Can science be free from ideology? Should it be? Philosophers of science have long debated whether research can – or should – be value-neutral. We acknowledge that complete neutrality is impossible: Our values shape what we study and how we interpret findings. But there’s a crucial difference between the inevitable influence of background values and what happens when scientists become activists for the very causes they study. Activism creates a conflict of interest for scientists that threatens both scientific credibility and the effectiveness of advocacy itself.
As psychologists and researchers, we’re aware that we all have biases that can influence our scientific work. Scientists struggle to be objective as our internal beliefs, cognitions and values influence how we conduct research and the conclusions we reach. But this everyday bias is quite different from the biases introduced when scientists are also activists for the cause they study
The Scientific Method
Science is a type of inquiry designed to overcome the limitations of human thought. The scientific method uses a pre-planned and systematic approach to collecting data about a particular phenomenon. Scientists have tools to control the influence of biases. For example, the randomized drug trial where researchers study how well a new drug works is considered the gold standard for scientific research methods because it includes several of these tools: Control groups that allow comparison of outcomes, random assignment that prevents researchers from deciding who receives treatment, blind procedures that control for participant expectations, and double-blind procedures where neither participants nor researchers know who receives the real drug.
These practices exist because scientists recognized that personal interests and expectations can distort findings. They’re designed to force researchers to relinquish control over outcomes.
Activism Creates a Conflict of Interest for Scientists
Activism is an activity designed to influence decision makers to adopt a particular solution to a given social or political problem. Activists care deeply about a particular problem and believe their solution is the best one to address it. Activists have already concluded that their solution is effective and needed. The goal of activism is to convince others—both those who can help by taking up the cause and those who are in a position to change government or organizational policies and practices.
The activism approach is fundamentally different from science in its goals and logic. Scientists come at a problem to discover the truth about it, utilizing the tools of science to minimize the impact of their biases. Ideally, they are willing to accept and pursue any outcome, whatever their preferred outcome might be. Scientists design studies to prove themselves wrong. Where activists come at a problem with a preconceived solution and ask, “How can I convince decision makers to adopt it,” the scientist asks, “What is the best solution to this problem?”
When people try to be activist-scientists, their activism creates a conflict of interest for their science. A conflict of interest exists when personal interest (activism) can unduly influence a competing interest (science). This is because the goals of activism (find support for a preferred solution) is incompatible with the goals of science (find the best solution). While activists are protesting because they strongly believe in something, scientists are conducting research to figure out if that something is a reasonable solution or not. The activist has already reached a conclusion; the scientist is searching for one.
This doesn’t mean researchers shouldn’t care about social problems or that all normative commitments are problematic. The issue is when activist goals – proving a predetermined solution works – eclipse scientific practices designed to test whether it actually does.
How Activism Distorts Science
The problem when the same person is both the activist and scientist is that science can cease to be a tool for truth and becomes a servant to activism. Even if they are unaware of it, their strongly held beliefs and activist activities influence how they conduct research and the conclusions that are reached. The activism distorts the science in many ways:
- Choosing methods that are less rigorous if they are more likely to yield desired results.
- Selective literature reviews – only noting supporting and ignoring disconfirming studies that already exist.
- Questionable research practices – using HARKing (Hypothesizing after results are known) and p-hacking (analyzing data in multiple ways until desired results are found) to provide better support for a position.
- Selective reporting. Only including results that support a position and ignoring results that do not.
In such cases, when research becomes primarily a tool for advocacy, scientific safeguards erode.
The Credibility Problem
Here’s the cruel irony: Activist-science undermines the very goals activists pursue. When researchers openly embrace activist identities, they lose credibility with precisely the audiences they hope to influence. Policymakers and skeptical publics are more likely to dismiss findings as ideologically driven rather than evidence-based. This hands ammunition to those who want to defund research or eliminate entire fields of study.
The solution isn’t to abandon concern for social problems. It’s to study them rigorously and report findings honestly – even when they contradict our preferences. Research conducted in good faith, with genuine openness to being wrong, is more persuasive precisely because it’s trustworthy.
Separate Activism and Science
The best way to achieve the goals of activists and scientists is to keep them separate because activism creates a conflict of interest for scientists. An activist should not be the person doing research on their cause. That should be done by people who have no personal stake in the results of their research that would predetermine their conclusions.
That doesn’t mean that a person who is an activist cannot be a scientist. It just means that the same person should not be studying that for which they are also advocating. Albert Einstein, for example, was a physicist who was an activist for peace – his activism had little to do with his science.
A researcher passionate about reducing inequality can maintain scientific integrity by designing studies that could genuinely falsify their hypotheses, preregistering methods, and reporting all findings whether favorable or not.
Science is a valuable tool for activism in the sense that, if done properly, it can help determine what actually works rather than what we hope will work. Those solutions found to be effective through rigorous research become better targets for advocacy. Furthermore, research findings produced in good faith are more likely to influence decision makers than research perceived as serving predetermined activist conclusions.
In asking what is the place of ideology in science, we don’t claim values can or should be eliminated entirely. But we can say this: When activist commitments predetermine conclusions before data are collected, we’ve crossed from science into advocacy – and we’ve compromised both the credibility and the utility of our work.
