Social Responsibility
Social Responsibility
Upholding Integrity
All researchers have a responsibility not only to science but also to society. This responsibility manifests itself in several ways. First, at a basic level, researchers must maintain scientific integrity, to ensure that the results they produce are reliable and can be used with confidence by the society that ultimately funds them. Fabrication and falsification of results are not only dishonest behaviours, they also compromise the integrity of science itself, potentially contaminating future research endeavours, wasting resources and public trust. That public trust is not only an output of responsible research, it can also act as an input to societal relevance as it can be a requirement for influence and social value as wielded by researchers.
In this section, we will first discuss the relevance of relevance as an input in research – articulating relevance as a required characteristic of research. Second, we will discuss the relevance of relevance as a social characteristic of practitioners and institutes.
Doing Relevant Research
Next to doing research responsibly in the sense that the researcher adheres to normative procedures and protocols, a second aspect of social responsibility is doing research that is relevant. Even if a research project is perfectly designed, has excellent methodology, and is conducted with great rigour resulting in superb analysis and reporting, it might be useless if the research question itself is irrelevant or the problem it addressed has no social or scientific relevance. Research integrity consists not only in designing and conducting research to certain standards, but also in identifying relevant research questions.
What does relevant mean in this context? This question can be answered in different ways, but essentially it means that the research must have some potential impact on society - even if by reinforcing or improving the body of scientific knowledge which will ultimately benefit society rather than by directly affecting society.1 For example, a study that aims to reproduce the results of a previous study may not yield novel results, but will reinforce the findings of the earlier study, improving the evidence base for society. The relevance requirement has gained greater prominence in recent years, being mentioned in more guidelines and even featuring in some national legislation (the Swiss Human Research Act states that “research on human beings can take place only if the scientific question concerned is relevant for one of the following domains: understanding of human diseases; the structure and functioning of the human body; and public health”. (Swiss Federal Government. Human Research Act). Although not specifically written in this context, research and writing on the ‘new production of knowledge’ can be read this way too (see NPoK and RTS).
Relevance is not only relevant in terms of yielding beneficial results. Irrelevant research also wastes the resources invested in it. It has been argued, for example, that it is wasteful to conduct further research on homeopathy because the evidence that it is ineffective beyond a placebo effect is overwhelming. Research without relevance is also detrimental to any human or animal participants; at best, their time is wasted, and at worst, their lives may be lost, depending on the nature of the research. Harming humans and animals in the course of relevant research is already unfortunate, but loss of life in pursuit of irrelevant aims is deeply unethical (the flip side of this is another type of relevance: in some research (notably clinical trials), participants can benefit directly from the research so it is relevant in that sense). Note that a study can also be rendered irrelevant by bad methodology even if the research question is relevant. If a study has too few participants for statistical power, its results will not be valid, and will thus be irrelevant. But reports of such studies are sometimes published, meaning that papers that are fundamentally flawed and whose results are thus irrelevant contaminate the scientific record, skewing the knowledge base and allowing methodology experts such as John Ioannidis to argue that most published research findings are false.
Relevance As A Social Attribute
Next to relevance being a characteristic of research processes and research outputs, relevance is also a perceived quality, attributed to institutes and individuals by various publics. To be perceived as relevant in a debate, to be perceived as a legitimate voice, a legitimate expert or a legitimate proxy to speak on behalf of others, conveys power.
Acting responsibly, adhering to research integrity, or at least the perception of it, translates indirectly into credibility. In the words of Onora O’Neill, trustworthiness requires reliability, honesty and competence. In the context of research and scientific situations, the honesty and reliability requirements are best caught by the research integrity label (although competence is of interest too, see below), whereas research ethics is spread across all three. To earn credibility, or to become trustworthy, means to build one’s relevance. Note that this process can take place on multiple levels. Individual researchers build their credibility, trustworthiness and relevance as much as institutions do – ranging from local colleges to global organisations such as the WHO. Perceived deviant behaviour, meaning breaks the norms and values as recognised elements of research integrity, individual or institutional, translates into a loss of relevance.
