Ethos of science

The paper considers 4 norms of ethos of science introduced by Robert K. Merton abbreviated as CUDOS. Another 12 norms were formulated using the golden rule of morality. The study shows that in the context of the development of applied science and its commercialization, there appeared a tendency to abandon Merton norms. As an example, the paper describes 4 norms of the PLACE system by J. Ziman (proprietary, local, authoritarian, commissioned and expert). When abandoning Merton norms, the specifics of fundamental and applied science are not taken into account. We found that Merton’s 4 norms and other norms, formulated in accordance with the golden rule of morality, relate to classical science and to modern fundamental science. Ziman’s norms and the above 12 norms are relevant to applied science. 12 norms formulated in accordance with the golden rule are common to fundamental and applied science. The study emphasizes such violations of the norms of scientific ethics as falsification of empirical material, plagiarism, incorrect quotation, undeserved authorship, sale of dissertations. Their objective and subjective reasons are revealed. Although the behavior of scientists does not completely coincide with the norms of the ethos of science, the latter has an important regulatory effect on the scientific community as ideal, aims scientists at achieving maximum objectivity of knowledge and its use for the benefit of society.

References
[1] Merton R. Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press, 1968, 702 p. [In Russ.: Merton R. Sotsialnaya teoriya i sotsialnaya struktura. Moscow, AST, Khranitel Publ., 2006, 873 p.].
[2] Tsaregorodtsev G.I., Shingarov G.Kh., Gubanov N.I. Istoriya i filosofiya nauki [History and philosophy of science]. Moscow, Sovr. Gos. Un. Publ., 2014, 461 p.
[3] Ushakov E.V. Vvedenie v filosofiyu i metodologiyu nauki [Introduction to the philosophy and methodology of science]. Moscow, Eksamen Publ., 2005, 528 p.
[4] Yudin B.G. Etika nauki i otvetstvennost uchenogo [Ethics of science and the responsibility of the scientist]. In: Filosofiia i metodologiia nauki [Philosophy and methodology of science]. P. II. Moscow, SvR–Argus, 1994, pp. 132–154.
[5] Mirskaya E.Z. Merton i etos klassicheskoy nauki [Merton and the ethos of classical science]. In: Filosofiia nauki. Vyp. 11: etos nauki na rubezhe vekov [Philosophy of science. No. 11: ethos of science at the turn of the century]. Moscow, Institute of Philosophy RAS Publ., 2005, pp. 4–34.
[6] Kokhanovskiy V.P., Zolotukhina E.V., Leshkevich T.G., Fathi T.B. Filosofiya dlya аspirantov [Philosophy for graduate students]. Rostov on Don, Feniks Publ., 2003, 424 p.
[7] Kicherova M.N. Naukovedenie (Science of Science), 2013, no. 4, pp. 1–10.
[8] Stepin V.S., Gorokhov V.G., Rozov M.A. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki [The philosophy of science and technology]. Moscow, Kontakt-Alpha Publ., 1995, 372 p.
[9] Selivanov F.A. Blago, istina, svyaz [Good, truth, connection]. Tyumen, Publishing House of the Tyumen Ak. Kult. Publ., 2008, 260 p.
[10] Kasavin T.I. Voprosy filosofii — Russian Studies in Philosophy, 2019, no. 11, pp. 90–103.
[11] Ziman J. Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, New Series, vol. 282, no. 5395, pp. 1813–1814.
[12] Kasavin T.I. Prikladnoe i fundamentalnoe v etose sovremennoy nauki [Applied and fundamental in the ethos of modern science]. In: Filosofiya nauki. No. 11: etos nauki na rubezhe vekov [Philosophy of science. No. 11: ethos of science at the turn of the century]. Moscow, Institute of Philosophy RAS Publ., 2005, pp. 112–120.
[13] Vorobeva S.A., ed. Istoriya i filosofiya nauki [History and philosophy of science]. Moscow, GEOTAR Media Publ., 2018, 640 p.
[14] Efimova G.S., Kicherova M.N. Naukovedenie (Science of Science), 2012, no. 4, pp. 1–5.