Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service

Abstract

Some of the most significant policy responses to cases of fraudulent and questionable conduct by scientists have been to strengthen professionalism among scientists, whether by codes of conduct, integrity boards, or mandatory research integrity training programs. Yet there has been little systematic discussion about what professionalism in scientific research should mean. In this paper I draw on the sociology of the professions and on data comparing codes of conduct in science to those in the professions, in order to examine what precisely the model of professionalism implies for scientific research. I argue that professionalism, more than any other single organizational logic, is appropriate for scientific research, and that codes of conduct for scientists should strengthen statements concerning scientific autonomy and competence, as well as the scientific service ideal.

Trust and Professionalism in Science: Medical Codes as a Model for Scientific Negligence?

“…The fact that scienti c codes of conduct do not have negligence provisions would only be problematic if scienti c research should adhere to a logic of professionalism. Elsewhere it has been argued that it in fact should [2], and the crux of Desmond's argument was to point to the unavoidable role played by individual judgment in the activity of scienti c research (see also [21,22]). The day-to-day activities of formulating hypotheses and developing methodologies, overcoming challenges, analysing and interpreting data: in all of these, scientists have a large degree of operational autonomy whereby they cannot simply follow formulaic methodologies but must use their individual discretion.…”

“…Finally, a supervisor may be guilty of negligence if, for instance: he or she does not take reasonable precautions to avoid members of the research team from taking large risks; or if the supervisor does not offer su cient guidance to supervisees. [2] In sum, the elucidation of standards of competence is not easy, and given the novelty of research it will not be possible to bring all aspects of scienti c research under purview of such "standards"; yet it is possible, since such standards are already tacitly present, especially in many of the support activities in the scienti c community. Without such standards scientists could not assume the roles of referee, editor, or supervisor, where other scientists are supported in reaching certain standards of competence.…”

“…In many ways, science is moving further away from its amateur and gentleman-scientist past [1], and one of the areas in which such changes can be discerned is how science is currently strengthening its structures of self-regulation in parallel to the professions: codes of conduct are introduced, researchers are given research integrity trainings, and integrity commissions are being set up to deal with transgressions of the code of conduct [2,3]. However, as will be documented in this paper, professional communities such as the medical community are acutely concerned with negligence: the category of misconduct where a professional does not live up to the standards expected of a professional of similar quali cations.…”

“…In this way, negligence challenges the traditional voluntaristic way of conceiving culpability: an agent is not only held responsible for actions under his or her actual control [9], but also for actions which should have been under his or her control. The general implications of negligence for moral culpability [2,3] or legal culpability [12] fall outside the concern of this paper; this paper will focus on the functional role that negligence plays in professional codes of conduct ('professional codes'), and what role it should play in codes of conduct for scientists ('scienti c codes'). This paper will hence aim at elucidating two questions:…”

Expert Communication and the Self-Defeating Codes of Scientific Ethics

“…This would represent an expansion of the traditional concept of scientific service, where the scientist is conceived to conduct a "disinterested" search for truth and understanding (Desmond 2020). In precarious and highly uncertain epistemic environments, the scientist is called upon to directly serve their community and to advise the public what to do.…”