- School of Public Policy
- Center for Urban Innovation
Justin B. Biddle, Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy, received a BA in Philosophy and a BS in Physics from the University of Dayton in 1999 and a PhD in the Program in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame in 2006. Before arriving at Georgia Tech, he completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Bielefeld University in Germany. His research interests are interdisciplinary in nature, drawing on fields such as philosophy of science, bioethics, environmental ethics, philosophy of food, the ethics of emerging technologies, and science and technology policy. Two main foci of his research are the role of values in science and the epistemic and ethical implications of the social organization of research. A particular focus is the epistemic and ethical implications of current intellectual property and licensing policies in science, especially in biomedicine and agricultural biotechnology.
- M.A. and Ph.D., University of Notre Dame, History and Philosophy of Science
- B.A., University of Dayton, Philosophy
- B.S., University of Dayton, Physics
- Distinguished Fellow at the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study (Spring 2014)
- Ethics and Philosophy of Science and Technology
- Inequality and Social Justice
- International Development
- PHIL-2010: Intro Philosophy
- PHIL-3103: Modern Philosophy
- PHIL-3115: Philosophy of Science
- PHIL-3127: Sci, Tech & Human Values
- PHIL-3140: Philosophy of Food
- PST-3103: Modern Phil
- PST-3115: Philosophy of Science
- PST-4174: Perspectives-Sci & Tech
- Inductive risk, epistemic risk, and overdiagnosis of disease
In: Perspectives on Science [Peer Reviewed]
March 2016© 2016 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Recent philosophers of science have not only revived the classical argument from inductive risk but extended it. I argue that some of the purported extensions do not fit cleanly within the schema of the original argument, and I discuss the problem of overdiagnosis of disease due to expanded disease definitions in order to show that there are some risks in the research process that are important and that very clearly fall outside of the domain of inductive risk. Finally, I introduce the notion of epistemic risk in order to characterize such risks.
- Review of P. Gøtzsche, "Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare"
In: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
- Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental?
In: European Journal for Philosophy of Science [Peer Reviewed]
October 2015© 2014, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.The aim of this paper is to address the neglected but important problem of differentiating between epistemically beneficial and epistemically detrimental dissent. By “dissent,” we refer to the act of objecting to a particular conclusion, especially one that is widely held. While dissent in science can clearly be beneficial, there might be some instances of dissent that not only fail to contribute to scientific progress, but actually impede it. Potential examples of this include the tobacco industry’s funding of studies that questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer, and the attempt by the petroleum industry and other groups to cast doubt upon the conclusion that human consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global climate change. The problem of distinguishing between good and bad dissent is important because of the growing tendency of some stakeholders to attempt to delay political action by ’manufacturing doubt’ (Oreskes & Conway 2010). Our discussion in this paper focuses on climate science. This field, in our view, is rife with instances of bad dissent. On the basis of our discussion of climate science, we articulate a set of sufficient conditions for epistemically problematic dissent in general, which we call “the inductive risk account of epistemically detrimental dissent.”
- The Geography of Epistemic Risk
In: Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science [Peer Reviewed]