Two decades ago, in 1994, in the context of the 4th EU Framework Programme, ELSA was introduced as a label for developing and funding research into the ethical, legal and social aspects of emerging sciences and technologies. Currently, particularly in the context of EU funding initiatives such as Horizon2020, a new label has been forged, namely Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). What is implied in this metonymy, this semantic shift? What is so new about RRI in comparison to ELSA? First of all, for both labels, the signifier (S) was introduced in a top-down manner, well before the concept that was signified by it (s) had acquired a clear and stable profile. In other words, the signifier preceded (and helped or helps to shape) the research strategies actually covered by these labels (the precedence of the signifier over the signified: S/s). Moreover, the newness of RRI does not reside in its interactive and anticipatory orientation, as is suggested by authors who introduced the term, but rather in its emphases on social-economic impacts (valorisation, employment and competitiveness).

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity—Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: Providing information about research integrityProviding education, training and mentoringStrengthening a research integrity cultureFacilitating open dialogueWise incentive managementImplementing quality assurance proceduresImproving the work environment and work satisfactionIncreasing transparency of misconduct casesOpening up researchImplementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channelsProtecting the alleged perpetratorsEstablishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudspersonMaking explicit the applicable standards for research integrity

No abstract

The genomics ''revolution'' is spreading. Originating in the molecular life sciences, it initially affected a number of biomedical research fields such as cancer genomics and clinical genetics. Now, however, a new ''wave'' of genomic bioinformation is transforming a widening array of disciplines, including those that address the social, historical and cultural dimensions of human life. Increasingly, bioinformation is affecting ''human sciences'' such as psychiatry, psychology, brain research, behavioural research (''behavioural genomics''), but also anthropology and archaeology (''bioarchaeology''). Thus, bioinformatics is having an impact on how we define and understand ourselves, how identities are formed and constituted, and, finally, on how we (on the basis of these redefined identities) assess and address some of the more concrete societal issues involved in genomics governance in various settings. This article explores how genomics and bioinformation, by influencing research agendas in the human sciences and the humanities, are affecting our self-image, our identity, the way we see ourselves. The impact of bioinformation on self-understanding will be assessed on three levels: (1) the collective level (the impact of comparative genomics on our understanding of human beings as a species), (2) the individual level (the impact of behavioural genomics on our understanding of ourselves as individuals), and (3) the genealogical level (the impact of population genomics on our understanding of human history, notably early human history). This threefold impact will be assessed from two seemingly incompatible philosophical perspectives, namely a ''humanistic'' perspective (represented in this article by Francis Fukuyama) and a ''post-humanistic'' one (represented by Peter Sloterdijk). On the basis of this analysis it will be concluded that, rather than focussing on human ''enhancement'' by adding or deleting genes, genome-oriented practices of the Self will focus on using genomics information in the context of identity-formation. Genomic bioinformation will increasingly be built into our self-images and used in order to tailor and adapt our practices of Self to our ''personalised'' genome. We will keep working on ourselves, no doubt, not by modifying our genomes, but rather by fine-tuning our behaviour. What we are experiencing is a bioinformatisation of the life-world. Genomics-based technologies will increasingly pervade our daily lives, our autobiographies and narratives, as well as our anthropologies, rather than our genomes as such.

When the Human Genome Project (HGP) was launched, our genome was presented as our 'blueprint', a metaphor reflecting a genetic deterministic epistemology. Eventually, however, the HGP undermined rather than strengthened the understanding of genomes as blueprints and of genes as ultimate causal units. A symbolical turning point was the discovery that the human genome only contains 22,500 genes. Initially, this was seen as a narcissistic offence. Gradually, however, it strengthened the shift from traditional genetics and biotechnology (i.e., gene-oriented approaches) to genomics, i.e. genome-oriented or systems approaches, emphasizing complexity. The 20th century can be regarded as the century of biotechnology and of the gene. Its history demonstrated that the will to know (notably: to know ourselves) has never been a disinterested affair: it is driven by a will to improve (notably: to improve ourselves). In this article it is claimed that, as genomics takes us beyond a genetic deterministic understanding of life, this must have consequences for societal research and debate as well. Policies for self-improvement will increasingly rely on the use of complex interpretation. Therefore, the emphasis must shift from issues such as genetic manipulation and human enhancement to issues involved in governance of novel forms of information.

Metaphors for describing the introduction, impacts, and management of non-native species are numerous and often quite outspoken (e.g. invasional meltdown and explosive growth). Policy-makers have adopted increasingly disputed metaphorical terms from scientific discourse. We performed a critical analysis of the use of strong metaphors in reporting scientific findings to policy-makers. Our analysis shows that perceptions of harm, invasiveness or nativeness are dynamic and inevitably display multiple narratives in science, policy or management. Improving our awareness of multiple expert and stakeholder narratives that exist in the context of non-native species management, as well as metaphorical alternatives, is critical.

Concern for and interest in research integrity has increased significantly during recent decades, both in academic and in policy discourse. Both in terms of diagnostics and in terms of therapy, the tendency in integrity discourse has been to focus on strategies of individualisation (detecting and punishing individual deviance). Other contributions to the integrity debate, however, focus more explicitly on environmental factors, e.g. on the quality and resilience of research ecosystems, on institutional rather than individual responsibilities, and on the quality of the research culture. One example of this is the Bonn PRINTEGER Statement . This editorial to the LSSP thematic series (article collection) entitled Addressing integrity challenges in research: the institutional dimension invites authors to contribute to the research integrity debate. Notably, we are interested in submissions addressing issues such as institutional responsibilities, changes in the research climate, duties of research managers and research performing or research funding organisations (RPOs and RFOs) as well as new approaches to integrity education.

By introducing new policy initiatives, China is trying to change the evaluation of scientific research, shifting the focus from counting publication output to stressing high-quality research, with the objective of achieving excellent science. Against this background, the scientific publication system itself is important for safeguarding high-quality publications and highquality journals. However, the Chinese scientific publication system has some specificities and unique features, which also create particular challenges. This article describes the scientific publication system in China. It covers the Chinese ex-ante journal licensing examination, the triple ownership management structure and provides an overview of the editorial process of Chinese scientific journals. It analyses how difficulties in the Chinese scientific publication system relate to concerns over research quality and integrity. We conclude with an agenda of the crucial issues facing the current Chinese attempts to promote quality in scientific publications.