Where Have All the Scientific and Academic Freedoms Gone? And What Is ‘Adequate for Science’? The Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications

Abstract

Article 15(1)(b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). While the interpretation of this provision has not really been a focus of attention in the past, this is changing. A danger lies in construing this provision as entitling states to comprehensively regulate the field of science, at the expense of scientific and academic freedom. Scientific or academic freedom, rather than state regulation, guarantees creativity and innovation in the field of science for the benefit of society at large. This article raises four caveats to guide all those tasked with interpreting Article 15(1)(b) – specifically, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, right now preparing a General Comment on Article 15(1)(b). Firstly, it is crucial to have conceptual clarity of, and understand the differences between, the REBSPA, freedom of science, academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the right to education. Secondly, science, by its very nature, is not susceptible to being managed. An ‘adequate’ framework for science should limit state intervention and empower the scientific fraternity. Thirdly, regulation has lately often entailed the adoption of a corporatist approach to science in universities and research institutions. This damages science. Fourthly and finally, UNESCO's recent Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers of 2017 constitutes only an imperfect blueprint to guide interpretation of the REBSPA. It fails to address various threats (impact agenda science, peer review, ethical regulation, entrepreneurialisation, accountability excess, absence of rights of participation in governance, and so on) to scientific and academic freedom. Relying throughout on the notion that a science system must be ‘adequate for science’, the article concludes with a set of 22 recommendations on how the REBSPA should be construed so as to duly respect scientific and academic freedom. The current science regime needs to be fundamentally rethought in the light of such freedom. Otherwise – and many experts concur – we shall soon witness the fatal collapse and disintegration of modern science. Freedom as a pillar of science, and of the REBSPA, is in danger of being lost.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune”: Researcher experiences of funder suppression of health behaviour intervention trial findings

“…The notion of academic freedom is that researchers bound by the scholarly conventions of peer review and ethical approval, are free to do research without interference or the threat of professional disadvantage [ 5 ]. Many see the preservation of such freedom as vital to safeguarding the reflection, critique, and innovation that academia can bring to society [ 3 , 6 ]. However, academic integrity is increasingly undermined by the influence of vested interests on research [ 2 , 7 ], and a reproducibility crisis [ 8 ], calling into question whether public research institutions actually serve the public interest [ 9 ].…”

Access to scholarly publications in the global North and the global South—Copyright and the need for a paradigm shift under the right to science

“…25, para. 6), the formulation of goals for science reflects conceptions of “instrumental” or “useful” (Beiter, 2019 ), “ideologizable” (Smith, 2020 ), or “illiberal” (Kinzelbach, forthcoming) science. Rather: A necessary step to achieving the paradigm shift in scientific copyright is to reaffirm academic science.…”

“…This is part and parcel of understanding the right to science as providing the basis for “another” science. This reaffirmation might be achieved by a reliance on the concept of “science adequacy,” modeled on the German law concept of “ Wissenschaftsadäquanz ,” but developed further (Beiter, 2019 ). This requires that all structures, arrangements, and decisions in the field of science would have to be such as would be “in the best interest of science and scholarship,” rather than serve political, economic, or social usefulness, or managerial efficiency.…”

Humanities, Citations and Currency: Hierarchies of Value and Enabled Recolonisation

“…Metrics are not going to save the planet. Science and scientists-if allowed to do deep science which includes the humanities-will be the key to delaying or even preventing selfimposed human extinction, but only if the policy-makers are actually listening (see Beiter 2019). For humanities scholars, learning to negotiate and navigate citation measurement systems is crucial, for the STEM disciplines will always be the benchmark for academic auditors.…”