Does science need regulation: ethos and self-organisation in science?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2024-30-2-13

Keywords:

scientific ethos, self-regulation, social responsibility, epistemology, expertise, scientific knowledge

Abstract

This article addresses the analysis of new challenges facing science that necessitate a reassessment of scientists’ social responsibility and a revision of conventional perceptions of scientific ethics. Science is not only a body of knowledge with a profound impact on societal transformation but also a self-organized community that establishes both explicit behavioral norms and prescriptions, as well as implicit, affectively charged values and constraints. The growth in the number of scientists and publications, alongside a simultaneous decline in public trust in science, compels a rethinking of the traditional understanding of the scientific ethos and the search for ways to refine its norms through self-regulation. To this end, the article examines the relationship between scientific self-regulation and the scientific ethos, explores the origins of self-organized science, and raises questions about trust in authorities and experts. The scientific ethos, understood as a set of values and norms that govern scientists’ behavior (Robert Merton) and intended to enhance the efficiency of scientific activities, is increasingly formalized. At the same time, the lack of a clearly defined subject in science exacerbates the issue of social responsibility, especially given the trend toward the commodification (commercialization) of science. The article discusses the key factors and effectiveness of self-regulation tools – such as scientometrics, retraction practices, coordination among scientists, and the meritocratic organization of the academic community – and highlights the mismatch between traditional norms of the scientific ethos and the values of science in the context of its recent transformations. This mismatch generates potentially destructive tendencies, as the traditional approach under new conditions fails to address emerging challenges effectively. This issue is illustrated through the internal conflict of the norm of academic integrity, which encourages researchers to prioritize quantitative scientometric indicators of success, in opposition to the ethical norm of disinterestedness. I argue that the unresolved tension between these norms harms science as a whole due to the specific nature of its organization, not merely undermining the reputation of individual scientists. Finally, the article examines trust, knowledge, and values as key factors in scientific self-regulation.

Author Biography

Olena Komar, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Methodology of Science;
Associate Professor at the Institute of Philosophy, University of Osnabrück (Germany). Senior Fellow at the Research Training Group Situated Cognition.

References

Clifford, W. K. (1999). The ethics of belief and other essays. T. Madigan (ed.). Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Kleinman, D. L. (2017). The Commercialization of Academic Culture and the Future of the University. In The Commodification of Academic Research. (Pp. 24–43). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Komar, O. (2018). Epistemological models of modern scientific discourse. [In Ukrainian]. In I. Dobronravova (ed.). Philosophy of Science. Kyiv: VPC “Kyiv University”. http://philsci.univ.kiev.ua/biblio/PhN/7-ch.htm

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Levy, N. (2021). Bad beliefs: Why they happen to good people. Oxford University Press.

Levy, N. (2024). Philosophy, Bullshit, and Peer Review. Philosophy, Bullshit, and Peer Review. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009256315.

Lupia, A., Allison, D. B., Jamieson, K.H., Heimberg, J., Skipper, M., & Wolf, S. M. (2024). Trends in US public confidence in science and opportunities for progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(11). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319488121

Maxwell, K., & Benneworth, P. (2018). The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges. Palgrave Communications, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0105-9

Merton, R. K. (1938). Science and the Social Order. Philosophy of Science, 5, 321–337.

Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1, 115–126.

Noorden, R. van. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 – a new record. Nature. 12 December 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8

O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. (2019). The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread. Yale University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.

Politi, V. (2024). Who ought to look towards the horizon? A qualitative study on the collective social responsibility of scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 14(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00580-x

Soliman A. (2025). ‘Precocious’ early-career scientists with high citation counts proliferate. Nature, 03 January 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04006-9

Weber, M. (1922). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Wilcox, C. (2023). Scientists are publishing too many papers – and that’s bad for science. ScienceAdvisor. 16 November 2023. https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-scientists-are-publishing-too-many-papers-and-s-bad-science#:~:text=In%20recent%20years%2C%20the%20number,had%20jumped%20to%202.82%20million

Wilholt, T. (2016). Collaborative research, scientific communities, and the social diffusion of trustworthiness. In M. Brady, & M. Fricker (eds.). The Epistemic Life of Groups: Essays in the Epistemology of Collectives. (Pp. 218–234). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Abstract views: 23

Published

2025-03-10

How to Cite

Komar, O. (2025). Does science need regulation: ethos and self-organisation in science?. Filosofiya Osvity. Philosophy of Education, 30(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2024-30-2-13

Issue

Section

Articles

Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.