Science and State Scientific Policy in the Discourse of Scientific Integrity

The discussion of the growing problems in the field of science is actively conducted in the discourse of scientific integrity — scientific honesty / scientific fairness. This is a term of political, public discourse that does not have a clear scientific definition and content. The article shows the “umbrella” nature of the term “scientific integrity”, which made it possible, in the conditions of a sharp increase in politicization, commercialization and ideologization of science, to unite scientific discussion and direct scientific policy to promote “responsible” research, “appropriate” scientific practices. In this regard, along with the concept of scientific integrity (SI), the concept of research integrity (RI) is beginning to be actively used. A distinction is made between these concepts. The article analyzes the formation and development of the discourse and policy of scientific honesty, mainly in the USA — “attacks” on science, the emergence of a policy of scientific honesty and its implementation in the activities of federal scientific agencies, other efforts to overcome the “crisis of scientific honesty”; the breakdown of the scientific integrity policy under President Trump and the Biden administration’s efforts to bring it back and strengthen it. The rapid development and institutionalization of the discourse and policy of scientific integrity is shown: the creation of a sufficiently powerful infrastructure of research integrity both at the national and international levels, national and international organizations and conferences on research integrity, guiding documents, codes and

scientific publications. The crisis of scientific honesty in the article is considered not just as an internal problem of science, but as a more fundamental problem — as a manifestation of the disturbed institutional balance in the relationship between science and government, the market and society, the acute conflict of loyalties of a scientist that has emerged on this basis, the manifestation of which is the problem of scientific honesty and its severity. The discourse of scientific (especially research) honesty turns out to be too narrow for the analysis of the existing problems here and the problems arising in this regard. Based on expert surveys, the discrepancy between the official discourse and the policy of scientific honesty (including RI) and the concerns of scientists, especially in academic research structures, with their vision of deeper systemic reasons for the crisis of scientific honesty and injustice and the unjustifiability of the “distribution” of responsibility for this crisis with a disproportionate shift towards science and scientists is shown. Such discrepancies, together with limited opportunities for institutionalizing the policy of scientific honesty in university research communities with classical academic standards of responsibility and their “epistemic practices” that do not need external control, gradually blur the credibility of the discourse and the legitimacy of the policy of scientific honesty and reveal its “conventionality” and historical limitations.

1. Berman E., Carter J. (2018) Policy Analysis: Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking under Past and Present Administrations. Journal of Science Policy & Governance. Vol. 13. Is. 1. P. 1–26.

2. Bouter L.M., Tijdink J., Axelsen N., Martinson B.C., ter Riet G. (2016) Ranking Major and Minor Research Misbehaviors: Results from a Survey among Participants of Four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review. Vol. 1. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5

3. Coglianese C., Mendelson E. (2010). Meta-Regulation and Self-Regulation. In: M. Cave, R. Baldwin, Lodge (eds.) The Oxford Handbook on Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 146–168. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560219.003.0008

4. Collins F., Adam S., Colvis Ch., Desrosiers E. et al. (2023) The NIH-led Research Response to COVID-19. Science. Vol. 379. Is. 6631. P. 441–444. DOI: 10.1126/science.adf5167

5. Davies S. (2019) An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists about Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 25. Is. 4. P. 1235–1253. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y

6. Davies S.R., Lindvig K. (2021) Assembling Research Integrity: Negotiating a Policy Object in Scientific Governance. Critical Policy Studies. Vol. 15. Is. 4. P. 444–461. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2021.1879660

7. Dezhina I.G. (2023) Russia’s Science Policy in 2018–2022: Controversial Signals. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 132–149. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2023.29.2.10

8. Fanelli D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE. Vol. 4. Is. 5. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

9. Goldman G.T., Berman E., Halpern M., Johnson Ch., Kothari Y., Reed G., Rosenberge A.A. (2017) Ensuring scientific integrity in the Age of Trump. Science. Vol. 355. Is. 6326. P. 696–698. DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5733

10. Goldman G.T., Carter J.M., Wang Y., Larson J.M. (2020) Perceived Losses of Scientific Integrity under the Trump Administration: A Survey of Federal Scientists. PLoS ONE. Vol. 15. Is. 4. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231929

11. Ioannidis J.P.A. (2014) How to Make More Published Research True. PLoS Med. Vol. 11. Is. 10. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747

12. McGarity T.O., Wagner W.E. (2008) Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press.

13. Merton R.K. (2006) Social Theory and Social Structure. Moscow: AST: AST MOSKVA: KhRANITEL.

14. Mooney C. (2005) The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.

15. Owen R., Pansera M., Macnaghten Ph., Randles S. (2021) Organisational Institutionalisation of Responsible Innovation. Research Policy. Vol. 50. Is. 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104132

16. Resnik D.B. (2003) From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of Debate about Scientific Misconduct. Accountability in Research. Vol. 10. Is. 2. P. 123–135. DOI: 10.1080/08989620300508

17. Resnik D.B., Rasmussen L.M., Kissling G.E. (2015) An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies. Accountability in Research. Vol. 22. Is. 5. P. 249–266. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.9582

18. Sachs J.D., Karim S.A.S., Aknin L., Allen J. et al. (2022) The Lancet Commission on Lessons for the Future from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Lancet. Is. 10359. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9

19. Shaw D. (2019) The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 25. Is. 4. P.1085–1093. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2

20. Smaldino P.E., Mcelreath R. The Natural Selection of Bad Science. Royal Society Open Science. Is. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

21. Sørensen M.P., Ravn T., Marušić A., Elizondo A.R., Kavouras P., Tijdink J.K., Bendtsen A.-K. (2021) Strengthening Research Integrity: Which Topic Areas Should Organisations Focus On? Humanities and Social Sciences Communication. Is. 8. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y

22. Sudas L.G. (2002) Nauchnyy etos kak faktor vyzhivaniya rossiyskoy nauki [Scholarly ethos as a factor of Russian Science survival]. Rossiya i sovremennyy mir. No. 2(35). P. 99–112.

23. Turnhout E., Stuiver M., Klostermann J., Harms B., Leeuwis C. (2013) New Roles of Science in Society: Different Repertoires of Knowledge Brokering. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 40. Is. 3. P. 354–365. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs114

24. Vie K.J. (2022) Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia. Science and Engineering Ethics. Is. 28. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00400-6

25. Vvedenskaya E.V. (2022) “Pandemic of Publications”: Problems of Integrity in Science. Naukovedcheskie issledovaniya. No. 4. P. 7–28. DOI: 10.31249/scis/2022.04.01

26. Yurevich A.V., Yurevich M.A. (2021) Musor v nauke [Garbage in science]. Vestnik Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Vol. 91. No. 8. P. 724–734. DOI: 10.31857/S0869587321080107