Relevance as a social attribute is, albeit different from the ones mentioned above, a resource that can be wasted. Committing fraud, overstepping one’s epistemic domain, or, for institutions, appearing either institutionally corrupt, or hosting a researcher who has committed fraud, will diminish one’s capacity to yield desirable change – relevance wasted.
Dual Use Of Research
More concretely, another issue arises with respect to relevance. It is dual use of research results, an issue often associated with research ethics, but also with clear research integrity connotations. Research must be relevant, but researchers must also ensure that they have considered its potential relevance in terms of misuse of their findings. Dual use was originally defined as any technology that can be used for both peaceful and military means, but in the context or research integrity it refers primary to any misuse of knowledge, data or scientific discoveries (including technology). In the United States Dual Use Research of Concern is defined as “life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security.”
For example, one of the main worries in dual use is that terrorists could use new to engineer bioweapons. However, dual use issues are not limited to life science research. Interview data about smoking habits could be obtained with the intention of developing new strategies to help people stop smoking, but the same results could be used by tobacco companies to target advertising designed to increase smoking rates. Dual use concerns also highlight a tension between two different themes in research integrity. Open data is regarded as an important aspect of integrity because of the need for transparency and reproducibility. But making all raw data available increases the risk of unethical dual use occurring. All researchers have a responsibility to anticipate and take measures to prevent any dual use of their findings.
Limits Of Competence
Revisiting O’Neill’s requirement for trustworthiness (reliability, competence, honesty) also presents us with another questionable behaviour researchers may engage in, perhaps unknowingly. Whereas transgressions on the honesty requirement very obviously translates into a loss of trustworthiness or credibility, transgressions of the other requirements can also do so in perhaps unexpected ways. To do unreliable incompetent science renders, as argued above, even the most relevant science irrelevant. However, limits of competence are not in themselves limited to data collection or experimental work. Limits of competence are also at play when researchers take public stage in the context of research communication or as expert witnesses or expert commenters. Consider, for instance, the status of the so-called prominent rock-star scientists, including people such as Brian Cox or Neill deGrasse Tyson. They are highly sought after as public figures speaking with authority on scientific issues as they present themselves as current events. They are, by training a particle physicist and an astrophysicist. Yet routinely they are asked to provide (very public and very powerful) comments on issues varying from vaccination to climate change and from nutrition to science policy. They are overstepping the epistemic culture they are part of, reaching beyond the limits of their competence, and jeopardizing their trustworthiness.
Of course, trustworthiness and the public relevance that flows from this, is a perceived quality. The consequence of this is that to many, Cox and deGrasse Tyson are (a) doing nothing wrong and (b) their relevance as public intellectuals remain unscathed. Similarly, the opposite positions exist. From a research integrity standpoint, limits to one’s competence impose limits on how one ought to present our expertise – individuals and institutes alike.
1) The principle of relevance refers also to the basic principle of Research Ethics, i.e. the principle requiring that any research project must have potential to produce social, applied or scientific merit. For example, recently updated CIOMS guidelines refer to the principle of social value in its Guideline 1.
Reference
Ioannidis, JPA. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine (2005) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Swiss Federal Government. Human Research Act. (Loi fédérale relative à la recherche sur l’être humain.) http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/medizin/00701/00702/07558/index.html?lan…;
Further reading
European Commission. Horizon 2020 Online Manual. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Animals, page 22. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Environment, health and safety. in European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Dual use, page 33. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Exclusive focus on civilian applications, page 35. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Potential misuse of research results, page 37. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
The European Commission approaches social responsibility through Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). In essence, this is an approach to ensure that societal actors collaborate during the entire research and innovation process. This approach aims to align processes and outcomes with needs and values of European society (cf. European Commission: Science with and for Society, https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/science-and-society). In practice, RRI policy implies:
- engaging society in its research and innovation activities
- increasing access to scientific results
- ensuring gender equality in research processes and contents
- taking into account the ethical dimensions of research
- promoting science education.
