When Values Collide: Why Scientists Argue About Open Science and How to Move Forward

Abstract

In the early/mid 20th century, scientists and philosophers advocated for a scientific framework that valued objectivity and certainty. This framework was committed to the value-free ideal, which held that social, political, ethical, and personal values are irrelevant to the process of science. This value system was adopted, both in science and public education systems. Indeed, the value of objectivity is thought to be synonymous with sound scientific practice. However, the “replication crisis” showed objectivity and certainty are illusory, and a value-system that favors objectivity may actually incentivize researchers to hide their biases. Over the last few years, a new value system is emerging, one that embraces uncertainty, encourages openness and transparency, and recognizes bias inherent in the scientific enterprise. These values conflict with those of the previous system, which creates discord among the scientific community. In this paper, we trace the origins of the existing value system and delineate new values emerging in the post-replication-crisis scientific community. This new set of values, objectified by the open science movement, recognizes the scientific process as a social enterprise. Neither set of values is inherently better, but both are reactions to the social environment in which researchers participate. What is important, however, is to recognize the significance of personal values in scientific discovery and to open dialogue about how to leverage these values. We conclude with recommendations about how to overcome both discord and the current incentive structure to increase the validity and reputability of science.