Philosophers of science now broadly agree that doing good science involves making non-epistemic value judgments. I call attention to two very different normative standards which can be used to evaluate such judgments: standards grounded in ethics and standards grounded in political philosophy. Though this distinction has not previously been highlighted, I show that the values in science literature contain arguments of each type. I conclude by explaining why this distinction is important. Seeking to determine whether some value-laden determination meets substantive ethical standards is a very different endeavor from seeking to determine if it is politically legitimate.

科学哲学家现在普遍同意，做好科学需要做出非认知的价值判断。我提请注意可用于评估此类判断的两种截然不同的规范标准：基于伦理的标准和基于政治哲学的标准。虽然这种区别以前没有被强调过，但我表明科学文献中的价值观包含每种类型的论据。最后，我解释了为什么这种区别很重要。寻求确定某些充满价值的决定是否符合实质性道德标准与寻求确定其在政治上是否合法是完全不同的努力。