The Possibilities of Libraries for Solving Problems of Scientific Ethics

Search and development of library activity areas, when it is no more the only custodian of information, and the organization, which provides access to it, is one of the pressing present problems. Scientific libraries have long been engaged in the popularization of science. Now, besides popularization, in the relations between science and society, one highlights the understanding of science and the involving of public in science, as well. The author analyzes the existing forms of library activities on the example of ethical problems of science from the viewpoint of their suitability for the main areas of interaction between science and the public. The author comes to following the conclusions: 1) the advantages of acceptable forms are their high quality due to the invitation of researchers to participate; control over the agenda (the event plan); the ability to select an audience (it can be very big); direct communication; inclusion of external partners as experts and the ability to record the event and to demonstrate it via Internet. The disadvantages can be the difficulty to control the perception of information (there is no complete control by researchers; dependence on the resources of organization; the need for additional work to attract readers; possession of communication skills; 2) almost all forms of library work are suitable for science popularization. Much fewer ones can be used for understanding scientific phenomena and results. At the same time, all of them require direct participation of scientists. Any form (besides databases and repositorium) can be used to involve the general public into science. For different purposes in this area, different forms are necessary; 3) created in libraries repositories and scientific databases are controlled by scientists poorly. They can be used not only by scientists, thus increasing the possibility of misinterpretation by society; 4) when creating advisory bibliographic resources the position of the expert selecting and advising popular science literature, is important, as well as the opinion of the readers who have the opportunity to post their viewpoint on any advises document. 

1. Bulavinova MP (2018) Science communication: development factors. Nauka i obshchestvo: sovremennye zarubezhnye issledovaniya. Moscow, pp. 51–62. (In Russ.).

2. Vorontsov NN (1999) Development of evolution ideas in biology. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, ABF. (In Russ.).

3. Grebenshchikova EE (2018) The ethical challenges of socially responsible science. Nauka i obshchestvo: sovremennye zarubezhnye issledovaniya. Moscow, pp. 9–14. (In Russ.).

4. Ezovitova OP (2023) Features of filling the repository of Vitebsk State Technological University. Tsifrovaya transformatsiya bibliotek uchrezhdenii vysshego obrazovaniya: materialy obl. nauch.-prakt. konf. dlya rabotnikov b-k uchrezhdenii vyssh. obrazovaniya Viteb. obl. Vitebsk, pp. 7–12. (In Russ.).

5. Zasurskii II, Sokolova DV and Trishchenko ND (2020) Open access repositories: functions and development trends. Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki 9: 121–142. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2020-9-121-142.

6. Zakharova GM and Soldatenko IS (2010) Open Access in action: the university repository. Otkrytyi dostup i otkrytye arkhivy informatsii. Moscow, pp. 93–103. (In Russ.).

7. Lavrik OL and Kurmysheva LK (2023) Library: scientific knowledge promotion and other points of intersection. Idei i idealy 15 (1–2): 291–311. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17212/2075-0862-2023-15.1.2-291-311.

8. Lavrik OL and Yuklyaevskaya AV (2023) Book recommendation services in bibliographic activities of libraries. Sfera kul’tury 3: 139–152. (In Russ.).

9. (2017) New Russian encyclopedia. Vol. 19 (1). Enamel – Iapetus. Moscow: Entsiklopediya. (In Russ.).

10. Bucchi M and Trench B (eds) (2018) Handbook of public communication of science and technology: collection of articles: transl. from Engl. Moscow: Alpina non-fiction. (In Russ.).

11. Yudin BG (2018) Biology as a technology of social justice in interwar Britain: arguments from evolutionary history, heredity, and human diversity. Nauka i obshchestvo: sovremennye zarubezhnye issledovaniya. Moscow, pp. 25–29. (In Russ.).

12. Yudin BG (2018) Fuller S. Customized science as a reflection of “protscience” (Abstract). Nauka i obshchestvo: sovremennye zarubezhnye issledovaniya. Moscow, pp. 15–20. (In Russ.).

13. Yudina IG and Fedotova OA (2020) Open access scientific repositories: history and development prospects. Informatsionnoe obshchestvo 6: 67–79. (In Russ.).

14. Yuklyaevskaya AV (2023) Selected bibliographic resources for the promotion of scientific knowledge on the websites of libraries in Russia. Bibliosfera 1: 65–72. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2023-1-65-72.

15. Kurath M and Gilser P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18 (5): 559–575.

16. Miettenen R, Tuunainen J and Esko T (2015) Epistemological, artefactual and interactionalinstitutional foundation of social impact of academic research. Minerva 53 (3): 257–277. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11024-015-9278-1.

17. Palmer S and Schibeci R (2014) What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public Understanding of Science 23 (5): 511–527.

18. Resnik DB and Elliot KC (2016) The ethical challenges of socially responsible science. Accountability in Research 23 (1): 31–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608.

19. Sommer M (2014) Biology as a technology of social justice in interwar Britain: arguments from evolutionary history, heredity, and human diversity. Science, Technology and Human Values 39 (4): 561–586.

20. (1995) NSF in a changing world. The National Science Foundation’s strategic plan. National Science Foundation: website. URL: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1995/nsf9524/contents.htm (accessed 25.10.2024).