I see two problems with your position. One has to do with responsibility and the other with criteria for good research.
1) What motivates you to put «truth» above consequence? This is a value-based decision that you and other «knowledge for the sake of knowledge» scientists cannot justify objectively. Also, even though scientists cannot be always responsible for the choices other people are making when they appropriate and distort knowledge to their own ends, that does not absolve them of the impacts of their own decisions. Actually, saying «They can’t be doing something bad because others are going to do bad things anyways» is morally shaky. I understand we should be wary of stopping research for fear people might distort it. However, there are things that are more easily distortable than others. If I’m doing anti-gay research, it is directly bad, and far more easy to recuperate. But if I’m doing research that is set in an emancipatory goal, it is harder for it to be distorted, and easier for the distortion to be pointed out and contested. I agree that some autonomy in research can be fruitful (at least in the social sciences), because if it was always directed by political interests, we might never be able to direct a critical eye at our own society. However, it is dangerous – and preposterous – to reject any responsibility in the scientific choices we are making. In doing so, we are setting ourselves above the rest of society. Others would remain responsible, whereas we would entitle ourselves not to be.
2)While I don’t think that fundamental research is inherently and always bad, I think it is highly problematic to see the influence of subjectivity only in research procedures. You say: «the concept of 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' (…), is crucial for good research to happen». Nope. This is a positivistic claim (I invite you to read Kuhn «The structure of scientific revolutions» to know more about this). When we blind ourselves to think our subjectivity can be erased by pretending we are doing research only for research’s sake, we are bound to not see the role our subjectivity can have when we are collecting data. Our subjectivity manifests itself from the very moment we decide «truth» is more important than consequence. It manifests itself in the themes we deem more worthwhile and interesting to explore. It manifests in the research questions we select and in the way we phrase them. What is, in fact, crucial for good research to happen is to be aware of where our subjective biases are in play or more bound to appear (and letting our readers know!), so as to put our data in perspective.
Say a scientist decides to explore how we could «correct homosexuality». Is he just seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Well, good chances are he would put it that way. Because that sort of thing has happened over, and over, and over again. Scientists who set themselves to understand «the races» and organize them into hierarchies with the White race on top where all into objectivity. They really were deeply convinced they were seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Hell, these were the positivist’ heydays.
Deciding to investigate the ways we could «correct homosexuality» not only stems from a subjective viewpoint that problematises non-heterosexuality (because of course, it would never occur to the scientist or to his colleagues to investigate how we could «correct heterosexuality»), but also has serious social impacts. We could not just absolve a person from making such a research decision because that person happens to be a scientist.
no subject
1) What motivates you to put «truth» above consequence? This is a value-based decision that you and other «knowledge for the sake of knowledge» scientists cannot justify objectively. Also, even though scientists cannot be always responsible for the choices other people are making when they appropriate and distort knowledge to their own ends, that does not absolve them of the impacts of their own decisions. Actually, saying «They can’t be doing something bad because others are going to do bad things anyways» is morally shaky. I understand we should be wary of stopping research for fear people might distort it. However, there are things that are more easily distortable than others. If I’m doing anti-gay research, it is directly bad, and far more easy to recuperate. But if I’m doing research that is set in an emancipatory goal, it is harder for it to be distorted, and easier for the distortion to be pointed out and contested. I agree that some autonomy in research can be fruitful (at least in the social sciences), because if it was always directed by political interests, we might never be able to direct a critical eye at our own society. However, it is dangerous – and preposterous – to reject any responsibility in the scientific choices we are making. In doing so, we are setting ourselves above the rest of society. Others would remain responsible, whereas we would entitle ourselves not to be.
2)While I don’t think that fundamental research is inherently and always bad, I think it is highly problematic to see the influence of subjectivity only in research procedures. You say: «the concept of 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' (…), is crucial for good research to happen». Nope. This is a positivistic claim (I invite you to read Kuhn «The structure of scientific revolutions» to know more about this). When we blind ourselves to think our subjectivity can be erased by pretending we are doing research only for research’s sake, we are bound to not see the role our subjectivity can have when we are collecting data. Our subjectivity manifests itself from the very moment we decide «truth» is more important than consequence. It manifests itself in the themes we deem more worthwhile and interesting to explore. It manifests in the research questions we select and in the way we phrase them. What is, in fact, crucial for good research to happen is to be aware of where our subjective biases are in play or more bound to appear (and letting our readers know!), so as to put our data in perspective.
Say a scientist decides to explore how we could «correct homosexuality». Is he just seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Well, good chances are he would put it that way. Because that sort of thing has happened over, and over, and over again. Scientists who set themselves to understand «the races» and organize them into hierarchies with the White race on top where all into objectivity. They really were deeply convinced they were seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Hell, these were the positivist’ heydays.
Deciding to investigate the ways we could «correct homosexuality» not only stems from a subjective viewpoint that problematises non-heterosexuality (because of course, it would never occur to the scientist or to his colleagues to investigate how we could «correct heterosexuality»), but also has serious social impacts. We could not just absolve a person from making such a research decision because that person happens to be a scientist.
Now I really need to go back to work! :)