Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology ed. by H. Tristram Englehardt, Jr., Arthur L. Caplan

Abstract

980 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE plemented with other works, Forevermore’sjournalistic fact-finding ap­ proach adds refreshing and lively aspects to the often tedious scientific publications on this subject. Adri A. Albert de la Bruheze Dr. de la Bruheze works at the University of Twente and is engaged in a historical and sociological study of changes in problem definitions of nuclear waste in the United States and the Netherlands. Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Dis­ putes in Science and Technology. Edited by H. Tristram Englehardt, Jr., and Arthur L. Caplan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Pp. x + 639; notes, indexes. $59.50 (cloth); $19.95 (paper). This volume consists of twenty-nine papers by thirty-one authors on the important and timely subject of scientific controversies and their resolution or closure. The notion of scientific controversy is broadly construed to include controversies not only within science but also in medicine, and controversies concerning the applications of science and the uses of technology. Furthermore, only controversies having, in the editors’ words, “a heavy political and ethical overlay” are considered. The book is the product of a three-year series of meetings, the Closure Project, held at the Hastings Center and supported financially by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The authors had opportunities to hear and discuss one another’s papers and, appar­ ently, to follow the development of the papers through to publication. After the editors’ introduction, the book is organized as follows: eleven papers on theoretical perspectives, of which Tom L. Beauchamp’s “Ethical Theory and the Problem of Closure” is the one most often referred to by other authors; fourteen papers presenting contem­ porary case studies of Laetrile, homosexuality, safety in the workplace, and nuclear power; and three miscellaneous papers, including one on the role of the mass media in scientific controversies. To be successful, this means of investigating a subject, in which contributions are invited from selected scholars, requires great effort on the part of the organizers to maintain a steady focus and ensure coherence among the contributions. Although the quality of the in­ dividual essays is uniformly high, they are more a diverse collection than an integrated whole. Few links exist, for example, between the papers on theoretical perspectives and those of the case studies. Al­ though the word “technology” appears in the book’s subtitle, and technological issues are discussed by several authors, the word and its derivatives are curiously absent from both the preface and the introduction. It is as if technology were one with science. The diffi­ culties of maintaining a steady focus and of drawing general conclu­ TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 981 sions from the essays is illustrated by the not-too-helpful introduction. Much more successful in drawing general conclusions from at least some of the papers is Ruth Macklin’s essay closing the volume. Macklin concludes that scientific controversies, again broadly con­ strued, usually involve a mixture of three elements: “(1) science, in­ cluding facts, theories, and methods; (2) values—primarily, but not exclusively, moral values; and (3) politics, whether within the conduct of science, involving science and technology, or involving moral prin­ ciples, such as questions of justice” (pp. 619—20). She offers three normative principles regarding closure ofsuch controversies. In doing so she adopts Beauchamp’s classification of forms of closure. Accord­ ing to Beauchamp, sound argument closure occurs if “a correct po­ sition has been reached in a context of controversy, thereby rendering opposition views incorrect” (p. 28); procedural closure, if “an issue is ended by formal, procedurally governed efforts to terminate the sus­ tained discussion that characterizes controversy” (p. 30); and nego­ tiation closure, if “a controversy is settled through an intentionally arranged and morally unobjectionable resolution acceptable to the principals in the controversy, even if they regard the resolution as compromising their ideal solution” (p. 33). Macklin’s first principle states that in pure science there should be no negotiation closure, only sound argument closure; her second, that there should be negotiation closure in politics and in matters of science policy. Her final principle reads: “Procedural closure is sometimes necessary or desirable in sci­ ence policy or...