Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Elliott, Kevin C ^a   McCright, Aaron M ^a   Allen, Summer ^a   Dietz, Thomas ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

4,4' ISOPROPYLIDENEDIPHENOL; BENZHYDRYL DERIVATIVE; PHENOL DERIVATIVE;

ADULT; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; CITIZEN GROUP; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECOLOGY; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IDEOLOGY; MALE; ONLINE SYSTEM; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TRUST; ENVIRONMENT; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH; SCIENCE;

BENZHYDRYL COMPOUNDS; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; HUMANS; PHENOLS; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH; SCIENCE;

EID: 85032181032     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186049     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Douglas H. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2009.
2. John S. Inductive risk and the contexts of communication. Synthese 2015; 192: 79–96.
3. McKaughan D, Elliott KC. Voles, vasopressin, and the ethics of framing. Account Res 2013; 20: 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.788384 PMID: 23672499
4. Betz G. In defence of the value free ideal. Eur J Phil Sci 2013; 3: 207–220.
5. Dorato M. Epistemic and nonepistemic values in science. In: Machamer P, Wolters G, editors. Science, Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2004. pp. 52–77.
6. Hudson R. Why we should not reject the value-free ideal of science. Perspect Sci 2016; 24: 167–191.
7. Lacey H. Is Science Value Free? London: Routledge, 1999.
8. Dietz T. Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110: 14081–14087. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110 PMID: 23940350
9. Dietz T. Epistemology, ontology, and the practice of structural human ecology. In: Dietz T, Jorgenson AK, editors. Structural Human Ecology: Essays in Risk, Energy, and Sustainability. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press; 2013. pp. 31–52.
10. Rosa EA, Renn O, McCright AM. The Risk Society Revisited: Social Theory and Governance. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2014.
11. Douglas H. Values in science. In: Humphreys P, editor. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016. pp. 609–631.
12. Elliott KC. A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
13. Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
14. Longino H. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
15. de Melo-Martin I, Intemann K. The risk of using inductive risk to challenge the value-free ideal. Phil Sci 2016; 83: 500–520.
16. Elliott KC. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.
17. Elliott KC, Resnik DB. Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environ Health Perspect 2014; 122: 647–650. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408107 PMID: 24667564
18. Intemann K. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. Eur J Phil Sci 2015; 5: 217–232.
19. Douglas H. The role of values in expert reasoning. Pub Affairs Quart 2008; 22: 1–18.
20. John S. Mind the gap. Stud Hist Phil Sci 2012; 43: 218–220.
21. Goodwin RE, Mullan BA. Trust not in money: The effect of financial conflict of interest disclosure on dietary behavioural intention. Brit Food J 2009; 111: 408–420.
22. Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, Smith R, Barratt H. Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research?: Randomised trial. Brit Med J 2004; 328: 742–743. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38035.705185.F6 PMID: 14980983
23. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Anti-reflexivity: the American Conservative Movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 2010; 27: 100–133.
24. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob Environ Change 2011; 21: 1163–1172.
25. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 2011; 52: 155–194.
26. McCright AM, Dentzman K, Charters M, Dietz T. The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environ Res Lett 2013; 8: 044029.
27. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias: the case for careful study. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1959–1963. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1502497 PMID: 25970055
28. Wilholt T. Epistemic trust in science. Brit J Phil Sci 2013; 64: 233–253.
29. Petty RE, Fleming MA, Priester JR, Feinstein AH. Individual versus group interest violation: Surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Soc Cognition 2001; 19: 418–442.
30. Giere R. A new program for philosophy of science. Phil Sci 2003; 70: 15–21.
31. Lacey H. ‘Holding’ and ‘endorsing’ claims in the course of scientific activities. Stud Hist Phil Sci 2015; 53: 89–95.
32. Mitchell S. The prescribed and proscribed values in science policy. In: Machamer P, Wolters G, editors. Science, Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2004. pp. 245–255.
33. Myers J, vom Saal F, Akingbemi B, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, et al. Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect 2009; 117: 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800173 PMID: 19337501
34. Vandenburg LN, Prins GS. Clarity in the face of confusion: New studies tip the scales on bisphenol A (BPA). Androl 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12219 PMID: 27189146
35. vom Saal FS, Hughes C. An extensive new literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113: 926–933. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7713 PMID: 16079060
36. Resnik DB, Elliott KC. Bisphenol A and risk management ethics. Bioeth 2015; 29: 182–189.
37. Clements JM, McCright AM, Dietz T, Marquart-Pyatt ST. An experiment on hypothetical and actual willingness to donate. Env Sociol 2015; 1: 27–37.
38. Allen S, McCright AM, Dietz T. Measuring household energy efficiency behaviors with attention to behavioral plasticity. Energy Res Soc Sci 2015; 10: 133–140.
39. Goodman JK, Cryder CE, Cheema A. Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. J Behav Dec Making 2013; 26: 213–224.
40. Levay KE, Freese J, Druckman JN. The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open 2016; 6: 2158244016636433.
41. Paolacci G, Chandler J. Inside the Turk: understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2014; 23: 184–188.
42. Stewart N, Ungemach C, Harris AJL, Bartels DM, Newell BR, Paolacci G, Chandler J. The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Judgm Decis Mak 2015; 10: 479–491.
43. Weinberg JD, Freese J, McElhattan D. Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociol Sci 2014; 1: 292–310.
44. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA’s Statement on P-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose." Amer Stat 2016; 70: 129–33.
45. Petty RE, Fleming MA, Priester JR, Feinstein AH. Individual versus group interest violation: Surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Soc Cognition 2001; 19: 418–442.
46. Cole S. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1992.
47. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990.
48. Schnaiberg A. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press; 1980.
49. Campbell TH, Kay AC. Solution aversion: on the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. J Pers Soc Psychol 2014; 107: 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963 PMID: 25347128
50. Horne Z, Powell D, Hummer JE, Holyoak KJ. Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015; 112: 10321–10324. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504019112 PMID: 26240325
51. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K. The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637 PMID: 24098391
52. McCright AM. Anti-reflexivity and climate change skepticism in the US general public. Hum Ecol Rev. 2016; 22: 77–107.
53. Elliott KC, Richards T. Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies in Values and Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
54. Elliott KC, Steel D. Current Controversies in Values and Science. New York: Routledge, 2017.