the self-interest of their colleagues, they rationally place trust in the moral motivations of their colleagues. Case studies of mid-twentieth-century industrial laboratories and exploitation of junior scientists show that such moral trust justifies collaboration when mere reliance on the self-interest of colleagues would be irrational. Thus, this paper provides a more complete and realistic account of the rationality of scientific collaboration.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration.Kristina Rolin - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (2):157-177.
Trustworthiness in explanation: The obligation to explain well.Sheralce Brindell - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (3):351-364.
The Relevance of Trust for Moral Justification.Theresa Weynand Tobin - 2011 - Social Theory and Practice 37 (4):599-628.
Collaborative knowledge.Paul Thagard - 1997 - Noûs 31 (2):242-261.
Trust in scientific publishing.Harry Hummels & Hans E. Roosendaal - 2001 - Journal of Business Ethics 34 (2):87 - 100.
Gender and trust in science.Kristina Rolin - 2002 - Hypatia 17 (4):95-118.
The moral obligations of trust.Paul Faulkner - 2014 - Philosophical Explorations 17 (3):332-345.
Trust, staking, and expectations.Philip J. Nickel - 2009 - Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour 39 (3):345–362.
Is there a moral duty for doctors to trust patients?W. A. Rogers - 2002 - Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (2):77-80.
Collaboration in the sciences and the humanities: A comparative phenomenology.Leslie A. Real - 2012 - Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11 (3):250-261.
Creating Trust.Robert C. Solomon - 1998 - Business Ethics Quarterly 8 (2):205-232.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-05-20

Downloads
104 (#164,656)

6 months
14 (#168,878)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Karen Frost-Arnold
Hobart and William Smith Colleges

References found in this work

Epistemic dependence.John Hardwig - 1985 - Journal of Philosophy 82 (7):335-349.
The role of trust in knowledge.John Hardwig - 1991 - Journal of Philosophy 88 (12):693-708.
Deciding to trust, coming to believe.Richard Holton - 1994 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (1):63 – 76.
Bias and values in scientific research.Torsten Wilholt - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (1):92-101.

View all 31 references / Add more references