Abstract
The term "scientifically noncontroversial" in the Davis and Portis "categorical imperative" needs to be specified more carefully to be a useful guide for applied social scientists. A strict interpretation would likely define most scientific advice to policy makers as unethical. Further questions concern whether nonscientists are capable of understanding the limitations and uncertainties of scientific research, the adequacy of cross examination in the policy-making community, and the consequences of disqualifying controversial research from consideration in the policy-making process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.