SUMMARY – Academic research staff have long been advocates of various causes in the public arena; researchers taking normative positions regarding various moral, political or social issues is nothing new. Today, however, given the many challenges facing our society, the question of public advocacy[1] by researchers has taken on a new dimension. Many of them get involved to support causes or take a stance on societal issues – the fight against pandemics, environmental degradation, the rise of surveillance technologies, and so on. They do so in a variety of ways, from signing op-eds to contributing to the work of NGOs or think tanks, supporting legal action or writing blog posts. Moreover, the development of traditional and social media has significantly increased the public exposure of committed researchers.
At the same time, many in the research community are questioning the modalities of such forms of engagement in the public sphere, its appropriateness and the very idea of it. They wonder whether and how to engage publicly without risking their reputation and the values shared by their research communities, without departing from the neutrality traditionally expected of researchers, and without jeopardising impartiality or credibility.
The present opinion has been written with this context in mind. The result of a self-referral within COMETS, it aims to provide researchers with keys to understanding and ethical guidelines concerning public advocacy.
[1] As defined in more detail in the Opinion, ‘public advocacy of researchers’ is to be understood as ‘any public intervention by an academic researcher or a group of academic researchers, whose authority is linked to their position in the scientific field and whose content has a normative aspect, i.e. an evaluative or prescriptive stance on moral, political or social issues’. It is therefore both wider than the classical understanding of ‘advocacy’ and different from what is referred to as ‘public engagement’ in English-speaking countries, a commonly required academic activity that has already been widely discussed and documented. To avoid repetition, the terms ‘engaged’ or ‘committed’ will also be used.
COMETS emphasises is that there is no incompatibility between, on the one hand, a researcher’s public advocacy and, on the other, the norms attributed to or effectively applicable to research. This applies in particular to the idea that science is ‘neutral’, which is often considered an essential condition for the production of objective, reliable knowledge. While we agree with the need to distinguish scientific facts from opinions, it would be naive to think that any researcher could ever entirely set aside their values: all science is a human endeavour, embedded in a social context and, as such, is imbued with values. The main challenge is not to expect researchers to be free of values, but to encourage them to identify and state them explicitly, and to respect the requirements of integrity and rigour that must characterize the scientific process. Research in the public sector requires some form of neutrality on the part of the researcher, however this obligation does not, in principle, stand in the way of intellectual freedom and critical thinking that are an integral part of research work. Similarly, this neutrality does not preclude their involvement in societal debates in which they potentially have a valuable part to play as specialists in their field.
COMETS then believes that public advocacy should be understood as an individual freedom, in two ways:
- on the one hand, each researcher should remain free to decide whether or not to engage in public debate; the fact that they choose not to take a stance in the public sphere does not constitute a breach of any professional or moral obligation incumbent upon them;
- and on the other hand, the researcher who does engage does not necessarily have to solicit the support of broader communities (research groups, scholarly organizations, etc.), even if COMETS considers that providing a collective basis for engagement has many advantages (shared reflection, impact of the message delivered, greater protection for the researcher, etc.).
While it constitutes a freedom, commitment to a cause also requires researchers to be aware of the need to take responsibility, not only in terms of legal liability, but also in terms of moral responsibility, due to the credibility conferred by their status and the in-depth knowledge it entails. Indeed, in taking a public stance, researchers are potentially putting their academic reputation and career at risk; they are also involving the reputation of their institution, as well as that, to a certain extent, of academic research as a sector, and, more generally, affecting the quality of the public debate to which they are contributing or that they intend to provoke. Researchers enjoy a unique position that lends unique weight to their words. They must make sure to put this position to the service of the community, and not to abuse it. COMETS explicitly states that all public advocacy must involve fulfilling certain duties.
These duties primarily concern the way in which researchers express themselves publicly. In the wake of COMETS Opinion 42 issued on the occasion of the COVID-19 crisis, COMETS reiterates that researchers must express themselves not only in compliance with the rules of law (defamation laws, etc.), but also by offering their audience the opportunity to put their speech into context, at the very least to avoid being misled. To this end, researchers must:
- ‘situate’ their statements: are they speaking in their own name, in the name of their research community, or of the organization to which they belong? What is their field of expertise? Are they an expert on the issue on which they are taking a position? What links of interest do they have (with a particular company, association, etc.)? What values underlie their statement?
