Search

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.

The core insight of this thoughtful and provocative article is that science has become engineering and must be re-governed appropriately. Science today is as much artefact constructing as it is knowledge-producing. Certified knowledge is found through certified construction; science has become technoscience. As such, received practices of and models for governance need re-examining. It is not possible here to address the full range of insights and questions that René von Schomberg’s challenging paper puts on the table. His argument is clearly the outgrowth of years of critical reflection in the science policy trenches of the European Commission. I would wager that there’s no one who has thought longer, harder, and at greater depth about these issues. I will concentrate my comments on the question concerning engineering.

Von Schomberg’s call to place mutual responsiveness – which I understand as the ability of researchers and the research system as a whole to foster meaningful exchanges and learn from novel experiences, no matter where those originate – at the core of Open Science and related efforts to reform the scientific landscape is both timely and significant. Widespread sharing is not enough to guarantee responsible and inclusive research, nor are vague appeals to improve research culture, whatever it is that such culture may turn out to include (Leonelli, 2023). Rather, emphasis needs to be placed on the conditions under which sharing materials, methods and insights – and debating the goals and directions towards which these may be put to use – may improve research exchange, communication and scrutiny, resulting in scientific outputs that are both reliable and socially responsive. Hence von Schomberg’s focus on the interplay between institutional and behavioural features of science and his plea for a reform in governance structures, such as initiated by COARA, are very well-taken. He is, however, too quick to dismiss the importance of some degree of autonomy for those involved in creating knowledge. To show why this matters, I here briefly discuss two of von Schomberg’s additional claims: (1) his focus on ‘knowledge actors’ as the protagonists of research efforts; and (2) his critique of the effectiveness of self-governance efforts by researchers.

Von Schomberg offers a compelling examination of key open science principles and their potential role in fostering responsible research and innovation (RRI). Utilizing Merton's Ethos of Science framework, the paper constructs a series of arguments supporting a central thesis: “the transition towards open science is vital to facilitate RRI.” This transition necessitates significant institutional reforms within the scientific community and adjustments to incentive structures that promote the adoption of open and mutually responsive practices. The manuscript reframes the discourse surrounding responsibility and responsiveness in light of the evolving landscape of open science, shifting the focus from normative commitments to actionable frameworks in research and open science practices. Overall, the position paper strives to bridge the gap between idealised models of scientific communities based on RRI principles and the reality of actual scientific endeavour (Anderson et al., 2007; Politi, 2021, 2024). However, it is important to acknowledge certain omissions that could enrich the analysis. Firstly, a more comprehensive examination of the profound crisis facing science amidst the increasing marketisation and commodification of academia and research would provide valuable context beyond discussions of system failures related to productivity and reproducibility. Secondly, a more nuanced and critical approach to conceptualising open science would enrich the discussion, considering its multifaceted nature and potential pitfalls. Thirdly, the validity of the Mertonian framework and its selective analysis of values, particularly its exclusive focus on the norm of communism. Lastly, a deeper exploration of the challenges and promises inherent in the pursuit of responsible Open Science within ongoing institutional processes.

It is hard to disagree with the thrust of René von Schomberg’s position paper. It is driven by the worry that current conceptions of “open science” are all too impoverished – that they need to be complemented by the social practice of “mutual responsiveness”. In terms of political theory or notions of democracy, on the one hand, in terms of socially relevant research practice, on the other hand, only an ambitious commitment to open science will be robust enough to make a difference and contribute to the solution of pressing problems. In contrast, it is paying lip service only to the ideal of openness when “open science” becomes reduced to “open access publishing” or data storage rituals. As von Schomberg shows, this might actually deepen disparities and redundancies within dysfunctional science.

René von Schomberg’s article (von Schomberg, 2024) makes an invigorating case for the co-responsibility of societal actors to give direction to the pursuit of science. In this reply, I wish to endorse his position as a much-needed reconceptualisation in the face of societal challenges and internal scientific developments. At the same time, I urge that there remain theoretical and practical intricacies in attempting to steer science.

Personal comment on the responses to “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” by René von Schomberg.

Over the past decade, we have witnessed a gradual and consistent evolution of research practices towards a more open science. This shift has been driven by both internal expectations within the scientific community and external demands from research policies. The push for open science within the scientific community has been further reinforced by negative trends such as slow publication processes, criticism of the peer review system, and challenges in reproducing research results. Moreover, the urgent need for open science outside the scientific community has been highlighted by the COVID-19 crisis, which exposed the inefficiency of the scientific system in responding timely to public concerns. Transitioning towards open science is essential for enabling responsible research and innovation. In this Special Issue, René von Schomberg's position paper explores 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. Several colleagues then comment on the article propositions, raising concerns and reinforcing criticism towards the current Ethos (and practices) of Science nowadays. This Special Edition is closed by von Schomberg response to the critiques raised by Carl Mitcham, Mónica Edwards-Schachter, Sabina Leonelli, Lukas Fuchs, and Alfred Nordmann.