Scientists under the societal microscope: challenges to research integrity (original) (raw)
Related papers
Canadian Journal of Practical Ethics, 2021
In this paper, I consider an example of fast science produced in the early stages of the pandemic and the lasting effects of the study on public safety and trust in science. Due to pressures intrinsic to contemporary science and from the pandemic to produce research on COVID quickly, studies on COVID-19 that did not meet rigorous scientific standards were used to form public health policies and recommendations. I argue that the fast science produced for COVID-19, which caused many public health policies and recommendations to change throughout the pandemic, confuses the publics and erodes their trust in science. Bio: Clarisse Paron is a PhD student in philosophy at Dalhousie University. Her research interests in feminist bioethics and philosophy of medicine center around autonomy, trust, and decision-making. She comes to philosophy after her Bachelor's Degree in science where she experienced her own disenchantment with science.
Encyclopedia, 2022
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY
In science we trust? Being honest about the limits of medical research during COVID-19
American Journal of Bioethics, 2020
Honesty about the limitations of medical research, we argue, is a prerequisite for maintaining a trusting relationship between medical institutions (and practitioners) and the public. This is the case both in principle (since to deserve trust, healthcare systems and practitioners must fulfill the requirements of trustworthiness, including honesty), and in practice: empirical research suggests that more honest communication about scientific limitations and uncertainty need not substantially erode trust. Accordingly, if trust in medical institutions is warranted, then its maintenance should be promoted by means that do not undermine such trust (i.e., we ought not to lie or deceive as tools to promote trust); not only is there an ethical imperative to avoid such behavior, but it may also be self-defeating (for instance, if such behavior is revealed at some later point).
Dread in academia – how COVID-19 affects science and scientists
2020
We present a brief opinion piece on the potential effects of the coronavirus pandemic on academia. Over 700 academics from around the world were surveyed, which allowed to identify their main concerns: from low-level, like decreased ability to run experiments, complete grants, conference cancellations, to broader, like job stability and income security. We forward some suggestions on what could be done to mitigate the negative effects of the current pandemic, emphasizing that further discussion is needed on how to coordinate the world-wide effort to allow science flourish, and reduce the possible negative effects the pandemic can have.
2020
It is already a common knowledge that the humanity was caught off guard by COVID-19. To understand why it has happened, the author is analyzing peculiarities of scientists' thinking. According to the principle of fallibilism, any scientific theory, including the most fundamental and commonly accepted, tomorrow may prove to be (or not prove to be) false. Today this principle is adopted almost by all philosophers of science, while scientists in mass keep on denying it, trusting too much their estimation, concepts and theories. The scientific community dramatically lacks self-criticism while scientists' inventions have more and more global aftermath with time. This combination is extremely dangerous for the biosphere and the humanity, as was emphasized by the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagine a drunk elephant in a china shop. The suggested solution is to ensure control over the science with the participation of “people from the street” just like jurors participate in a jury trial. Sus...
Scientific integrity, trust in science, and independence of research
Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 2019
Science in crisis? Celebrating the 10-year anniversary of APIS impact factor with this Special Jubilee Issue is shadowed by the apparent marginalization of and lack of trust in science in public life, and in political decision-making. In leading countries that foster scientific excellence, such as the United States, United Kingdom, and my home country Finland, public policy is increasingly based on other than solid scientific evidence, and key decision-makers publically belittle scientists. For example, a leading British politician dismissed consulting economists by stating 'People in this country have had enough of experts' (Clarke and Newman 2017). The Prime Minister of Finland was belittling the expertise of university professors and other academic staff in a TV interview (2 December 2015), while making a call for "those who could advise us on what to do in this [economic] situation". In the USA, uncomfortable scientific facts are replaced by "alternative truths" as a basis for policymaking (Tsipursky 2017). Why is it that while the general public largely has a high confidence and trust in science (Funk 2017), politicians seem to lack respect for scientific expertise? Rush Holt, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), explained at the World Science Forum in Budapest in 2015 that "Policy makers do not think of science frequently, or crave scientific advice. They do not even know what to ask" (King 2016). For us scientists, these developments should be alarming. Maybe we have to look into the way how science is operating: how science policy is formed, and how scientific institutions are run. After all, trust has to be earned.
The COVID-19 mirror: reflecting science-society relationships across 11 countries
JCOM, 2020
Twelve researchers from 11 countries used autoethnographic techniques, keeping diaries over 10 weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, to observe and reflect on changes in the role and cultural authority of science during important stages of viral activity and government action in their respective countries. We followed arguments, discussions and ideas generated by mass and social media about science and scientific expertise, observed patterns and shifts in narratives, and made international comparisons. During regular meetings via video conference, the participating researchers discussed theoretical approaches and our joint methodology for reflecting on our observations. This project is informed by social representations theory, agenda-setting, and frames of meaning associated with the rise and fall of expertise and trust. This paper presents our observations and reflections on the role and authority of science in our countries from March 10 to May 31, 2020. This is the first stage of a longer-term project that aims to identify, analyse and compare changes in science-society relationships over the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Abstract Public engagement with science and technology; Representations of science and technology; Risk communication Keywords https://doi.
The Covid-19 catastrophe: A science communication mess?
Church, Communication and Culture, 2022
Following the declaration, in March 2020, of the Covid-19 pandemic, there was an escalation of disinformation, involving multiple actors and reaching global dimensions. In this article, we analyze the possible causes and characteristics of the spread of disinformation on this issue. Disinformation about science can be explained by the distance that separates scientific knowledge from common knowledge and the difficult relationship between science and the media. The pandemic has multiplied the number of scientific publications and has accelerated publication rates, which has contributed to the dissemination of provisional, erroneous, or totally false information. A process of politicization has also developed, which has led to misinformation. In addition, the need to confront this health crisis has led society to demand accurate information from science, despite the fact that in many cases there is only uncertainty. The experience of this pandemic highlights the importance of providing citizens with accessible and rigorous knowledge that creates confidence in science. To achieve this, it is necessary to have specialized professionals capable of providing rigorous information, not only on the results but also on the research processes.
Science skepticism in times of COVID-19
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
In the current paper, we argue that to get a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of COVID-related science skepticism, it is pivotal to review what is known about the (social) psychology of science skepticism. Recent research highlighting the role of ideologies and worldviews in shaping science skepticism can inform research questions as well as pandemic responses to COVID-19. It is likely that the antecedents of general COVID-19-related skepticism substantially overlap with the antecedents of climate change skepticism. Additionally, skepticism about a potential vaccine in particular will likely be fueled by similar worries and misperceptions to those shaping more general antivaccination attitudes, of which conspiracy thinking is particularly worth highlighting. We conclude by reflecting on how the COVID-19 crisis may shape future social-psychological research aimed at understanding trust in science and science skepticism.