1350 København K
As a philosopher of science at a Faculty of Science I am engaged in making philosophy of science relevant to science education and for scientific practice.
I am an active member of AAAS, PSA. EPSA and SPSP, working for increased collaboration between history, philosophy and sociology of science and practicing scientists.
My primary research interests are interdisciplinarity, scientific collaboration, scientific change, and responsible conduct of science.
I have been PI (together with co-PIs Samuel Schindler and Peter Sandøe) of the Danish Research Network for Philosophy of Science (funded by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities from 2011 to 2015). You can sign up for the network’s listserv, and you can join the network’s groups on Facebook or LinkedIn
I have previously been PI of the research project "Philosophy of Contemporary Science in Practice" which is funded by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities as part of the program for Female Reseach Leaders, and I have been co-team leader (together with Team leader Marcel Weber) of Team B: The life sciences in the ESF research network "The Philosophy of Science in a European Persepctive".
- The role of interdisciplinarity in 21st century universities, Brazil, August 2018
- Hvem ved egentlig hvad? Om tillid og ansvar i forskningssamarbejder (Who actually knows what? On trust and responsibility in collaborative research), Vetenskapsrådet, Sweden, September 2018
- Epistemic responsibility in collaborative research, EURASC, October 2018
Philosophy of interdisciplinarity and expertise
Under this heading I am examining collaborative and interdisciplinary practices of science today, how these practices affect our understanding of expertise, and which implications these practices have for science education, science policy and science management today and in the future. The aim is to develop a new account of the structure of contemporary science.
My publications on philosophy of interdisciplinarity and expertise include
- Andersen, H. (2016): Collaboration, Interdisciplinarity and the Epistemology of Contemporary Science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 56(1):1-12
- Andersen, H. (2013): Bridging disciplines, in H. Fangerau, H. Geisler, T. Halling & W.F. Martin (eds.): Classification and Evolution in Biology, Linguistics and the History of Science, Kulturanamnesen 5, pp. 33-44
- Andersen, H. & S. Wagenknecht (2012): Epistemic dependence in interdisciplinary research, in Synthese 190(11): 1881-1890
- Andersen, H. (2012): The Second Essential Tension: On Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research, in Topoi 32(1): 3-8
- Andersen, H. (2011): Conceptual development in interdisciplinary research, in Feest & Steinle (eds): Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practices, Kluwer, pp. 271-292
- Andersen, H. (2010): Joint acceptance and scientific change: A case study, Episteme 17(3): 248-265
Philosophy of scientific malpractice: Negligence, ignorance and distrust
Misconduct and questionable research practices (QRP) are major concerns in contemporary science. Empirical studies show that QRP are widespread, and the steady occurrence of serious misconduct cases reveals that the scientific community still lacks adequate tools for early detection, consistent intervention and, not least, for efficient prevention. To achieve a nuanced understanding of how scientific misconduct and QRP can be detected and corrected as early as possible in the research process, this project combines epistemological analyses of negligence, ignorance, and trust in science with empirical investigations of how scientists perceive negligence and ignorance and on the process during which they become aware of and cope with possible breaches to their trust in collaborators and peers. Results from the project will be used to develop a new kind of training in responsible conduct of research (RCR) that provides scientists in their roles as collaborators, mentors, and peers with adequate tools to detect QRP and to intervene at an early stage.
My publications on philosophy of scientific malpractice include:
- Andersen, H. (2014): Epistemic dependence in contemporary science: Practices and malpractices, in L. Soler (ed.): Science after the practice turn, Routledge, pp. 161-173
- Andersen, H. (2014): Co-Author Responsibility, EMBO reports 15: 914-918
Making better scientists: Scientific proficiency through philosophical literacy
The role of history and philosophy of science in science education has been an important topic in science education over the last half century. However, most analyses of philosophy, history and sociology of science and science teaching have focused on how history and philosophy of science can be brought into science education at the K-12 level and in teacher education with the aim of improving the scientific literacy of the general public. In contrast, there have been only few analyses of the possible roles of history and philosophy of science in higher education in the sciences. In this line of work, I am arguing that history and philosophy of science also have important roles to play in higher education. Scientists are continuously required to reflect on scientific knowledge creation as well as on the societal contexts in which scientific knowledge is put to use, and philosophical-analytical skills acquired through the display of historical and contemporary exemplars can therefore improve scientists’ proficiency in identifying and solving the various kinds of epistemological and ethical problems that they encounter qua scientists. In this way, not only can scientific proficiency be seen as a complement to the scientific literacy aimed for in general science education, scientific proficiency also requires that professional scientists acquire a certain philosophical literacy.
I have taught philosophy of science to students in chemistry, biochemistry, medicinal chemistry nanoscience, human biology, public health, medicine and dentistry.
I supervise projects and theses on interdisciplinarity, collaboration in science, responsible conduct of research, scientific change, scientific controversies,