The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality

Abstract

Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively. We report ten studies (N = 2328) that investigated morality judgments of scientists and compared those with judgments of various control groups, including atheists. A persistent intuitive association between scientists and disturbing immoral conduct emerged for violations of the binding moral foundations, particularly when this pertained to violations of purity. However, there was no association in the context of the individualizing moral foundations related to fairness and care. Other evidence found that scientists were perceived as similar to others in their concerns with the individualizing moral foundations of fairness and care, yet as departing for all of the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Furthermore, participants stereotyped scientists particularly as robot-like and lacking emotions, as well as valuing knowledge over morality and being potentially dangerous. The observed intuitive immorality associations are partially due to these explicit stereotypes but do not correlate with any perceived atheism. We conclude that scientists are perceived not as inherently immoral, but as capable of immoral conduct.

Attitudes Towards Science

“…One oftenquoted reason for the tense relation between scientific and religious explanation goes back to the cognitive biases described in the first part of this chapter, which tend to facilitate religious explanations (which align neatly with these biases; Atran and Norenzayan, 2004) while at the same time constraining scientific explanations (which are often counterintuitive; McCauley, 2011). Another, more motivational reason for the tension between science and religion that we have discussed in our own research as well is that scientific and technological breakthroughs sometimes run counter to deeply held religious values, for example, in the case of stem cell research and genome editing (Heine et al, 2016;. Another example from a different science domain is paleontological evidence for the age of the earth.…”

“…This is striking, because our time is not only characterized by religious and political disagreements and conflicts, but also by a G high levels of public ambivalence toward the scientific enterprise (e.g., Nagy, Wylie, Eschrich, & Finn, 2017;Pittinsky, 2015). This ambivalence has been argued to stem, among other things, from moral objections against particular scientific findings (e.g., intuitive opposition to GMOs; denial of anthropogenic climate change; vaccine skepticism; Bain et al, 2012;Blancke et al, 2015;Lewandosky & Oberauer, 2016;Rutjens, Sutton, & van der Lee, under review;Scott et al, 2016), but also from the perceived motivations and agendas of science and scientists (e.g., Gleick et al, 2010;Rutjens & Heine, 2016).…”

“…In addition to the aforementioned work that honed in on the moral concerns that people might have about various types of scientific evidence, we have examined the moral associations that people have with scientists (Rutjens & Heine, 2016). Do people think that scientists are good or bad people?…”

“…Intuitive associations between various morality violations and scientists. The Y-axis indicates the percentage of participants committing a logical fallacy that reflects this association (Rutjens & Heine, 2016). Figure 3.…”

Revisiting Graduate Student Training to Address Agricultural and Environmental Societal Challenges

“…Although more recent doctoral graduates are pursuing nonacademic careers, few receive formal preparation for these careers (Mascarelli, 2012). A professional development seminar must not only address nonacademic careers (via lectures from academic and nonacademic scientific professional) but also provide training in public policy and social science because the perception and views of scientists often differ from the general populace (Funk and Rainie, 2015) and can contribute to the public distrust of scientists (Gauchat, 2012; Rutjens and Heine, 2016). Research, and the resulting technologies and approaches, must be accepted by society to achieve maximum benefit, emphasizing the need for training in communication to a broader audience.…”