Trust in Science

Abstract

Trust in science means in effect trust in scholars and their actions. Both the strategic trust based on concrete estimates of trustworthiness and the culture of trust understood as a general imperative to be trustful based on the general presumption of trustworthiness are engendered by the axiological and normative framework typical for the domain of science and known as a scientific ethos. The classical codification of the ethos of science was proposed by Robert K. Merton by means of four principles: universalism, communalism, disinterestedness and organized scepticism. Each of them is shown to facilitate or even evoke the truthful, competent, sincere and honest — in brief: trustworthy — conduct of scholars. The ethos of science and its implication — the trustworthiness of scholars — explain relatively low levels of fraud and plagiarism as compared with other domains. Unfortunately this description is adequate only with respect to the traditional model of `academic science'. In our time we have witnessed the emergence of a different model of science characterized by dependence on huge financial resources, privatization and secrecy of research, commodification of research results, bureaucratization of scientific institutions and instrumentalization of science by subjecting it to extra-scientific interests. In this period of `post-academic science' Mertonian norms lose some of their binding moral power, and the decay of trust in science is the predictable result. Consequently, the opportunities for, and actual cases of, fraud and plagiarism seem on the increase. To oppose this tendency it is necessary to rejuvenate the ethos of science by returning to Mertonian principles, but at the same time reformulating them in ways more adequate to the current institutional structures of post-academic science.