As discussed in [1] by Vincenzo, social responsibility of science may be interpreted in different ways, however, the definition of the bearer of social responsibility of science is underdiscussed. With this theme, the 3DNanoscopy group indulged in a meaningful and enriching discussion on “Social Responsibility” from the perspective of individual members of 3DNanoscopy, moderated by Professor Krishna Agarwal.
Background of the Article:
The article [1] discussed “Social Responsibility” qualitatively by taking an example of an interdisciplinary research group working in the field of precision medicine to identify effective individual treatments for some types of blood cancers. Through various interviews with the participants, Vincenzo concludes that all researchers want to positively contribute to society, upholding their social responsibility. However, the definition of these responsibilities is vague. Specifically, the principal investigators (PIs) of the projects are able to foresee the responsibility and outcomes constituting the outward impact, whereas early career researchers (ECRs) mostly evaluate inward impact where some tangible results can be produced and subsequently will be useful to the scientific community.
Discussion of 3DNanoscopy group:
Within our setting, every member had their own views, with some overlapping and others distinct. All the members partaking in the discussion are either junior researchers, PhDs, or postdocs. Therefore, all the discussions are from the perspective of ECRs. Here, they are consolidated in – number of reflections, and some steps towards fulfilling them within our group.
- There are no clear goals or rules for what constitutes social responsibility. For example, WHO sets health standards for the whole world. Similarly, the World Science Organization (WSO) needs to be formed to clearly define social responsibilities. There are different organizations locally that cater to this; however, it is very fragmented and unclear.
- It seems that too much is being expected of the supervisors or the PIs of the projects, but the ECRs have very few clues about how to think about these aspects, for example how to create a bigger impact, how to navigate the transfer of results from research to society, etc. Often, creating societal impact is a source of motivation to the PhDs and postdocs, but it can also be fuzzy and intimidating. There is also a thought that if the PI was successful in raising the funding, they must have already thought about and convinced the funding agency regarding the societal impact, and therefore they are in the best position to determine the paths to translate the research or creating positive impact to the society.
- The idea of social and moral responsibility is inherent and vague for everyone, however, as a PhD, we do not visit them often. The only time these are practiced are during writing the PhD proposal, at the end of the research while submitting any manuscript, and during the ethics coursework. Therefore, it is needed that PhDs also practice these often to have a clear idea of social responsibility of their research.
- The pressure of publishing and completing one’s work in a defined timeframe also contributes to neglecting moral responsibilities like reproducibility and avoiding negative results. The culture of a research setting should also celebrate negative results as an achievement and publish them since it also constitutes research and has potential to positively impact the community and advance science forward.
- Although most ECRs are aware of responsibilities such as reproducibility, accuracy, honesty, etc., ECRs are often not even aware that their research can have positive implications to society. Probably it takes some time, exposure and discussions with senior members to understand and appreciate these aspects of research.
Consolidating the above reflections, the group revolved around following moral responsibility:
- Reproducibility: making data, codes, and methods as openly available as possible.
- Honesty and Integrity: Reporting correct results without any biases.
- Assessment of our own research: This will help in determining both the good and bad aspects of the research that we are conducting on an individual level and collectively as a group.
- Broader Perspective: Considering both positive and negative results as success because in a broader perspective, both of them propel the scientific community.
The biggest challenge within the ECRs is a lack of practice of social responsibility. This can be achieved through the various actors they indulge with including supervisors, publishers, universities, peers, and research councils. The group suggests following steps to inculcate the moral responsibility in the ECRs:
- Although the above-mentioned responsibilities seem trivial, supervisors should clearly communicate these responsibilities to their students during the start of their research journey.
- As a practice, within the group, the ECRs must fill the above responsibilities, every 3 months, stating what moral responsibilities they practiced in their recent research. This should be discussed with the supervisor. However, it is required that the supervisors create a safe space for such discussions.
- Informal fun meetings or events among peers must be organized by university to discuss the social responsibility of science regularly and often.
- Formal events like seminars should be organized by universities to impart social responsibility.
- Publishers should promote this responsibility by providing tags to accepted manuscripts, such as reproducibility certification. This will incentivize researchers to consider moral responsibility seriously.
- The research councils should invite ECRs to write smaller grants every year, and supervisors should promote and encourage their students to participate. This will help ECRs to form a broader perspective of their research.
[1] Politi, Vincenzo. “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 (2024): 19.