Towards a New Ethos of Science or a Reform of the Institution of Science? Merton Revisited and the Prospects of Institutionalizing the Research Values of Openness and Mutual Responsiveness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i6.95874Keywords:
open science, Robert K. Merton, Covid 19, research values, scientific integrity, research assessmentAbstract
In this article, I will explore how the underlying research values of ‘openness’ and ‘mutual responsiveness’, which are central to open science practices, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly, I will revisit Robert Merton's early contribution to this issue, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice ‘good’ science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly, I will analyse the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes, I will argue that promoting open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs.
References
ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for research integrity. Berlin: All European Academies. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct/
Benkler, Y. (2017). Law, Innovation, and Collaboration. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113340
Bijker, W., d’Andrea, L., & Mezzana, D. (2022). Responsible Biosciences. A Manifesto for the transformation of science-society relations. Resbioproject, November 2022 https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/responsible-biosciences-a-manifesto-for-the-transformation-of-sci
Bloom, N., Jones, C., van Reenen, J., & Web, M. (2020). Are ideas getting harder to find? American Economic Review, 110(4), 1104-1144. https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/IdeaPF.pdf
Bray, D., & von Storch, H. (2017). The Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(5), 1351-1367.
Burgelman, J.-C., Pascu, C., Szkuta, K., von Schomberg, R., Karalopoulos, A., Repanas, K., & Schouppe, M. (2019). Open Science, Open Data, and Open Scholarship: European Policies to Make Science Fit for the Twenty-First Century. Front. Big Data, 2(43). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00043
CoARA (2023). Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment. https://coara.eu/about/
Cole, N. L., Reichmann, S., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2023). Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers. Royal Society Open Science, 10: 221460 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221460
DORA (2012). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. American Society for Cell Biology. https://sfdora.org/
EC (2009). Commission recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research & Council conclusions on responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/28456
EC (2014). Background document. Public Consultation ‘Science 2.0’: Science in Transition. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4606.1442
EC (2015). Open innovation, Open science, Open to the world. Luxembourg: European Commission, The Office of Publications of the European Union.
Editorial (2016). Reality check on reproducibility. Nature, 533, 437. https://doi.org/10.1038/533437a
EMBL-EBI. Covid-19 Data Portal. European Commission, European Bioinformatics Institute. https://www.covid19dataportal.org/statistics
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, London: Verso Books.
Fuller, S. (2000). The Governance of Science. Buckingham: The Open University Press.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (2015). Peer Review and Quality Control. In N. J. Smelser & J. D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (p. 680-684). 2nd edition, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
Grunwald, A. (2018). Technology Assessment in practice and theory. Oxon: Routledge
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Halford, B. (2011). A Nanocar With Four-Wheel Drive: Molecular Machines. Chemical and Engineering News, November 14. https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i46/Nanocar-Four-Wheel-Drive.html
Hosseini, M., Hidalgo, E S., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Güttinger, S., & Penders, B. (2022). Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values. Accountability in Research, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625
Irwin, A. (2008). STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, J. Wajcman (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (p. 583-607). 3rd edition, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. eds. (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.001.0001
Kastenhofer, K. (2021). Beyond Scientificity: Extensions and Diffractions in Post-Normal Science’s Ethos. Serendipities, 6(2), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v6i2.130042
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Macnaghten, P. (2020). The Making of Responsible Innovation. Cambrigdge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108871044
Mazzucato, M., Kattel, R., & Ryan-Collins, J. (2020). Challenge-Driven Innovation Policy: Towards a New Policy Toolkit. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20, 421-437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00329-w
Merton, R. K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. Panarchy: A Gateway to Selected Documents and Web Sites. https://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science, theoretical and empirical investigations. Edited by Norbert W. Storer. Chicago: Chicago University Press
Miedema, F. (2021). Open Science: the Very Idea. Dordrecht: Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-024-2115-6
Mitcham, C. (2020). Steps toward a philosophy of Engineering. Historico-Philsophical and Critical Essays. London, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of the Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 579-595.