- put their statement into perspective: what is the status of the scientific findings on which they are relying? Are there any remaining uncertainties? Are there any controversies?
COMETS is aware of the practical difficulties involved in implementing some of these standards (limited speaking time in the media, limited space in written forums, etc.). However, respecting them is an objective that researchers must systematically strive to achieve.
Before expressing themselves publicly, researchers must also reflect on their legitimacy to do so. In addition, the knowledge on which the researcher bases their engagement must be sound and must rely on a rigorous scientific approach. Whether committed or not, they must obey the traditional requirements of integrity and rigour applicable to the production of reliable knowledge – description of the research protocol, referencing of sources, availability of primary findings, peer review, etc. COMETS reiterates that these requirements are the necessary corollary to the freedom of research, which is a professional freedom, and that nothing, not even the defence of a cause, however noble, justifies compromising these rules or settling for unestablished knowledge. Far from preventing researchers from asserting an idea forcefully in the public arena, these requirements are, on the contrary, an essential component to public advocacy, which can otherwise easily be labelled as activism or militancy.
In order to provide those wishing to become involved with concrete guidelines and tools, COMETS invites the CNRS to work with research staff to draw up a guide to public advocacy. While there are already a number of texts that set out the rights and responsibilities of researchers – the researcher charter, codes of ethics, the COMETS opinions, etc. – they are found in different places, are often difficult to interpret (with respect to the obligation to be neutral, for example) and are difficult to apply in practice (declaration of conflicts of interest in the media, etc.). A guide to public advocacy should make it possible to provide legible, concrete and realistic content for these standards, which may appear deceptively simple when in fact quite difficult to understand and apply.
COMETS recommends that the CNRS considers drawing up such a guide in conjunction with other research organizations currently examining the issue. The guide should also be accompanied by initiatives to raise the awareness of researchers on the implications and practical aspects of public engagement (including media training).
Lastly, COMETS has considered the more general position of the CNRS with regard to public advocacy.
COMETS takes the view that, in general, the CNRS should neither encourage nor condemn a priori the engagement of researchers, nor should it police such engagement in any way.
In practice:
- researchers should not be penalised for their public advocacy. The evaluation of a researcher’s research activity should focus solely on their research work, and not on any potential statements made in public;
- when public advocacy leads to controversy, it is not the role of CNRS management to intervene in such matters, which should remain primarily a matter of scientific debate among peers;
- on the other hand, the CNRS must intervene in the event that a researcher breaches integrity or deontology (when applicable, the relevant officers should be called in), or in the event that a researcher breaches the legal limits on freedom of expression (defamation laws, etc.); similarly, the institution should intervene to support engaged researchers who are the subject of personal attacks or gag rules.
- in the event that a researcher engages in actions of civil disobedience, the CNRS should not take the place of police or judicial institutions. It should not condemn such actions ex ante, nor should it take on the role of the courts and penalize them. A posteriori, in the event of a ruling in criminal court against a researcher, the CNRS may consider that its intervention is required and impose a sanction.
More generally speaking, COMETS encourages the CNRS to protect and promote the freedom of expression of its staff. It is indeed the responsibility of research institutions and communities to support the constructive confrontation of ideas, which is based on freedom of expression.
If the CNRS were to decide to take a stance as an institution, i.e., if it were to take public, normative positions on societal issues, COMETS considers that it would have to respect the rules that apply to researchers – making its position clearly known, explaining the objectives and values that underpin it, etc. The institution’s position should also be open to debate within the institution.
[1] As defined in more detail in the Opinion, ‘public advocacy of researchers’ is to be understood as ‘any public intervention by an academic researcher or a group of academic researchers, whose authority is linked to their position in the scientific field and whose content has a normative aspect, i.e. an evaluative or prescriptive stance on moral, political or social issues’. It is therefore both wider than the classical understanding of ‘advocacy’ and different from what is referred to as ‘public engagement’ in English-speaking countries, a commonly required academic activity that has already been widely discussed and documented. To avoid repetition, the terms ‘engaged’ or ‘committed’ will also be used.
