With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

Doing Science with Social Conscience

Traditionally, scientists were trained to think of themselves as seekers of truth, and science as an elitist pursuit was confined within the walls of laboratories. However, since the time of the world wars, particularly the deployment of atomic bombs, have triggered debates on the ethical implications of scientific progress. The past decade with its threat of climate change and the pandemic has increasingly highlighted the interdependence of the global life-support system. It means that our future is inextricably intertwined with the sustainable survival of all life forms. Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) are no longer restricted to the lab and the scientists operate at the interface between ‘science’ and the ‘society’. The call for an exquisite bidirectional relationship between the two is not new. 

The 1999 Budapest “Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge” at the UNESCO World Conference on Science was endorsed by 155 countries (1). The document charted the role of science in society for the 21st century. It emphasised on the need for responsible production and use of scientific knowledge for an equitable, prosperous, and sustainable world. In India, it took the form of ‘Scientific Social Responsibility’ (SSR), which has gained centre stage since its reference in 2017 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the inaugural address of the 104th Indian Science Congress at Tirupati (2). Following detailed stakeholder consultations that were spearheaded by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), the Government of India (GoI) issued the guidelines of Scientific Social Responsibility (SSR) (DST, 2022), in May 2022 and India seems to be one of the first countries to formalise it (3).
 
Harnessing Latent Potential

Society is transforming rapidly with the rise of numerous communication channels and social media outlets. The infodemic that came with COVID-19 pandemic, and the consequent surge in rumours, vaccine and virus-related conspiracy theories and stigma is a classic example of how misinformation and disinformation can adversely impact the implementation of scientific interventions (4). This, coupled with poor science literacy and ineffective communication with the public and policymakers widens the gap between ‘scientists’ and the ‘society’. There is a need to break the ice between them to increase public trust in science and avoid misguidance in scientific discourse. 

The SSR guidelines aim at creating an STI ecosystem that is responsive to societal needs, through a four-pronged approach:

1.  Science-society linkages for inclusive and sustainable development by extending scientific solutions for emerging societal needs.

2. Science-science networks that can break silos and create an enabling environment for sharing ideas and resources

3. Society-science collaborations where communities identify their needs and share expertise and problems to foster the development of relevant scientific and technological solutions.

4. Necessary cultural change and awareness for infusing scientific temperament into everyday social existence and interactions.

Transforming Words into Actions

The hierarchical implementation strategy starts from Anchor Scientific Institutions (ASI) responsible for mapping relevant societal issues/problems and establishing linkages. The guidelines assure adequate incentives for individual and institutional SSR activities through necessary budgetary support. Enlisted activities include thematic lectures/courses to inspire school and college students pursue science; mentoring school projects; organizing visits to planetariums, laboratories, sciences centres and industries; training and skill development; Promoting local/ grassroot innovators; sharing of research infrastructure and resources; activities on popular media that simplify scientific concepts, create awareness and foster scientific temper, etc. One of the most talked about points is that every scientist is expected to dedicate at least 10 days per year to 'scientific social responsibility’ and voluntary individual activities over and above regular responsibilities, which would gain due weightage in their performance appraisal. Importantly, SSR activities and projects would not be allowed to be outsourced or subcontracted. 

While the State S&T Councils, programme monitoring units and National Apex committee have their role to play, a large portion of the success would depend on the efforts of each individual knowledge worker (a). The Science and Engineering Board (SERB, 2019) has taken leadership in adopting its SSR Policy to imbibe a culture of social commitment among SERB grantees (5). Its outreach also aims at handholding startups and MSMEs, facilitating rural innovation, empowerment through scientific intervention while meeting the larger national goals of Vision 2035 prerogatives and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The effective implementation of SSR guidelines will also accelerate several other key GoI initiatives including, transformation of Aspirational Districts, Make in India, Startup India, Swachh Bharat, and Digital India.

Being Responsible:

Scholars define social responsibility as “meaningful contributions towards the promotion of a peaceful, just and sustainable world” (6). The GoI-formulated SSR guidelines expand its broader understanding as, “the confluence of scientific knowledge with visionary leadership and social conscience, by building synergies among all scientific stakeholders" (3). These guidelines are similar to the spirit of corporate social responsibility (CSR, 2013) and aim at harnessing the latent potential of the scientific community in achieving social goals (7). However, unlike CSR, SSR guidelines are not legally binding. They are applicable to scientists working in all public and private knowledge institutions including laboratories, universities, colleges and other scientific organisations of the central and state governments, their departments, and associated autonomous organisations. 

The guidelines aspire to break the elitist impression that public have of scientists, while also making scientists aware of the importance of cultural underpinnings in the practice of science. SSR not only factors in the scientific impact on society but also the social impact on science. Its vision of upholding the role of science for global well-being and ensuring effective and ethical communication of science to society goes in sync with the current understanding of ‘science as a global public good’. It calls upon scientists to go beyond ‘publications,’ and cater to societal needs, an understanding of which will enable them to explore locally relevant research problems. When most research is being done by using taxpayers’ money, it is the primary responsibility of scientific establishments to give back to the society. In that sense, SSR is a reminder of every knowledge worker’s ethical obligation to a wide spectrum of stakeholders in society, in the true spirit of conscious reciprocity.

References: 

1.  UNESCO (Paris) World Conference on Science. “Science for the Twenty-first Century: A New Commitment” (Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge) Sci Technol Soc. 2000; 5: 81–92. Accessed from here 

2. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address at the inauguration of the 104th Session of Indian Science Congress. Accessed from here 

3.  DST SSR guidelines: 

https://static.psa.gov.in/psa-prod/psa_custom_files/SSR%20Guidelines%202022%20Book_0.pdf 

4.  Islam, M. S., et al. (2020). COVID-19-Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 103(4), 1621–1629. 

5.  SERB SSR Policy document: 

http://www.serb.gov.in/pdfs/General/SERB_SSR_PolicydocumentVersion2_1.pdf 

6. Benčin, Rok, Gregor Strle, and Agata Gurzawska. "Principles and Approaches in Ethics Assessment: Social Responsibility in Science and Engineering." SATORI (2015).  

7.  Conley, John M., Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz, Anya ER Prince, Arlene M. Davis, and R. Jean Cadigan. "Scientific social responsibility: lessons from the corporate social responsibility movement." The American Journal of Bioethics 15, no. 12 (2015): 64-66. 

About the Authors:

Dr. Jenice Jean Goveas is a consultant with the International Science Council as the campaign manager for the ‘Future of Scientific Publishing’ programme. 

Dr. Moumita Koley is a Postdoctoral Policy fellow at the Department of Science and Technology’s Centre for Policy Research (DST-CPR) at the Indian Institute of Science Bangalore.

(a) The SSR guidelines 2022 document defines ‘knowledge worker’ as anyone who participates in the knowledge economy in the areas of the human, social, natural, physical, biological, medical, mathematical and computer/data sciences and their associated technological domains.