June 8, 2010

Google Logo Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

A Question for the Readers

Recent events have confused me, a little bit. In trying to figure this all out, I thought I’d pose a question to the readership: Is it possible to ask an empirical question about the effects of a certain human-made product or activity, without implicitly condoning the existence of that product or activity?

By Jason G. Goldman

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Recent events have confused me, a little bit. In trying to figure this all out, I thought I'd pose a question to the readership:

Is it possible to ask an empirical question about the effects of a certain human-made product or activity, without implicitly condoning the existence of that product or activity?

Here are some examples that spring to mind:

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Can we investigate the effects of offshore drilling on the ecosystem, even if we think offshore drilling is bad?

Can we investigate the effects of the burning of increasing amounts of fossil fuels on the environment, without implicitly supporting the burning of those fuels?

Can we investigate the effects of the Holocaust on, say, the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, without implicitly condoning the Holocaust? (As the grandchild of survivors, I have myself participated in such research studies)

Can we investigate the effects of alcoholism on the children of alcoholics, without condoning alcoholism in the first place?

Can we investigate the effects of the recreational use of drugs, even if we are staunchly against the recreational use of drugs?

Can we investigate the effects of the viewing of pornography, even if we think the production of pornography is ethically inexcusable?

I don't have any answers on this one.

So, below in the comments, please share your thoughts. Is it possible to separate the two types of questions? Does it depend on the questions being asked? Does it depend on who is asking?

Please keep comments focused and on-topic. This time around, I'll be deleting comments that stray too far off-topic.

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe