INTEGRITY, CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND INSTITUTIONS OF TRUST IN SCIENCE

MARTA ENTRADAS

Professor Iscte Sociology and Public Policy

CIES-Iscte researcher

Do people and societies trust science? How do you value ethics in scientific research and generate a public perception of trust in science? The Poiesis project aims to contribute to good science communication with increasing misconduct cases.

This project presents a central research model: integrity, integration, and institutions for trust (3i4t). What does it consist of?

It is a model of theoretical approach that sees scientific integrity (conduct and ethics of researchers), the involvement of people, the participation of civil society in research and the institutions of knowledge production as essential elements of public trust in science.

Do people and societies trust science? How do you value ethics in scientific research and generate a public perception of trust in science? The Poiesis project aims to contribute to good science communication with increasing misconduct cases.

This project presents a central research model: integrity, integration, and institutions for trust (3i4t). What does it consist of?

It is a model of theoretical approach that sees scientific integrity (conduct and ethics of researchers), the involvement of people, the participation of civil society in research and the institutions of knowledge production as essential elements of public trust in science.

Are integrity and trust in science, as they are produced and disseminated, significant concerns of the European Union today?

Undoubtedly. There are increasingly dubious cases in the conduct of good science, and institutions are expected to play a more active role in supporting their researchers.

The average citizen does not spontaneously think about integrity issues.
The relationship between citizens and science, of distancing or approximation, is complex

Does this research analyse concrete examples and their impact on public opinion?

There are several case studies. We have four significant studies underway—one involved members of the public, which we invited to public consultations. We organise discussion groups with moderators leading the conversation; we ask them to analyse news with cases published in different communication channels to understand which channels and sources people trust and do not trust and what factors influence this trust or distrust. For example, we tried to know if a science news article written by journalist A or scientist B is received differently than if it is from the communication office of a scientific institution.

Another study was conducted with communication professionals in scientific institutions, including science communicators and science and ethics managers, with whom we organised focus groups. We tried to understand how these professionals, who know the institutional environment, saw cases of lack of scientific integrity and how they could potentially deal with these situations. These issues still receive little attention within the institutions in Portugal, but some discussions and concerns are beginning to emerge around the subject.

Several European universities already have a Science Integrity Officer whose primary functions are to address scientific integrity issues in the institution, support researchers, and train them, ensuring good conduct and good research practices.

We conducted a third study in which we interviewed scientists and communication professionals to understand what they communicate about, think about integrity issues, and how they deal with them. In misconduct cases, we asked them what they think of the communication and involvement of people outside the investigation. This survey was published on the Poiesis project website, where you can also find the various national studies and comparative analyses that have already been carried out.

The fourth study is quantitative and experimental. It aims to gauge public opinion about trust in scientific institutions by using a short questionnaire that asks only: If an institution has the following characteristics, do you trust it?

The characteristics relate to public participation in research, open and transparent communication of results, funding, and conflicts of interest. This study also collects data from the seven European countries involved in the project. It aims to ascertain the characteristics of the institutions people trust, that is, what they see as reliable institutions.

In short, these studies, which follow robust quantitative and qualitative methodologies, use materials developed by the various project teams, discuss case studies, and so on, will yield lessons that we hope can be useful for institutions, scientists, and communication professionals. Above all, they will help rethink science communication effectively and transmit confidence to the various groups that benefit from it.

Are there ideas that can already be extracted from the studies?

From the events my team has organised at Iscte, and the consultations held in other countries, the ordinary citizen does not think so much about integrity issues or lack thereof. The relationship of distancing or approximation of science is more complex. It's not so much a question of trusting or distrusting science. Situations of scientific misconduct end up being more associated with the individual, the scientist, than with the institution of science. Therefore, trust in science does not seem to us to be shaken. However, the fourth study may bring more ideas on the subject. A website was created to disseminate the results of this project. On the website are the reports of all the studies carried out. In mid-November, we organised a round table at Iscte with experts in communication and ethics, in which recommendations were discussed – based on the results of the studies and what we found from them. There will, therefore, be final recommendations at the level of governance in the form of policy briefings that we will take to an event in Brussels planned for 2025 and share with the European Commission.

A significant result of this project is its contribution to the understanding of scientific integrity in institutions – or lack thereof – and how to deal with these situations, with risk and uncertainty communication, to better inform society. Equally important are the recommendations to be prepared so that we can help our researchers deal with issues of scientific integrity, alerting them to questionable practices, often already accepted in the community.

The importance of this topic is excellent, and social scientists are already paying attention to it. I will give you an example of co-authorship, which is part of bad practices. These not only encompass situations of fabrication of results, falsification, or plagiarism, but they can also be minor infractions or questionable practices.

If someone does not contribute significantly to a scientific article, they should not be a co-author. Often, the articles are signed by people who did not contribute – the guest authors or the gift authors. It is common, however, that the issue also involves the conceptualisation, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of results. There is a list of questionable, continuously growing practices that encompass not only authorship but the way the researcher describes and presents the results – the citations, sometimes 'for convenience', or how junior researchers are supervised.

If someone does not contribute to a scientific article, they should not be a co-author, and sometimes, the articles are signed by people who did not contribute.

How can the situation be improved?

Recently, we conducted a study in which about 1500 researchers from Portuguese universities participated. We asked them, "How often do they carry out certain practices (listed in a list)?" and "How serious do they consider a certain practice?" The results revealed that certain more common practices are neither considered relevant nor seen as bad practices by researchers - that is, they are transversal to different scientific areas.

It is becoming common for universities to adopt guidelines and codes of conduct for ethics and scientific integrity. The Poiesis project wants to contribute and help define good practices that serve institutions.

In this sense, there will also be significant results for the institutions. It is essential to know why this bad practice has grown immensely. There are numerous recent examples. The phenomenon concerns the tremendous pressure on researchers to publish, the culture of publish or perish and quantitative metrics, the increase in predatory journals and the weak peer review. According to our study (and others), this practice is becoming standard in all areas of science.

Has the concern with the reliability of scientific research gained a more significant impact after COVID-19?

Scientific integrity issues have been highlighted in the wake of Covid-19. Many experts were talking in the public square about something uncertain; there was a lack of information, manipulation, misinformation, and articles in the public domain without peer review, placed in online repositories. All of this causes damage to science and society.

Reputation is capital for an investigator