Do we measure or compute polygenic risk scores? Why language matters.

Here, we argue that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are different epistemic objects as compared to other biomarkers such as blood pressure or sodium level. While the latter two may be subject to variation, measured inaccurately or interpreted in various ways, blood flow has pressure and sodium is available in a concentration that can be quantified and visualised. In stark contrast, PRSs are calculated, compiled or constructed through the statistical assemblage of genetic variants. How researchers frame and name PRSs has consequences for how we interpret and value their results. We distinguish between the tangible and inferential understanding of PRS and the corresponding languages of measurement and computation, respectively. The conflation of these frames obscures important questions we need to ask: what PRS seeks to represent, whether current ways of 'doing PRS' are optimal and responsible, and upon what we base the credibility of PRS-based knowledge claims.

Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research.

Synthesis centers are a form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Synthesis working groups are a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that produce consequential, high-impact publications. But no one has asked if synthesis working groups synthesize: are their publications substantially more diverse than others, and if so, in what ways and with what effect? We investigate these questions by using Latent Dirichlet Analysis to compare the topical diversity of papers published by synthesis center collaborations with that of papers in a reference corpus. Topical diversity was operationalized and measured in several ways, both to reflect aggregate diversity and to emphasize particular aspects of diversity (such as variety, evenness, and balance). Synthesis center publications have greater topical variety and evenness, but less disparity, than do papers in the reference corpus. The influence of synthesis center origins on aspects of diversity is only partly mediated by the size and heterogeneity of collaborations: when taking into account the numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references, synthesis center origins retain a significant direct effect on diversity measures. Controlling for the size and heterogeneity of collaborative groups, synthesis center origins and diversity measures significantly influence the visibility of publications, as indicated by citation measures. We conclude by suggesting social processes within collaborations that might account for the observed effects, by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research, and by offering some practical implications of our results.

Finding Wealth in Waste: Irreplicability Re-Examined.

Irreplicability is framed as crisis, blamed on sloppy science motivated by perverse stimuli in research. Structural changes to the organization of science, targeting sloppy science (e.g., open data, pre-registration), are proposed to prevent irreplicability. While there is an unquestionable link between sloppy science and failures to replicate/reproduce scientific studies, they are currently conflated. This position can be understood as a result of the erosion of the role of theory in science. The history, sociology, and philosophy of science reveal alternative explanations for irreplicability to show it is part of proper, informative and valuable science. Irreplicability need not equate research waste. Sloppy science is the problem, also when results do replicate. Hence, the solution should focus on opposing sloppy research.

Why public dismissal of nutrition science makes sense: Post-truth, public accountability and dietary credibility.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to critically engage with societal origins of public (dis)trust and public credibility of nutrition science and offer suggestions for addressing its public dismissal. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This viewpoint presents a conceptual analysis of public dismissal of nutrition science, drawing together perspectives on the relationships between science and society from the history, sociology and philosophy of science. FINDINGS: The origin of trust amongst scientists relies is actively tied to their social and moral status and science as a cultural activity is inextricably linked to institutions of power. Accordingly, trust in science relies heavily on public perceptions of those institutions, the ways in which citizens feel represented by them, and to what extent citizens consider these institutions to be held accountable. Ignoring this origin leads to expectations of science and scientists they cannot live up to and inevitable disappointment in those holding such expectations. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Managing responsible expectations asks that we first dismiss dominant portrayals of science as pure, neutral, value-free and fuelled by curiosity. Second, we should pursue a reorganisation of science, favouring social inclusiveness over scientific exceptionalism. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Post-truth dynamics are a source of concern in the dissemination of nutrition science. Rather than dismissing it as a consequence of public ignorance, a comprehensive engagement with post-truth arguments allows a constructive repositioning of nutrition science organisation and communication. It asks that we design research programmes and studies differently, incorporate different voices. Above all else, it asks humility of researchers and tolerant approaches to other perspectives.

Gatekeepers of Reward: a Pilot Study on the Ethics of Editing and Competing Evaluations of Value.

The reward infrastructure in science centres on publication, in which journal editors play a key role. Reward distribution hinges on value assessments performed by editors, who draw from plural value systems to judge manuscripts. This conceptual paper examines the numerous biases and other factors that affect editorial decisions. Hybrid and often conflicting value systems contribute to an infrastructure in which editors manage reward through editorial review, commissioned commentaries and reviews and weighing of peer review judgments. Taken together, these systems and processes push the editor into a role resembling censorship. Editors and authors both experience this phenomenon as an unintended side-effect of the reward infrastructure in science. To work towards a more constructive editor-author relationship, we propose a conversation, an exchange between editor and author in which value is collectively assessed (or constructed) as obligatory passage points in the publishing process are traversed. This paper contributes to the discourse on editorial practices by problematising editorial paradigms in a new way and suggesting solutions to entrenched problems.

Bioinformatics: indispensable, yet hidden in plain sight?

BACKGROUND: Bioinformatics has multitudinous identities, organisational alignments and disciplinary links. This variety allows bioinformaticians and bioinformatic work to contribute to much (if not most) of life science research in profound ways. The multitude of bioinformatic work also translates into a multitude of credit-distribution arrangements, apparently dismissing that work. RESULTS: We report on the epistemic and social arrangements that characterise the relationship between bioinformatics and life science. We describe, in sociological terms, the character, power and future of bioinformatic work. The character of bioinformatic work is such that its cultural, institutional and technical structures allow for it to be black-boxed easily. The result is that bioinformatic expertise and contributions travel easily and quickly, yet remain largely uncredited. The power of bioinformatic work is shaped by its dependency on life science work, which combined with the black-boxed character of bioinformatic expertise further contributes to situating bioinformatics on the periphery of the life sciences. Finally, the imagined futures of bioinformatic work suggest that bioinformatics will become ever more indispensable without necessarily becoming more visible, forcing bioinformaticians into difficult professional and career choices. CONCLUSIONS: Bioinformatic expertise and labour is epistemically central but often institutionally peripheral. In part, this is a result of the ways in which the character, power distribution and potential futures of bioinformatics are constituted. However, alternative paths can be imagined.

