In this blog post, we’ll examine various perspectives on the value-neutrality of science and technology and explore how it influences the values of society and individuals.
In the movie ‘Minority Report’, set in 2055, a crime prevention system is introduced in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. This system utilizes the abilities of precogs—people who can see the future—to predict upcoming murders and arrest potential murderers in advance, thereby preventing crimes. In other words, even though a person has not committed any crime at the present time, the crime prevention system allows authorities to be certain that they will commit murder in the near future. In this case, the crime prevention system effectively helps us make value judgments about “future murderers.”
In such a society, people are no longer judged solely on the basis of actions they have already committed. Their future actions also become a subject of judgment. If the South Korean government were to announce today that it would preemptively detain individuals who have not yet committed a crime but are likely to do so, it would spark massive social controversy. This is because, in the present—where technology capable of accurately predicting the future does not exist—there is a widely held perception that “judging others based on events that have not yet occurred” is deeply unjust.
However, if technology capable of predicting the future with high accuracy—as depicted in ‘Minority Report’—were to actually exist, the situation could change. Under the premise of being able to foresee the future, the moral standards regarding “judging others based on events that have not yet occurred” might shift. In other words, technology that predicts the future has the potential to alter people’s moral values. Of course, technology capable of accurately predicting future crimes has not yet become a reality, and current artificial intelligence and data analysis technologies have not yet reached a level where they can definitively predict crimes. However, if such technology were to actually become possible, our ways of thinking and values would undoubtedly change, taking on a form different from before, just as ‘Minority Report’ depicted.
You’ve likely heard the term “value neutrality” in science at least once. “Value neutrality” is a concept originally proposed by the German sociologist Max Weber as a methodology for the social sciences. Subsequently, the term was applied to the fields of natural science and engineering, where it began to be used in various contexts. Generally, the value neutrality of science and technology can be understood from two main perspectives.
First is value neutrality as a research methodology, meaning that scientists and engineers must not be influenced by personal values or social interests while conducting research. Second is the view that scientific facts or technology itself are inherently neutral and, in and of themselves, carry no moral significance or value.
The first perspective is entirely valid in explaining the research ethics and attitude that researchers should uphold. However, the second perspective—the claim that science and technology themselves possess no value—has drawn various criticisms. This is because, as seen in ‘Minority Report’, many scientific and technological advancements have the potential to significantly alter society’s and humanity’s values themselves. Science and technology are not merely tools used by humans; they can also influence the standards by which society judges what is right and wrong.
Those who argue for the value neutrality of science often cite the example: “Even if genetic testing reveals abnormalities in a fetus, that fact does not justify an abortion.” In other words, they argue that scientific facts do not substitute for moral judgments. Of course, moral conclusions are not automatically derived from science and technology alone. However, this example alone is hardly sufficient evidence to support the claim that science and technology have no influence on values.
For example, suppose a couple decides to have an abortion because they believe they cannot afford to raise a child due to financial difficulties. In such a case, various ethical criticisms might be raised in today’s society. But what if the same couple decided to have an abortion after a genetic test conducted during pregnancy confirmed that the fetus had a serious genetic disorder, and they made this decision while also taking their financial circumstances into account? It would be difficult to assume that they would face the same level of criticism as in the previous example.
Furthermore, when such genetic testing first emerged, a new ethical debate arose in society: “To what extent is abortion permissible when a genetic disorder is detected in advance?” In fact, even today, ethical debates surrounding prenatal genetic testing, embryonic genetic testing, and gene-editing technologies continue. Regardless of the conclusion reached through social discussion and consensus, people’s values are bound to differ from what they were before the advent of science and technology.
As such, when new science and technology emerge in society, they often give rise to new value judgments and ethical debates. This is because values are not immutable truths but constantly change depending on a society’s level of knowledge, culture, and standard of living. Therefore, the emergence of new science and technology necessitates the establishment of new values.
Medieval Europe was a thoroughly Christian-centered society. It was an era in which it was unimaginable to deny the Bible or the existence of God. The Bible explained that the Earth was the center of the universe and that humans were God’s creations, and people at the time accepted this as absolute truth. However, as research by Copernicus, Galileo, and others revealed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, people’s existing values began to waver.
Later, when Darwin proposed the theory in ‘On the Origin of Species’ that humans, too, were the result of evolution, the number of people who did not take the Bible literally began to grow gradually. These scientific discoveries spurred new philosophical discussions about religion and human existence and brought about significant changes in societal values as a whole.
Just a few centuries ago, denying the existence of God in European society was subject to severe religious and social condemnation. However, in modern European society, identifying as an atheist is not considered a social problem, and an individual’s morality and religious faith are often viewed as separate issues. Newly accumulated scientific knowledge has influenced people’s religious and moral views. In other words, as scientific facts emerged that directly conflicted with the beliefs underpinning the values of that era, the existing value system also underwent a transformation. This can be considered a prime example of how a society’s values are influenced by its overall level of knowledge and cultural environment.
During World War II, Nazi Germany utilized eugenics as one of the rationales to justify its racist policies and genocide. Eugenics is a field of study that, based on the premise that human abilities and characteristics are inherited, claimed that the genetic traits of human groups could be improved. In today’s research on genetics and bioethics, such eugenic ideas are regarded as posing serious scientific and ethical problems, and modern genetics is clearly distinguished from the eugenics of the past.
After coming to power, the Nazis discriminated against and persecuted countless people, including Jews, Roma, people with disabilities, and those with mental illnesses, and carried out forced sterilization policies and systematic massacres. Eugenics was used as one of the key logical justifications in the process of legitimizing these tragedies. It spread the false claim that eliminating “inferior” genes was the path to a better society, and this way of thinking was even accepted in some societies at the time.
Today, eugenics is regarded as a prime example of pseudoscience that promoted racial and disability discrimination, and the modern scientific community does not recognize its academic legitimacy. This case demonstrates that when a specific scientific theory or technology is combined with social value judgments, it can never be value-neutral. In particular, research on subjects to which society has already assigned value can either reinforce or undermine existing value systems. Eugenics can be considered a prime example of this.
So far, we have examined various cases in which science and technology have transformed societal values. The claim that science and technology are completely value-neutral stems, in part, from the premise that values are absolute truths that never change. However, in reality, there are two main ways in which science and technology cease to be value-neutral.
First, it is because they involve the study of subjects to which society has already ascribed value. Such research can either reinforce existing values or, conversely, overturn them. Eugenics is a prime example of this.
Second, it is because science and technology transform society itself. New scientific and technological advancements—such as prenatal genetic testing, embryonic stem cell research, gene-editing technologies, and artificial intelligence—are having a lasting impact on social institutions, lifestyles, and ethical standards. The moment new scientific knowledge and technologies are introduced into society, society begins to change; and as society changes, the mindsets and values of its members change as well.
There is a vast difference between the social and moral values of people 500 years ago and those of people today. While various factors—including political, economic, and cultural ones—have contributed to these changes, it is difficult to deny that advances in science and technology have played a significant role.
