Scholars and experts focus on the larger moral context around the controversies over scientific research and technological innovations with accessible essays, original to this volume, which emphasize ethical deliberation rather than adversarial debate.

The role of science in policymaking has gained unprecedented stature in the United States, raising questions about the place of science and scientific expertise in the democratic process. Some scientists have been given considerable epistemic authority in shaping policy on issues of great moral and cultural significance, and the politicizing of these issues has become highly contentious. Since World War II, most philosophers of science have purported the concept that science should be "value-free." In Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal, Heather E. Douglas argues that such an ideal is neither adequate nor desirable for science. She contends that the moral responsibilities of scientists require the consideration of values even at the heart of science. She lobbies for a new ideal in which values serve an essential function throughout scientific inquiry, but where the role values play is constrained at key points, thus protecting the integrity and objectivity of science. In this vein, Douglas outlines a system for the application of values to guide scientists through points of uncertainty fraught with moral valence.Following a philosophical analysis of the historical background of science advising and the value-free ideal, Douglas defines how values should-and should not-function in science. She discusses the distinctive direct and indirect roles for values in reasoning, and outlines seven senses of objectivity, showing how each can be employed to determine the reliability of scientific claims. Douglas then uses these philosophical insights to clarify the distinction between junk science and sound science to be used in policymaking. In conclusion, she calls for greater openness on the values utilized in policymaking, and more public participation in the policymaking process, by suggesting various models for effective use of both the public and experts in key risk assessments.

Like many other states, the 19th century was a period of coming to grips with the growing domination of the world by the 'Great Powers' for the Ottoman Empire. Many Muslim Ottoman elites attributed European 'ascendance' to the new sciences that had developed in Europe, and a long and multi-dimensional debate on the nature, benefits, and potential dangers of science ensued. This analysis of this debate is not based on assumptions characteristic of studies on modernisation and Westernisation, arguing that for Muslim Ottomans the debate on science was in essence a debate on the representatives of science.

Advancements in computing, instrumentation, robotics, digital imaging, and simulation modeling have changed science into a technology-driven institution. Government, industry, and society increasingly exert their influence over science, raising questions of values and objectivity. These and other profound changes have led many to speculate that we are in the midst of an epochal break in scientific history. This edited volume presents an in-depth examination of these issues from philosophical, historical, social, and cultural perspectives. It offers arguments both for and against the epochal break thesis in light of historical antecedents. Contributors discuss topics such as: science as a continuing epistemological enterprise; the decline of the individual scientist and the rise of communities; the intertwining of scientific and technological needs; links to prior practices and ways of thinking; the alleged divide between mode-1 and mode-2 research methods; the commodification of university science; and the shift from the scientific to a technological enterprise. Additionally, they examine the epochal break thesis using specific examples, including the transition from laboratory to real world experiments; the increased reliance on computer imaging; how analog and digital technologies condition behaviors that shape the object and beholder; the cultural significance of humanoid robots; the erosion of scientific quality in experimentation; and the effect of computers on prediction at the expense of explanation. Whether these events represent a historic break in scientific theory, practice, and methodology is disputed. What they do offer is an important occasion for philosophical analysis of the epistemic, institutional and moral questions affecting current and future scientific pursuits.

Religion tells us that God is love but neuroscience counters with love as a well-timed trickle of transmitters and hormones. With doctorates in both mathematics and theology, Kevin Sharpe explores these notions and asks the question Has Science Displaced the Soul?

Debating Biology takes a fresh look at the relationship between biology and society as it is played out in the arena of health and medicine.

"Religion and science often appear to cause conflict in American public life. But why? This book reports the results from the first study to combine large-scale empirical analysis of multiple "religion and science" debates with in-depth research into what Americans actually want from public life. The surprising finding is that apparent conflicts involving religion and science reflect a more fundamental conflict between media elites and ordinary Americans over what good debate should be, raising profound questions about the future of the public sphere and American democracy"--Provided by publisher.

Discusses the state of the field of Political Science. This book talks about the usefulness of rational choice theory; the ethical limits of pluralism; the use (and misuse) of empirical research; the divorce between political theory and empirical science; and the connection between political science scholarship and political struggles. a "Making Political Science Matter" brings together a number of prominent scholars to discuss the state of the field of Political Science. In particular, these scholars are interested in ways to reinvigorate the discipline by connecting it to present day political struggles. Uniformly well-written and steeped in a strong sense of history, the contributors consider such important topics as: the usefulness of rational choice theory; the ethical limits of pluralism; the use (and misuse) of empirical research in political science; the present-day divorce between political theory and empirical science; the connection between political science scholarship and political struggles, and the future of the discipline. This volume builds on the debate in the discipline over the significance of the work of Bent Flyvbjerg, whose book "Making Social Science Matter" has been characterized as a manifesto for the Perestroika Movement that has roiled the field in recent years

_______________ 'When the history of the climate crisis is written, Hansen will be seen as the scientist with the most powerful and consistent voice calling for intelligent action to preserve our planet's environment' - Al Gore 'Few people know more about climate change than James Hansen ... This unnerving and fluently written book is the definitive one to read' - BBC Wildlife 'Anyone concerned about the world our children and grandchildren must inherit owes it to themselves to read this book' - Irish Times _______________ An urgent and provocative call to action from the world's leading climate scientist Dr James Hansen, the world's leading scientist on climate issues, speaks out with the full truth about global warming: the planet is hurtling to a climatic point of no return. Hansen - whose climate predictions have come to pass again and again, beginning in the 1980s when he first warned US Congress about global warming - is the single most credible voice on the subject worldwide. He paints a devastating but all-too-realistic picture of what will happen if we continue to follow the course we're on. But he is also a hard-headed optimist, and shows that there is still time to take the urgent, strong action needed to save humanity. _______________ 'James Hansen gives us the opportunity to watch a scientist who is sick of silence and compromise; a scientist at the breaking point - the point at which he is willing to sacrifice his credibility to make a stand to avert disaster' - LA Times

Every arena of science has its own flash-point issues—chemistry and poison gas, physics and the atom bomb—and genetics has had a troubled history with race. As Jonathan Marks reveals, this dangerous relationship rumbles on to this day, still leaving plenty of leeway for a belief in the basic natural inequality of races. The eugenic science of the early twentieth century and the commodified genomic science of today are unified by the mistaken belief that human races are naturalistic categories. Yet their boundaries are founded neither in biology nor in genetics and, not being a formal scientific concept, race is largely not accessible to the scientist. As Marks argues, race can only be grasped through the humanities: historically, experientially, politically. This wise, witty essay explores the persistence and legacy of scientific racism, which misappropriates the authority of science and undermines it by converting it into a social weapon.