Capable and credible? Challenging nutrition science.

Nutrition science has enriched our understanding of how to stay healthy by producing valuable knowledge about the interaction of nutrients, food, and the human body. Nutrition science also has raised societal awareness about the links between food consumption and well-being, and provided the basis for food regulations and dietary guidelines. Its collaborative and interdisciplinary research has accomplished much, scientifically and socially. Despite this, nutrition science appears to be in crisis and is currently confronted with a public reluctance to trust nutritional insights. Though deflating trust is a general phenomenon surrounding the scientific community, its impact on nutrition science is particularly strong because of the crucial role of nutrition in everyone's daily life. We, a Dutch collective of nutritionists, medical doctors, philosophers and sociologists of science ( http://www.nutritionintransition.nl ), have diagnosed that nutrition science is meeting inherent boundaries. This hampers conceptual and methodological progress and the translation of novel insights into societal benefit and trust. In other words, nutrition science is facing limitations to its capability and credibility, impeding its societal value. We take up the challenge to halt the threatening erosion of nutrition science's capability and credibility, and explore a way forward. We analyse limitations to capability and credibility, then argue that nutrition science is caught in a vicious circle, and end by offering some suggestions to transcend the limitations and escape the current deadlock. We invite nutritional experts as well as scholars from adjacent disciplines to engage in the discussion.

Exploring the dimensions of responsible research systems and cultures: a scoping review.

The responsible conduct of research is foundational to the production of valid and trustworthy research. Despite this, our grasp of what dimensions responsible conduct of research (RCR) might contain-and how it differs across disciplines (i.e. how it is conceptualized and operationalized)-is tenuous. Moreover, many initiatives related to developing and maintaining RCR are developed within disciplinary and institutional silos which naturally limits the benefits that RCR practice can have. To this end, we are working to develop a better understanding of how RCR is conceived and realized, both across disciplines and across institutions in Europe. The first step in doing this is to scope existing knowledge on the topic, of which this scoping review is a part. We searched several electronic databases for relevant published and grey literature. An initial sample of 715 articles was identified, with 75 articles included in the final sample for qualitative analysis. We find several dimensions of RCR that are underemphasized or are excluded from the well-established World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRI) Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and explore facets of these dimensions that find special relevance in a range of research disciplines.

Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.

Although adherence to Mertonian values of science (i.e., communism, universalism, organized skepticism, disinterestedness) is desired and promoted in academia, such adherence can cause friction with the normative structures and practices of Open Science. Mertonian values and Open Science practices aim to improve the conduct and communication of research and are promoted by institutional actors. However, Mertonian values remain mostly idealistic and contextualized in local and disciplinary cultures and Open Science practices rely heavily on third-party resources and technology that are not equally accessible to all parties. Furthermore, although still popular, Mertonian values were developed in a different institutional and political context. In this article, we argue that new normative structures for science need to look beyond nostalgia and consider aspirations and outcomes of Open Science practices. To contribute to such a vision, we explore the intersection of several Open Science practices with Mertonian values to flesh out challenges involved in upholding these values. We demonstrate that this intersection becomes complicated when the interests of numerous groups collide and contrast. Acknowledging and exploring such tensions informs our understanding of researchers' behavior and supports efforts that seek to improve researchers' interactions with other normative structures such as research ethics and integrity frameworks.

Genomics and the Ark: an ecocentric perspective on human history.

Views of ourselves in relationship to the rest of the biosphere are changing. Theocentric and anthropocentric perspectives are giving way to more ecocentric views on the history, present, and future of humankind. Novel sciences, such as genomics, have deepened and broadened our understanding of the process of anthropogenesis, the coming into being of humans. Genomics suggests that early human history must be regarded as a complex narrative of evolving ecosystems, in which human evolution both influenced and was influenced by the evolution of companion species. During the agricultural revolution, human beings designed small-scale artificial ecosystems or evolutionary "Arks," in which networks of plants, animals, and microorganisms coevolved. Currently, our attitude towards this process seems subject to a paradoxical reversal. The boundaries of the Ark have dramatically broadened, and genomics is not only being used to increase our understanding of our ecological past, but may also help us to conserve, reconstruct, or even revivify species and ecosystems to whose degradation or (near) extinction we have contributed. This article explores the role of genomics in the elaboration of a more ecocentric view of ourselves with the help of two examples, namely the renaissance of Paleolithic diets and of Pleistocene parks. It argues that an understanding of the world in ecocentric terms requires new partnerships and mutually beneficial forms of collaboration and convergence between life sciences, social sciences, and the humanities.

Civil disobedience in scientific authorship: Resistance and insubordination in science.

The distribution of credit, resources and opportunities in science is heavily skewed due to unjust practices and incentives, hardwired into science's rules, guidelines and conventions. A form of resistance widely available is to break those rules. We review instances of rule-breaking in scientific authorship to allow for a redefinition of the concept of civil disobedience in the context of academic research, as well as the conditions on which the label applies. We show that, in contrast to whistleblowing or conscientious objection, civil disobedience targets science's injustice on a more systemic level. Its further development will ease critical evaluation of deviant actions as well as helping us evaluate deviance, defiance and discontent in science beyond issues of authorship. However, empirically, civil disobedience in science engenders uncertainties and disagreements on the local status of both act and label.