From Traditional Research to Responsible Research: The Necessity of Scientific Freedom and Scientific Responsibility for Better Societies

My research journey spans a period of exciting new theories informing innovative practices in businesses and other organizations and a period littered with concerns about the research-practice gap, questionable research practices, and a strong emphasis on the number of publications in top journals for hiring and promotions. These recent developments led to the dilution of both scientific freedom and scientific responsibility in our scientific work. I offer my research journey to illustrate the importance of both, with the most recent endeavor in a global responsible research movement to produce useful and credible knowledge that will enable business and management practices to serve all stakeholders and to solve the world's most challenging problems. Emerging institutional changes in business schools, journals, associations, and accreditation agencies provide hope that scholars will soon find the conditions favorable for both freedom and responsibility to support their aspiration to pursue research that will contribute to better societies and meaningful careers. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 9 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Repatriation and the End of Scientific Freedom

Weiss and Springer feel repatriation laws impede scientific research by limiting skeletal collections and by removing freedom of inquiry of skeletal remains.

Scientific freedom and integrity in the 21st century: roles and power of scientists

<p>Science is rooted in basic values. Freedom is one of them. History is rich in examples of struggles by scientists for freedom. They often had to struggle to find patrons and avoid persecution. Religious authority, often associated with political power, was a permanent challenge to freedom of thought and freedom of movement, which is a major requirement for scientific cooperation and dissemination.</p><p>We live in worrying times, where some politicians are tempted to deglobalise economies and trade by closing borders and even building walls. Letting scientific collaboration be affected and reshaped by these vision is concerning. Especially when we know that the challenges we face are global. Nationalism conditions the impact research and science can have.</p><p>The power of hierarchical structures can also lead to limitations to freedom. Scientists themselves are part of a system that makes decisions about people. There is the peer review system, making decisions on who, what and when is published. Another example of power in the hands of the scientific communities is promotion, nomination and awards. However, this power is also a remarkable opportunity for scientists to stand above political flows. Remaining loyal to principles of integrity is the only way for scientists to safeguard freedom for their own sake.</p><p>Scientific freedom from funders is crucial but impactful only if supported by independent and forward-looking decisions by scientific communities. Reviewers, promotion and award committees need a wide and integral understanding of scientific development and the vital conditions that favour this.</p><p>Freedom and integrity lies at the heart of the scientific endeavour and its ability to develop new knowledge and challenge beliefs. Scientific communities have great responsibilities and roles to play.</p>

Scientific Minimalism and the Division of Moral Labor in Regulating Dual-Use Research

: In this paper I examine the merits of a “division ofmoral labor” regulatory system for dual-use research. I borrow anargument from Thomas Douglas against scientific isolationism toshow that researchers must be morally responsible for resolvingat least some dual-use problems. I then argue that there are keybenefits of scientific isolationism that are preserved in a positionI call scientific minimalism. I then demonstrate that scientificminimalism, in a division of moral labor system, succeeds inmaximizing both scientific freedom and moral efficiency, which Ihold to be an essential aim for any proposed alternative regulatorymodel.