The social organization of science during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has shocked society worldwide. Multiple efforts went immediately into developing treatments for managing and vaccines for preventing the disease. National and international initiatives emerged to deal with the deep economic and social inequalities in our world today. OBJECTIVE: To show that the global inequalities that have become salient during the COVID-19 pandemic and specially with the global vaccination campaign, are the result of a highly privatized system of research and development (R&D), which is first and foremost profit-driven, and where epistemic and social concerns are not prioritized. METHODS: Philosophical analysis. RESULTS: After exploring the current organization of scientific research, as well as its impact in the development of research at a global scale, the paper shows the way in which this highly privatized organization of research has permeated scientific research on COVID-19, identifying who is currently benefiting from pandemic science, and who on the contrary is suffering the consequences of this organization. Using the COVAX mechanism as an example, the paper argues that international efforts to counteract the power of commercially-driven science has not rendered the expected results. CONCLUSIONS: The current organization of science ought to be shaken and restructured if we aim to be better prepared to address the global challenges of the future with the relevant scientific and technological development.

Open Science for private Interests? How the Logic of Open Science Contributes to the Commercialization of Research.

Financial conflicts of interest, several cases of scientific fraud, and research limitations from strong intellectual property laws have all led to questioning the epistemic and social justice appropriateness of industry-funded research. At first sight, the ideal of Open Science, which promotes transparency, sharing, collaboration, and accountability, seems to target precisely the type of limitations uncovered in commercially-driven research. The Open Science movement, however, has primarily focused on publicly funded research, has actively encouraged liaisons with the private sector, and has also created new strategies for commercializing science. As a consequence, I argue that Open Science ends up contributing to the commercialization of science, instead of overcoming its limitations. I use the examples of research publications and citizen science to illustrate this point. Accordingly, the asymmetry between private and public science, present in the current plea to open science, ends up compromising the values of transparency, democracy, and accountability.

Legitimizing Values in Regulatory Science.

BACKGROUND: Over the last several decades, scientists and social groups have frequently raised concerns about politicization or political interference in regulatory science. Public actors (environmentalists and industry advocates, politically aligned public figures, scientists and political commentators, in the United States as well as in other countries) across major political-regulatory controversies have expressed concerns about the inappropriate politicization of science. Although we share concerns about the politicization of science, they are frequently framed in terms of an ideal of value-free science, according to which political and economic values have no legitimate role to play in science. For several decades, work in philosophy of science has identified serious conceptual and practical problems with the value-free ideal. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives are to discuss the literature regarding the conceptual and practical problems with the value-free ideal and offer a constructive alternative to the value-free ideal. DISCUSSION: We first discuss the prevalence of the value-free ideal in regulatory science, then argue that this ideal is self-undermining and has been exploited to delay protective regulation. To offer a constructive alternative, we analyze the relationship between the goals of regulatory science and the standards of good scientific activity. This analysis raises questions about the relationship between methodological and practical standards for good science, tensions among various important social goods, and tensions among various social interests. We argue that the aims of regulatory science help to legitimize value-laden choices regarding research methods and study designs. Finally, we discuss how public deliberation, adaptive management, and community-based participatory research can be used to improve the legitimacy of scientists as representatives of the general public on issues of environmental knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting on the aims of regulatory science-such as protecting human health and the environment, informing democratic deliberation, and promoting the capacities of environmental justice and Indigenous communities-can clarify when values have legitimate roles in regulatory science. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3317.