The Business Ethics Blog

Facts alone are never enough to tell us how we should behave. But facts do matter.

This means that, sometimes, the right thing for a business to do will depend on what the relevant science says. But scientists often disagree with each other. (That in itself is not something to lament, but something to celebrate. Orthodoxy is anathema to scientists, and it is only grudgingly that scientists, collectively, declare one particular point of view “proven.” That’s part of the power of science.)

So, what should businesses do in the face of scientific disagreement? Here are a couple of possible approaches to consider:

1) Default to safety. If there’s any scientific disagreement over whether a particular food additive is dangerous, for example, then don’t use it in your product.

2) Default to freedom of commerce. If there’s any scientific disagreement over whether a particular herbal remedy is useful, for example, then let consumers (and whichever advisors they trust) decide for themselves.

Both of those are ethically questionable, for reasons that are probably obvious. Insisting on total agreement, one way or the other, is impractical, not least because there’s always the chance that the one or two holdouts just haven’t thought things through, or are even insane. It happens.

But those aren’t the only options. One other solution (or cluster of possible solutions) would involve determining a threshold for what should count as “substantial” scientific disagreement. One loony scientist saying X is safe isn’t very reliable, just as one loony scientist saying X is dangerous isn’t very worrisome. But things are different if a substantial, credible minority — perhaps even a very small minority — disagrees with the majority of scientists. Now, just what should count as a “substantial, credible minority” is not an easy question. But I can at least imagine a well-reasoned, reputable account of corporate decision-making that appealed to such a standard in the face of scientific (and social) disagreement.

Of course, all of this can be rendered moot if government decides to “settle” controversy by imposing regulations. But note the important asymmetry here: government forbidding something as too dangerous, in spite of (or because of) scientific controversy effectively settles the matter, as far as business is concerned. If it’s legally forbidden, businesses shouldn’t do it. But an explicitly permissive regulation — such as the FDA’s or Health Canada’s approval of the use of a particular plastic in baby bottles — doesn’t necessarily settle the matter. It’s always possible that the relevant regulatory agency isn’t on the ball, or is subject to pernicious influences. And so businesses are still ethically obligated, in the face of scientific disagreement, to think through just what their obligations are.