Academia and research institutions, research funders, publishers, and research and education policy-makers are vital stakeholders and enablers of actions related to these policy implications.
We recommend the following websites for inspiration and benchmarking:
- Public engagement: National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/
- Open access: Plan S: Making full and immediate open access a reality https://www.coalition-s.org/
- Gender equality: Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016-2019, European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en
- Research ethics and integrity: ALLEA (2017). European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Revised edition. http://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
- Science education: Science Education for Responsible Citizenship (2015). European Commission
European Commission. Science with and for Society. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/science-and-society
Dual-use controls. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import-and-export-rules/export-from-eu/dual-use-controls/index_en.htm
Guidance notes - Research involving dual-use items. European Commission. Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, and Directorate-General for Trade.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/guide_research-dual-use_en.pdf
EU funding for Dual use. A practical guide to accessing EU funds for European Regional Authorities and SMEs. (October 2014). European Commission. Enterprise and Industry.
- Horizon 2020 Online Manual. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm
- Animals, page 22. in European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
- Environment, health and safety, page 29. in European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
- Dual use, page 33. in European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
- Exclusive focus on civilian applications, page 35. in European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
- Potential misuse of research results, page 37. in European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
- Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
- Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
- Rask, M., Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S., Tauginienė, L., Dikčius, V., Matschoss, K., Aarrevaara, T., & d’Andrea, L. (2018). Public Participation, Science and Society: Tools for Dynamic and Responsible Governance of Research and Innovation. Routledge, London and New York-
- Swiss Federal Government. Human Research Act. (Loi fédérale relative à la recherche sur l’être humain.) http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/medizin/00701/00702/07558/index.html?lang...
- Wilford, S., Fisk, M., & Stahl, B. (2016). Guidelines for Responsible Research and Innovation. Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester.
- Working Group Dual Use of the Flemish Interuniversity Council, Imec and the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (October 2017). Guidelines for researchers on dual use and misuse of research. Flemish Interuniversity Council, Imec, Flanders Institute for Biotechnology.
Learning Objectives
- conceptualizing social responsibility in research through the concepts of relevance and trustworthiness.
- Identifying how research integrity and research ethics boards and committee members might assess relevance and trustworthiness in the research (cases or review requests) that they encounter.
Introduction
Social responsibility in research has evolved through a focus on science (including social sciences and humanities) for society with an emphasis on democratizing processes to science with society emphasizing the institutionalization of processes for reflection and anticipation in research and innovation (cf. Owen & al., 2012).
We approach social responsibility through the concept of relevance, namely the relevance
- as an input in research
- as a social characteristic of practitioners and institutes
As part of the discussion on responsibility and relevance, the material also addresses questions on dual use of research as well as limits and limitations of researcher competence.
While the following set of questions are intended for risk assessment of dual use of the research (Working Group Dual Use of the Flemish Interuniversity Council, 2017), they may be helpful also more generally for reviewers of research plans and proposals in considering how the proposed research deals with social and societal responsibility:
- “What would happen if the research results ended up in the wrong hands?
- Could the research results (materials/methods/technologies and knowledge) harm people, animals or the environment if modified or enhanced?
- Could the research results serve any purposes other than the intended ones? If so, would that be unethical?”
(Working Group Dual Use of the Flemish Interuniversity Council, 2017, p. 8)
References
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
Working Group Dual Use of the Flemish Interuniversity Council, Imec and the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (October 2017). Guidelines for researchers on dual use and misuse of research. Flemish Interuniversity Council, Imec, Flanders Institute for Biotechnology.
Further reading
European Commission. Horizon 2020 Online Manual. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Animals, page 22. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Environment, health and safety. in European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Dual use, page 33. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Exclusive focus on civilian applications, page 35. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.
European Commission (2019) Horizon 2020 Programme. How to complete your ethics self-assessment-material guidance. Potential misuse of research results, page 37. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation.