NOvation. Critical Studies of Innovation

As is tradition at the Bassetti Foundation, in this article we propose a little ‘light’ reading for the summer break.

The latest edition of NOvation is a special issue that opens with a position paper by René von Schomberg entitled 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. The paper is followed by a series of comments from five well known scholars. Responses from von Schomberg to each author conclude the issue.

In the paper, von Schomberg revisits Robert Merton‘s early questioning of whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of normative guidelines for scientists to practice ‘good’ science, or whether it should be understood as a functional requirement of the scientific system. The author analyzes the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of ‘scientific integrity’, concluding 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 being able to rely solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science.

According to the author, a comprehensive governance of science requires various forms of social collaboration. As knowledge actors collectively share responsibility for the anticipated outcomes of research actions, the research norm of ‘openness’ must encompass both knowledge sources and knowledge actors.

Von Schomberg offers the following summary of his argument:

‘Openness’ needs to be further defined in terms of ‘mutual responsiveness’ among knowledge actors. There are no clear demarcation criteria for distinguishing knowledge actors within and outside of science.

Social collaboration requires mutual responsiveness to the normative framing of research goals, thereby providing substantive direction to science beyond the mere growth of knowledge.

Science governance involves a wide range of knowledge actors engaging in social collaborations with scientists to achieve desirable societal outcomes.

The case of ‘open science’ during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates that self-governance of science is not a viable option for research policy.

Von Schomberg asks whether we should focus on the self-governance of the scientific community through a set of prescribed norms or on the self-governance of the institution of science through a set of institutional values. He moves on to propose a reformulation of the science-society relationship, emphasizing both the co-responsibility of knowledge actors as knowledge co-producers and the necessary involvement of a broad range of science governing institutions at the science-society interface.

The article is drawn to a close with a table in which the author summarizes the positions attributed to Merton, the current state of affairs and his own position.

The issue then moves to a series of responses.

In When Science Becomes Engineering, Carl Mitcham responds to what he sees as one of von Schomberg’s central arguments, that science has become engineering and must be re-governed appropriately. Mitcham describes engineering in broad terms, not only including fields that have become imbued with engineering (such as conservation biology and genetics), but also including political engineering, describing the Vietnam war as having been both technically and politically engineered.

Mitcham describes the developments of ethics codes for engineering associations at the time of Merton’s writing, offering an expanded and ‘engineered’ version of von Schomberg’s proposal, building the argument that not only has science become engineering, but that the engineering sciences are the foundation of material culture.

Mónica Edwards-Schachter comments with The Promises of Responsible Open Science: Is Institutionalization of Openness and Mutual Responsiveness Enough?

Edwards-Schachter describes another central thesis of von Schomberg’s paper, that ‘the transition towards open science is vital to facilitate RRI’, discussing what she describes as omissions from the argument. She proposes the need for a more comprehensive examination of the crisis facing science amidst the increasing marketisation and commodification of academia and research (including exclusion brought about by open access publication policies and possible effects of AI), a more nuanced and critical approach to conceptualizing open science, discussion of the validity of the Mertonian framework and its selective analysis of values (particularly its exclusive focus on the norm of communism) and a deeper exploration of the challenges and promises inherent in the pursuit of responsible Open Science within ongoing institutional processes.

In Responsive Research and Scientific Autonomy, Sabina Leonelli discusses the conditions under which sharing materials, methods and insights (alongside debating the goals and directions towards which these may be put to use) could improve research exchange, communication and scrutiny. The author critiques two of von Schomberg’s claims: his focus on ‘knowledge actors’ as the protagonists of research efforts, and his critique of the effectiveness of self-governance efforts by researchers. She concludes by reminding the reader of the elephant in the room, private and public entities that are allied to political and economic ideologies.

Lukas Fuchs offers thoughts and comments that revolve around the institutional function of science, the difficulties of its steering, as well as the question of the constellation of co-responsible societal actors, in a commentary entitled Intricacies in Steering the Direction of Science.

The final commentary is Towards the Non-Mertonian Ethos of a Non-Mertonian Science: Situating the Research Value of Openness from Alfred Nordmann. Nordmann lauds the thrust of von Schomberg’s paper, but points to flaws in arguments offered both in the author’s interpretation of Merton’s work and of his interpretation of the COVID19 reaction as demonstrating positive open-science practices, instead offering his own thoughts on how citizen science practices could be seen as a possible route to overcoming impoverished notions of public access, data-sharing and open science.

The Issue closes with Rene von Schomberg’s responses to each author’s criticisms.

Welcoming Mitcham’s extension of his proposal, he clarifies that his argument is not about participation per se, but about orienting research missions and research policy toward socially desirable objectives.

Von Schomberg agrees with Mónica Edwards-Schachter’s description of the counterproductive implementation of current open access publishing practices and the necessary contributions required in working towards RRI practices. He also expresses his acceptance of Sabina Leonelli’s criticisms, arguing that the apparent disagreement arising from her response is more about the details of how to implement open science rather than matters of principle.

The author moves on to address issues raised by Lukas Fuchs that ‘require me to be more precise about the nature of the missions’, discussing co-responsibility, politicization and scientific funding practices, before addressing what he sees as Alfred Nordmann’s central claim, that he conflates ‘openness’ within science with ‘openness’ in a democracy.

This is an open access publication, nicely laid out in columns (rather like a broadsheet), direct and easy to follow. Ideal for a thought-provoking and stimulating hour and a half of free time. The issue can be downloaded here.