What do you think?
Rate this book
A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science
The role of values in scientific research has become an important topic of discussion in both scholarly and popular debates. Pundits across the political spectrum worry that research on topics like climate change, evolutionary theory, vaccine safety, and genetically modified foods has become overly politicized. At the same time, it is clear that values play an important role in science by limiting unethical forms of research and by deciding what areas of research have the greatest relevance for society. Deciding how to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate influences of values in scientific research is a matter of vital importance.
Recently, philosophers of science have written a great deal on this topic, but most of their work has been directed toward a scholarly audience. This book makes the contemporary philosophical literature on science and values accessible to a wide readership. It examines case studies from a variety of research areas, including climate science, anthropology, chemical risk assessment, ecology, neurobiology, biomedical research, and agriculture. These cases show that values have necessary roles to play in identifying research topics, choosing research questions, determining the aims of inquiry, responding to uncertainty, and deciding how to communicate information.
Kevin Elliott focuses not just on describing roles for values but also on determining when their influences are actually appropriate. He emphasizes several conditions for incorporating values in a legitimate fashion, and highlights multiple strategies for fostering engagement between stakeholders so that value influences can be subjected to careful and critical scrutiny.
Recently, philosophers of science have written a great deal on this topic, but most of their work has been directed toward a scholarly audience. This book makes the contemporary philosophical literature on science and values accessible to a wide readership. It examines case studies from a variety of research areas, including climate science, anthropology, chemical risk assessment, ecology, neurobiology, biomedical research, and agriculture. These cases show that values have necessary roles to play in identifying research topics, choosing research questions, determining the aims of inquiry, responding to uncertainty, and deciding how to communicate information.
Kevin Elliott focuses not just on describing roles for values but also on determining when their influences are actually appropriate. He emphasizes several conditions for incorporating values in a legitimate fashion, and highlights multiple strategies for fostering engagement between stakeholders so that value influences can be subjected to careful and critical scrutiny.
- GenresPhilosophy
224 pages, Paperback
Published February 1, 2017
5 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 10, 2022
Among the several books I'm reading about how science and values are intertwined, this is definitely the most accessible (together with Nonsense on Stilts by M. Pigliucci), but also more comprehensive and systematic about this specific topic (the other book has a different focus, after all).
It carefully distinguish, utilizing interesting real case studies, how values affect constitutively science for 1) choosing what to study, 2) choosing how to study it 3) choosing why studying it and therefore what to prioritize while modeling 4) how to respond to uncertainty and 5) how to frame scientific results. Every one of this categories has its sub-categories which are also explained.
Like, there is no neutral way to decide the amount of evidence requested to accept a result, which is crucial for example when assessing the toxicity of a chemical substance suspected of poisoning a community - whether you choose a 90% or 95% or 99% confidence interval, you are prioritizing the interests of the population or the companies that produce the substance more.
Since the book is so broad in scope, it can't deeply explore all of them, but it gives plenty of bibliographic advice after each chapter. In particular, while at the beginning I was thinking the book was not that deep, it was perhaps because it started with topics I have studied, like, A LOT. On the other hand, the subsequent parts kinda blew my mind (particularly chapters 3 and 5).
Another impression I got wrong at the beginning was that the author was your typical moderately liberal guy, but yeah, the more I read the more I realized that is definitely not the case.
The main merit of this book is that I would be confident to suggest even to people with no training in philosophy, and yet the author didn't water down the content: the meat is definitely there, AND it is simple to read and understand while it conveys the complexity of the issues.
It carefully distinguish, utilizing interesting real case studies, how values affect constitutively science for 1) choosing what to study, 2) choosing how to study it 3) choosing why studying it and therefore what to prioritize while modeling 4) how to respond to uncertainty and 5) how to frame scientific results. Every one of this categories has its sub-categories which are also explained.
Like, there is no neutral way to decide the amount of evidence requested to accept a result, which is crucial for example when assessing the toxicity of a chemical substance suspected of poisoning a community - whether you choose a 90% or 95% or 99% confidence interval, you are prioritizing the interests of the population or the companies that produce the substance more.
Since the book is so broad in scope, it can't deeply explore all of them, but it gives plenty of bibliographic advice after each chapter. In particular, while at the beginning I was thinking the book was not that deep, it was perhaps because it started with topics I have studied, like, A LOT. On the other hand, the subsequent parts kinda blew my mind (particularly chapters 3 and 5).
Another impression I got wrong at the beginning was that the author was your typical moderately liberal guy, but yeah, the more I read the more I realized that is definitely not the case.
The main merit of this book is that I would be confident to suggest even to people with no training in philosophy, and yet the author didn't water down the content: the meat is definitely there, AND it is simple to read and understand while it conveys the complexity of the issues.
