BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260608T195338Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20240216T120000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20240216T133000 SUMMARY:Towards a new Ethos of Science or an Reform of the Institution of Science? UID:20260609T021235Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Faculty Club\, Guest house\, Melatener Str. 31\, Aachen\, Germany\, 52074 DESCRIPTION:

I will explore how the underlying research values of &lsquo\;openness&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;mutual responsiveness&rsquo\;\, which are central to open science practices\, can be integrated into a new ethos of science. Firstly\, I will revisit Robert Merton&lsquo\;s (1942) early contribution to this issue\, examining whether the ethos of science should be understood as a set of norms for scientists to practice &lsquo\;good&rsquo\; science or as a set of research values as a functional requirement of the scientific system to produce knowledge\, irrespective of individual adherence to these norms. Secondly\, I will provide an analysis of the recent codification of scientific practice in terms of &lsquo\;scientific integrity&rsquo\;\, a framework that Merton did not pursue. Based on this analysis\, and illustrated on the case of COVID-19 as a case in which the institution of science was challenged to deliver urgently on societal desirable outcomes\, I will make the case that open science and its core norms of collaboration and openness requires broader governance of the institution of science in its relationship with society at large\, rather than relying solely on self-governance within the scientific community through a new ethos of science. This is particular important for the engineering sciences with its unique position to advance social desirable innovations. This conclusion has implications for re-evaluating research assessments\, suggesting that the evaluation of the scientific system should take precedence over evaluating individual researchers and that incentives should be provided to encourage specific research behaviour rather than solely focusing on individual research outputs.

ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR