Does science need regulation: ethos and self-organisation in science?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31874/2309-1606-2024-30-2-13Keywords:
scientific ethos, self-regulation, social responsibility, epistemology, expertise, scientific knowledgeAbstract
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.
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
-
PDF (Українська)
Downloads: 5
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication;
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.