September 12, 2018
This book presents a fairly deep reflection on the roles that values may and do play in scientific activity. The writing is approachable and non-technical, avoiding complex epistemological or theoretical discussions. The author emphasizes discussion of actual cases where scientific research and values have been entangled, either in a fruitful or perjudicial manner. This make sit somewhat easier to read, yet the reader will not find a more conceptually structured approach to the complexities of the topic. Actually, in my judgment, A Tapestry of Values is too shallow, by just presenting case-studies, mostly from applied sciences (environmental studies, medicine), without addressing the depths of the topic: it is clear that values are pervasive in scientific practices, yet to which extent are those values epistemically justified in producing knowledge? Perhaps it is clear when we think of research driven by values such as “promoting low-cost Tuberculosis testing”, but what do we make of research aiming to understand the neurophysiological correlates (or causes?) of criminal behavior? The evolutionary origins of religious belief? Effects of unconscious olfactive stimulation in consumer behavior? To which extent are the values involved a) driving the science, and b) distorting the repercussions of these studies?
The book adequately makes the points that 1) there is no such a thing as “value-free” science, and 2) evaluative considerations in science are not always detrimental. Yet the questions opened by the book are way wider than the range of intellectual tools offered by Elliot.
The book adequately makes the points that 1) there is no such a thing as “value-free” science, and 2) evaluative considerations in science are not always detrimental. Yet the questions opened by the book are way wider than the range of intellectual tools offered by Elliot.
October 25, 2018
Really excellent introduction to the role of values in science. For far too long, there's been a lot of great work done in this field... but always in one-off projects or papers by philosophers, sociologists, or others. Elliot does a fantastic job of compiling these examples and making them accessible, approachable, and informative. His use of individual examples is highly effective, as is the overall arc of the book.
More to come in a review for a journal, but suffice to say that I'd highly recommend the book for both graduate and undergraduate level courses, as well as anyone interested in the role of values in science.
More to come in a review for a journal, but suffice to say that I'd highly recommend the book for both graduate and undergraduate level courses, as well as anyone interested in the role of values in science.
January 23, 2021
I had high hopes for 'A Tapestry of Values,' which mostly fell flat. The book clearly hopes to be approachable to a broad audience without background in philosophy or research, but I think it ultimately limited itself too much to be of interest to practicing scientists or anyone who has engaged in a meaningful way with science communication or research itself. However, if you are not a researcher, it may be an accessible introduction to issues in science policy and communication; in any case the book does provide many brief vignettes on contentious science episodes up till the aughts which are historically interesting.
I had two major frustrations with 'A Tapestry of Values.' The first was the high level of redundancy: the book could have easily been condensed into a review article targeted at researchers. The second has to do with the book's implicit approach to research. 'A Tapestry of Values' very consistently presents scientists as deciders, doers engaging with the broader public to make decisions. Of course, scientists in fact spend most of their publishing rather than making decisions, and even when scientists are engaged to discuss their work and contribute to public policy, they are almost never the deciders. So this felt like a persistent and large gap between what the book was about and what I think researchers actually do; a frustration that was exacerbated by the frequent implication that scientists understand the public sphere and could, by behaving some way, intervene to reach a particular public outcome. 'A Tapestry of Values' presented many philosophical arguments about what might happen in the public sphere given a certain counterfactual behavior by a scientist, but did not present any empirical evidence to justify these claims nor acknowledge the immense uncertainty about actual social outcomes.
Anyway, I agreed with the argument that values are appropriate in science so long as we are transparent about them, the values are representative broadly of society, and value-laden decisions are made only after involving stakeholders. However, I think the presentation could be dramatically simplified (and clarified) by taking a decision theoretic approach and then discussing utility functions, and in particular, what happens when there are multiple stakeholders with differing utilities.
I had two major frustrations with 'A Tapestry of Values.' The first was the high level of redundancy: the book could have easily been condensed into a review article targeted at researchers. The second has to do with the book's implicit approach to research. 'A Tapestry of Values' very consistently presents scientists as deciders, doers engaging with the broader public to make decisions. Of course, scientists in fact spend most of their publishing rather than making decisions, and even when scientists are engaged to discuss their work and contribute to public policy, they are almost never the deciders. So this felt like a persistent and large gap between what the book was about and what I think researchers actually do; a frustration that was exacerbated by the frequent implication that scientists understand the public sphere and could, by behaving some way, intervene to reach a particular public outcome. 'A Tapestry of Values' presented many philosophical arguments about what might happen in the public sphere given a certain counterfactual behavior by a scientist, but did not present any empirical evidence to justify these claims nor acknowledge the immense uncertainty about actual social outcomes.
Anyway, I agreed with the argument that values are appropriate in science so long as we are transparent about them, the values are representative broadly of society, and value-laden decisions are made only after involving stakeholders. However, I think the presentation could be dramatically simplified (and clarified) by taking a decision theoretic approach and then discussing utility functions, and in particular, what happens when there are multiple stakeholders with differing utilities.
September 25, 2020
It drag on towards the end but it's a worthwhile read for anyone in (or interested in) areas of science like human biology, medicine, risk assessment, climate change, anthropology, agriculture, and toxicology. Some fascinating case studies and concepts to ponder.
April 4, 2019
I wasn't a huge fan of the writing style, but Elliott makes a lot of good points and uses a lot of helpful examples when looking at how science and values intersect.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews