title: The credibility and legitimation of science: A loss of faith in the scientific narrative.
abstract: The presence of scientific misconduct challenges the authority of science to regulate itself. This paper examines the basis for scientific self-regulation, a basis which forms an ideology of science that has served to publicly legitimate the authority and autonomy of science. It is argued that the conventional scientific narrative overstates quality control and, as a consequence, that there is a potential crisis of legitimation in science. In particular, the dichotomy that is constructed between (1) the structure of science and (2) the individual scientist, is seen as problematic and cannot be used to shift the responsibility for misconduct onto individuals while at the same time preserving the sanctity of the structure of scientific practices-the two are inseparable. This analysis helps to locate the data audit/quality assurance movement and to clarify its role within the structure of scientific practices. The continued public support and legitimation of science requires that the scientific community critically examine and strengthen the structure of scientific practices. The re-examination should not focus overtly on controlling individual scientists. Rather, given the communal nature of science, the appropriate focus is on the social units that constitute and control the structure of scientific practices: laboratories, institutions, scientific societies and journals, and funding agencies. The First International Conference on Scientific Data Audit Policies and Quality Assurance should be viewed, then, as the beginning of a serious and difficult conversation among scientists on how to improve quality control in science and achieve public accountability while at the same time retaining the vitality of scientific practices.
authors: a College of Business Administration , University of Iowa , Iowa City , Iowa , 52242.
authors: J R
authors: JR
authors: Francis
keywords: Misconduct; data audit; quality assurance; quality control; research policies; self‐regulation