Search

In the past two decades, individual explanations of scientific misconduct ('bad apples') have increasingly given way to systemic explanations ('bad systems'). Where did this interest in systemic factors (publication pressure, competition for research funding) come from? Given that research ethicists often present their interventions as responses to scientific misconduct, this article tests the hypothesis that these systemic explanations were triggered by high-visibility cases of scientific norm violation. It does so by examining why Dutch scientists in 2011 explained Diederik Stapel's grand-scale data fabrication largely in systemic terms, whereas only fifteen years earlier, in the René Diekstra affair (1996), such explanations had been close to absent. Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, the article suggests that cases like Stapel's "as such" do not explain why early 21st-century commentators exchanged individual explanations for systemic ones. Only against the background of an existing discourse of criticism of the science system, developed in the 1990s and 2000s in response to rapidly increasing competition for research funding, could the Stapel affair achieve notoriety as an example of how systemic factors provoke bad conduct.

What kind of people make good scientists? What personal qualities do scholars say their peers should exhibit? And how do they express these expectations? This article explores these issues by mapping the kinds of virtues discussed by American scientists between 1945 and 2000. Our wide-ranging comparative analysis maps scientific virtue talk across three distinct disciplines – physics, psychology, and history – and across sources that typify those disciplines' scientific ethos – introductory textbooks, book reviews, and codes of ethics. We find that, when inducting students into a discipline, evaluating peers, or codifying their professional standards, postwar American scientists routinely named virtues like carefulness, objectivity, and honesty. They applied such virtues not only directly to scholars' characters, minds, and attitudes (thereby equating virtues with personal qualities), but also to their methods, modes of reasoning, and working habits (in the form of what we call virtue-qualifiers). Strikingly, we find that physicists, psychologists, and historians drew upon largely similar repertoires of virtue. For all of them, scientific work required carefulness, thoroughness, and accuracy. Not all virtues, however, were equally important in all disciplines (notably objectivity), nor did each ethos-forming genre place equal emphasis on the directly personal nature of such virtues. All in all, our research establishes an extended framework for understanding the ways virtues remained present in postwar American scientific discourse writ large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a collaborative commentary on the first volume of a two-part anthology of works by Hayden White, The Ethics of Narrative, edited by Robert Doran. Informed by the collection and inspired by the co-authors, in this paper we discuss White's writing. Herman Paul compares White's constructivism with that of Berger and Luckmann, and discusses the extent to which the tools of historical narrative criticism developed by White are expeditious in analyzing stories about the climate crisis. Kalle Pihlainen captures White's writing in a three-stage process of emancipatory politics of history, to further reconfigure it using the concept of fidelity. Jakub Muchowski writes about the relationship between the titular ethics and politics, asking to what extent White regarded them as separate spheres of practice, and whether in choosing the former White was apolitical. Ewa Domańska considers how White's critical approach to history might help to explore possibilities of bridging Indigenous and Western approaches to the past as well as reflects on White's attitude toward metaphysics. Finally, Miguel Valderrama considers the ways in which White uses the concept of event. The exchange closes with Robert Doran's response to all the commentaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the seventeenth century, scholars have been accusing each other of 'dogmatism'. But what exactly did this mean? In exploring this question, this article focuses on philosophy and Biblical scholarship in nineteenth-century Germany. Scholars in both of these fields habitually contrasted Dogmatismus with Kritik, to the point of emplotting the history of their field as a gradual triumph of critical thinking over dogmatic belief. The article shows that charges of dogmatism derived much of their rhetorical force from such progressive narratives. Especially neo-Kantian philosophers and Biblical scholars of liberal Protestant persuasion liked to depict their opponents as clinging to long-superseded modes of thought, thereby implying that these colleagues harked back to a past from which modern Wissenschaft had emancipated itself. This 'denial of coevalness', as Johannes Fabian calls it, demonstrates to what extent the vice of dogmatism was imbued with normative visions of how the field or, more broadly, German intellectual life should develop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic (caused by the Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus) led to unprecedented challenges to public health, the healthcare system, and our daily lives (including work and education), particularly during the first wave in early 2020. In order to control infection of the virus, many countries have imposed restrictive measures to promote social distancing, ranging from curfews and school closures to widespread lockdown. At the beginning of 2022, there were 135,000 deaths from Sars-CoV-2 in France (nearly 6 million worldwide). Beyond the possible impact of Sars-CoV-2 on the brain, the pandemic has created complex human situations, with a possible impact on the mental health of populations. In this narrative review, we summarize current data on the impact of the pandemic on mental health in the general population and identify the most vulnerable groups. The goal is to provide more targeted prevention for these populations. Our review has identified several subgroups of subjects at higher risk of disorder in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: those bereaved by COVID-19, adolescents, students, people with COVID (with potentially direct brain damages), and finally, health care workers. Gender disparities were accentuated, leading to more mental disorders in women. Longitudinal follow-up studies are needed to better identify the effects of the pandemic on the mental health of different populations, and also to define personalized prevention strategies. Screening and prevention measures must be taken to limit the impact of this pandemic on mental health. More generally, the "one health" approach, which places human health at the interface of environmental and animal health, seems essential to avoid the occurrence of this type of pandemic and its consequences in the future., (© 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)