Highlighting tensions between scientific integrity principles or rules and ordinary scientific practices
This task will identify areas of tension between current recommendations relative to research integrity and scientific practices with respect to epistemological, legal, sociological, and organizational requirements.
➔ Subtask 3.1
Tensions from an epistemological perspective
This subtask will assess the potential efficiency of injunctions to standardization of research procedures and data management in terms of reproducibility, robustness or data preservation and sharing, in the name of research integrity. As regards reproducibility, three proposals will be analysed (the Open Science Project, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, DataLab) in order to explore the potential conflicts between the universality of injunctions to reproducibility (as an RI-driven principle) and the domain-specificity of other methodological principles.
➔ Subtask 3.2
This subtask will address how ordinary scientific practices are turned into evidence in court, when scientific misconducts arise, and how scientific practices are transformed when this occurs. Court decisions taken by French tribunals in the domain of research integrity and scientific authorship (from 2015 to 2020) will be analysed in order to understand what element of ordinary scientific practice is considered admissible evidence. We will also address how procedures designed to encourage and foster RI combine with other procedures provided for by the law for other purposes (such as the legal protection of whistleblowers in health and environment risks).
➔ Subtask 3.3
This subtask will address the consequences of scientific misconducts, and more broadly of the rise of RI concerns, on scientific careers. Based on three cases of publicized misconduct, we will interview protagonists, in order to identify the roles each individual assumes, the tests through which each of them had to pass in order to make their point, their social positions (especially their career stage before and after the disclosure of scientific misconduct). We will then explore the “bad” consequences of scientific misconduct (eviction, resignation, ban, difficulties to get promoted, funded, tenured etc.) and the “good” consequences (promotion, citation, access to valued position, funding, international mobility etc).