NA (2023). Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/roundtable-on-aligning-incentives-for-open-science
NAE. Introduction to the Grand Challenges for Engineering. National Academy of Engineering. http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/challenges/16091.aspx
Nordmann, A. (2023). Machine Hermeneutics. In A. Grunwald, A. Nordmann & M. Sand (eds.), Hermeneutics, History and Technology. The call of the Future (p. 193-215), Oxon: Routledge
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Hoboken: Polity Press
ORI. Definition of Research Misconduct. Rockville, MD: The office of Research Integrity, US Department for Health and Human Services: https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
Owen, R., von Schomberg, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2021). An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(2), 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1948789
Peirce, C. S. (1958). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol 5., 311). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Pereira, A. G., Vaz, S. G., & Tognetti, S. (2017). Interfaces between Science and Society. Oxon. Routledge
Post-Normal Science’s Ethos. Serendipities, 6(2), 21-41. https://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v6i2.130042
Ravetz, J. R., & Funtowicz, S. O. (1993). The emergence of post-normal science. In R. von Schomberg (ed.), Science, Politics and Morality. Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making (p. 85-123). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rip, A. (2018). Futures of Science and Technology in Society. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Robinson, D. K. R., Simone, A., & Mazzonetto, M. (2021). RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(2), 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1842633
Schendzielorz, C., & Reinhart, M. (2021). Relating Democratic and Scientific Ethos in Academic Self-Governance. Governing Science Through Peer Review and the Democratizing Potential of Lotteries Serendipities – Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences, 6(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.7146/serendipities.v6i2.130745
Spichtinger, D. (2024). Open Science and COVID Research. Final Report. A study commissioned by frontiers. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10550342
SSRI (2010). Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010. World Conferences on Research Integrity. https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement
Stehr, N. (1978). The Ethos of Science Revisited. Sociological Inquiry, 48(3-4) (July), 172-196.
Stehr, N., & von Storch, H. (2023). Science in Society: Climate Change and Climate Policies. World Scientific Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1142/q0399
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.
Storer, N. W. (1973). Introduction. In R. K. Merton, The Sociology of Science, theoretical and empirical investigations (p. ix-xxxi). Chicago: Chicago University Press
Tironi, M., & Albornoz, C. (2021). The circulation of the Smart City imaginary in the Chilean context: A case study of a collaborative platform for governing security (p. 195-215). In H. M. Kim, S. Sabri & A. Kent (eds.), Smart Cities for Technological and Social Innovation. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818886-6.00011-3
UNESCO (2021). UNESCO recommendation on Open Science. 41st session of UNESCO General Conference in November 2021. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation
Venter, G. (2012). Craig Venter Lecture ‘What is Life? A 21st Century Perspective’ Video Now Online. Trinity College Dublin at the 2012 ESOF conference. https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/craig-venter-lecture-what-is-life-a-21st-century-perspective-video-now-online/
Venter, G. Patents by Inventor Craig Venter. https://patents.justia.com/inventor/craig-venter
von Schomberg, L., & von Schomberg, R. (2023). Responsible Innovation as a Social Innovation. In J. Howaldt & C. Kaletka (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Innovation (p. 401-405). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
von Schomberg, R. (1992). Controversies and Political Decision Making. In R. von Schomberg (ed.), Science, Politics and Morality. Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making (p. 7-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
von Schomberg, R. (2007). From the ethics of technology towards and ethics of knowledge policy. Working document of the Service of the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aa44eb61-5be2-43d6-b528-07688fb5bd5a
von Schomberg, R. (2011). On Identifying Plausibility and Deliberative Public Policy: Commentary on: “Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 739-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9305-z
von Schomberg, R. (2019). Why responsible innovation. In R. von Schomberg & J. Hankins (eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (p. 12-32). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
von Schomberg, R. (2023). Die Zukunft der Indikatoren für Forschungsbewertung und offene Wissenschaft/Open Science. Ein Plädoyer für einen Verzicht auf der Verwendung quantitativer Metriken. In J. Mörtel, A. Nordmann & O. Schlaudt (eds.), Indikatoren in Entscheidungsprozessen. Wiesbaden: Springer. A short English version is online: “The Future of Research Assessment and Open Science: Doing away with quantitative metrics” https://app.box.com/s/is84tskbzlausyt0zelloe5o2tuem365
WH (2023). FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Steps to Advance Responsible Artificial Intelligence Research, Development, and Deployment. The White House Briefing Room, Statements and Releases, May 23. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/23/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-new-steps-to-advance-responsible-artificial-intelligence-research-development-and-deployment/
WHO (2015). Developing Global Norms for Sharing Data and Results During Public Health Emergencies. Statement arising from a WHO Consultation held on 1-2 September 2015. World Health Organization. https://www.emro.who.int/rpc/rpc-events/global-norms-for-sharing-data-and-results-public-health-emergencies.html https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001935
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
NOvation is an open-access journal under a Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 license, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement (and preservation) of the author's authorship and intellectual property rights.
To this extent, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
1. Authors retain the rights and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work published under the Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows [...].
2. Authors have authorization for distribution, of the version of the work published in this journal, in an institutional repository, thematic, databases and in other works as a book chapter, with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in the journal;
3. Papers published in this journal will be indexed in databases, repositories, portals, directories and other sources in which the journal is and will be indexed.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
