后常规之后:开放科学会成为一种新范式吗?

After the Post-Normal:Would Open Science Become a New Paradigm?

开放科学运动的核心是推动科研活动的信息、知识和成果更为迅速而流畅地在科学共同体内部以及科学与社会之间交流和共享。同行评议作为科学共同体的内部质量控制机制日益面临挑战:作为防范机制的有效性受到挑战;作为纠错机制的及时性受到挑战;还有学科交叉和问题导向带来的挑战。花样频出的科研不端行为及其引发的社会关注可以视为既有科研制度和利益分配格局的危机信号。倡导更为公开透明、更有利于社会问责的开放科学需要有效地解决既有格局的危机才能成为新的科研组织范式。基于科学社会学的基础理论来分析现行科研运行方式的内在基本矛盾,可以探讨开放科学成为一种新范式所需要的条件。理想化的开放科学新范式将带来科学的进一步社会化与社会的科学化。开放科学的现实进程也将对我国的科学研究、经济发展和社会发展带来重要影响。

The purpose of this study is to analyze the inherent contradictions in the current paradigm of scientific research by reviewing and employing basic theories of Sociology of Science,so as to explore the possibility and required conditions for open science to become an alternative paradigm.Firstly,based on theories on"scientific community"by pioneers of Sociology of Science such as Merton,Kuhn,Bernal,and Polanyi,it summarizes the norm of"peer review"shared by modern sciences in terms of organizational structure.The way of peer review provides the basis for autonomy of scientific community.The autonomy of scientific community based on the"social contract of science"demarcates a boundary between science and society through the exchange relationship of this"contract".Within the scientific community,there is a special value system that is different from the value system of the external society.The social structure of scientific organization is like a machine,which translates the value system of the external society into the internal value system,and then feeds back its functional output to the outside.As a practice way of community autonomy,peer review within the scientific community aims to ensure the integrity of scientific research,select high-quality knowledge achievements to give back to the society,and realize the core exchange of the"contract".Secondly,the systematic causes of scientific research misconduct are explained through the three basic theories in sociology of science,namely principal-agent relationship theory,credit cycle transformation theory,and cultural institutional function theory.From the perspective of scientific research activities as a social subsystem,the causes of scientific research misconduct are implicit in the system itself.When the single channel that converts the external benefits of scientific knowledge into internal cultural values and institutions fails,all kinds of deviant behaviors arise.For the occurrence of scientific research misconduct,peer review should play the function of preventing before and correcting after.In recent years,the three new situations of the increase in the absolute number of scientific research misconduct,the increase in the relative proportion and the increase in social concern have brought new challenges to the functioning of the peer review mechanism.The challenges faced by peer review as an internal quality control mechanism of the scientific community are reflected in three aspects:the effectiveness as a preventive mechanism is challenged;the timeliness as an error correction mechanism is challenged;and the challenges brought about by interdisciplinary and problem orientation.This study believes that when the"programme"with"peer review"as the"hard core"faces the challenge of more and more"scientific misconduct"as anomalies,it cannot absorb and reduce these anomalies in the original system,then become a regressive programme that lacked vitality and overwhelmed.The two ways of supervision and education to strengthen the internal self-discipline of the scientific community may not only shake people's trust in scientific research activities and achievements,but also may lead to more deviant behaviors of middle-and lower-level personnel.The limited external intervention as a mean of repairing the peer review mechanism,including the direct introduction of external supervision and the establishment of boundary organizations,has more or less interfered with the autonomy mechanism of the scientific community,thus causing controversy.The three alternative paradigms of post-academy science,mode 2 science,and post-normal science are more or less beyond the"hard core"of"peer review"of normal science,making the boundary between science and society increasingly blurred.When the boundaries gradually dissolve,an ideal state of open science is reached.For open science to become a new scientific research paradigm that replaces peer review,two core contradictions need to be resolved:the first is the quality control of scientific research outcomes;the second is the mechanism of the generation,distribution and transmission of benefits related to the outcomes.The ideal open science paradigm will bring about a further socialization of science and scientization of society.The actual process of open science will have an important impact on China's scientific research,economic development and social development.