Scientific Freedom

Statement on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS}
Adopted by the AAAS Board of Directors on October 12, 2017.

“Scientific freedom and scientific responsibility are essential to the advancement of human knowledge for the benefit of all. Scientific freedom is the freedom to engage in scientific inquiry, pursue and apply knowledge, and communicate openly. This freedom is inextricably linked to and must be exercised in accordance with scientific responsibility. Scientific responsibility is the duty to conduct and apply science with integrity, in the interest of humanity, in a spirit of stewardship for the environment, and with respect for human rights.”

Note: The AAAS recognizes that everyday science takes place in situations that pose challenges to scientific freedom and scientific responsibility. Scientists often face competitive pressures, conflicting interests, complex problems, and ambiguity in their work. Furthermore, the exercise of scientific freedom and scientific responsibility is subject to political, economic, and institutional pressures, and is affected by cultural variation. This website presents a range of different and sometimes opposing perspectives, as well as resource materials, to promote discussion in the context of everyday work. It is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive, but rather timely, informative and useful as a guide for policy and behavior and as a resource for inquiry and instruction in the area of scientific freedom and responsibility.

.

Media Release
AAAS Adopts Statement Binding Scientific Freedom with Responsibility
18 October 2017
The AAAS Board of Directors adopted the “Statement on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility” on Oct. 12 to govern the organization, its members and guide scientists across the globe – the first known such position adopted by a scientific organization, according to members of the AAAS committee that developed the statement…

The four-line statement is meant to be a lasting and widely applicable affirmation, recognizing that freedom necessary to extend the global scientific enterprise requires the scientific community to adhere to and apply high ethical standards, interlocking two longstanding pillars of science…

Coinciding with adoption of the statement, AAAS also unveiled on Oct. 18 a corresponding online resource portal where anyone interested can find topical information for seminars, group discussions or references for policymaking efforts. The site provides an extensive list of related websites and foundational articles that trace the origin and development of the statement…

Drafting and adoption of the statement was nearly three years in the making. It replaces a 1975 report authored by the late John T. Edsall, a professor of biochemistry at Harvard University and the chair of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, which has continued its work since its founding in 1970.

The 40-page Edsall Report, as it is commonly referenced, did not define scientific freedom nor scientific responsibility and only implicitly stated that the two issues are “basically” connected – a posture largely accepted at the time…

The statement grew out of global consultations and information-seeking sessions with the AAAS Board of Directors, the Council and AAAS affiliate organizations. Multiple panel meetings were held around and during the 2015, 2016 and 2017 AAAS Annual Meetings…

::::::
::::::

Springer Nature blocks access to certain articles in China
November 1, 2017 BEIJING (Reuters) – Springer Nature, which publishes science magazines Nature and Scientific American, said on Wednesday it had pulled access to a small number of articles in China to comply with regulations, adding that it viewed the move as regrettable but necessary.

The decision comes after Britain’s Cambridge University Press (CUP) said in August it had removed from its website in China about 300 papers and book reviews published in the China Quarterly journal, after a request from the Chinese government.

CUP, the publishing arm of elite Cambridge University, later reversed its decision and reposted the articles, following an outcry from academics, who attacked the decision as an affront to academic freedom.

In a statement, Germany-based Springer Nature said that less than one percent of its content had been “limited” in mainland China.
“This action is deeply regrettable, but has been taken to prevent a much greater impact on our customers and authors,” it said.
“This is not editorial censorship and does not affect the content we publish or make accessible elsewhere in the world. It is a local content access decision in China done to comply with specific local regulations,” it added.

The Financial Times said at least 1,000 Springer Nature articles had been blocked in China, containing sensitive key words like Taiwan, Tibet and Cultural Revolution…
“In not taking action we ran the very real risk of all of our content being blocked,” Springer Nature said.

“We do not believe that it is in the interests of our authors, customers, or the wider scientific and academic community, or to the advancement of research, for us to be banned from distributing our content in China.”…