By Colin Reynolds, Andrew Yatsuhashi, and Dominic Ferro
*all authors contributed equally to this work*
Science, with its strict rules and calculations, is meant to be impersonal and unbiased. On the contrary, the basic definition of objectivity reveals that there is no such thing as impersonal or unbiased science. While scientists have made great strides towards objectivity, there are still areas where it can be improved.
One of the many ways that science has attempted to become more impersonal is to involve more people within the scientific community. Porter talks about the leaps towards objectivity by saying, “In recent times, peer review has achieved an almost mythical status as a mark of scientific respectability. It rivals statistical inference as the preeminent mechanism for certifying a finding as impersonal and, in that important sense, objective” (Porter 12). While it does shed the original authors emotions on the subject, peer review still involves the findings being analyzed by a peer in the scientific community that may have the same thoughts on the subject. The paradox becomes how to check the findings for problems on the subject, while keeping the bias of the experts out. Peter Galison argues that this is impossible, as he writes in The Journalist, the Scientist, and Objectivity, “It is impossible to completely desubjectisize yourself,” (Galison 62). No matter how objective a person is, or attempts to be, people are by default subjective, even to the slightest degree, Merely living in a society results in being influenced and shaped by it, even without realizing it, and this cannot simply be removed or avoided. While near-objectivity can be achieved, complete objectivity cannot.
Not only will the biases that associate themselves within the scientific community affect the knowledge they discover, the social influence can also push scientists towards one result or another. Data can be skewed to make results more favorable, especially in a rough political climate or if the scientist is under pressure to produce results. Hilgartner touches upon this fact when he states, “If science does not simply reveal the facts of nature but is socially conditioned, then the very procedure for creating knowledge acquires political significance” (Hilgartner 5). Knowledge, in its very making, brings political implications. In a society where the results can create political turmoil watching and controlling what is revealed to the public is fundamental to the success or failure of society, making scientists control the narrative on technological advances and any information they have found. Looking at the scientific community in this manner begs the question if it is truly unbiased and impersonal, or if they are just showing the world an objective “play”. Porter describes how scientists “are not called upon by outsiders to justify their conclusions” (Porter 4). Scientists attempt to be objective, but they cannot be truly objective for fear of ruining their public image or releasing knowledge that damages society. This view suggests that even in a seemingly objective field like that of science and technology, the knowledge presented may not always be the whole truth. While plainly stated the information portrayed may be truthful, it is always a possibility that even the slightest bit of information may have been withheld, whether intentionally or otherwise. This information, no matter the importance, can have an effect on how the information is perceived, and thus cause the information to be in fact subjective.
Science is meant to objectively explain the natural phenomena of the world, lacking any personal interjections or leanings. In modern times, science has an ever growing role societally, influencing our everyday lives. Unfortunately, the way in which scientific study is performed in order to please society becomes subjective, leading to science being biased and personal.