Regulating scientific research: should scientists be left alone?

In our current political climate, decisions about whether to fund research on new stem cell lines or do chimera experiments seem to arbitrarily depend on the religious and economic interests of the administration. Not unreasonably, many scientists believe that science should be left to its own devices in determining research priorities and conducting research. When nonscientific considerations constrain research, it is claimed that values are inappropriately dictating scientific decisions. This assumes, however, that all ethical and social values are irrelevant to such decisions. Using the case of embryonic stem cell research to illustrate the debate, we argue here that this position is untenable for several reasons. First, the aims of science, particularly in the case of the biomedical sciences, cannot be completely extricated from ethical and social aims. Hence, value judgments will be necessary to assess research priorities and methodologies. Second, maintaining this position is inconsistent with actual scientific practices. Scientists already recognize that there are some ethical values that appropriately constrain research, such as in human subject experimentation. Therefore, the problem cannot be that ethical values are brought to bear on science per se but that those values are highly questionable or are imposed by those who often lack the scientific expertise necessary to understand how ethical concerns may relate to the research. Finally, we argue that to the extent value judgments must be made, consensus about such values should be reached by a diverse group of stakeholders, including scientists, community members, policymakers, and ethicists.