¾ÅÖÝÓ°Ôº

Science and innovation are conducted rigorously, with integrity and in a way that invites constructive scrutiny and learns from mistakes. Scientists and innovators implement good scientific and experimental practice and follow professional standards and norms.

Scientific workplaces strive to avoid physical, emotional or psychological harm to anyone participating in science and innovation.

Employers and managers provide the required training and support for scientists and innovators to understand and manage risks. This includes creating an environment where kindness is valued, constructive feedback is welcomed, and supervisors and organisations are open to challenge.

Scientists and innovators are supported to engage in professional development, including technical and transferable skills, without compromising their progression. Managers and supervisors are supported to develop managerial skills.

Diverse career paths across and between science and innovation sectors are nurtured and valued, and due consideration is given to neurodiversity, disability and individual context and lived experiences.

Science and innovation are conducted with respect to all those participating, with active measures to prevent and address bullying, discrimination and harassment, and in a way that avoids unintended negative consequences on people, society and the environment.

Scientists and innovators apply relevant ethical standards to all parts of their profession and pursue opportunities with consideration of social benefits, ethical dilemmas and mitigation of potential negative impacts.

They enhance the environmental sustainability of their activities, and company leaders implement responsible environmental, social and governance strategies.

Science is as open as possible – and only as closed as needed. Scientists and innovators invite challenge, and the scientific community is open to questioning and participates in public debate. Access to scientific publications is free and unrestricted where possible.

Scientific data is deposited in an accessible repository whenever it can be useful to others. Scientists ensure that practices such as peer review are fair and transparent, that tools and data are presented in a useful way, and that data is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).

Science is conducted in a way that encourages collaboration between disciplines, sectors, regions and countries, in accordance with the needs and nature of the activity. Employers, managers and supervisors promote teamwork and collaboration, and attend to power dynamics and how these are experienced by different people.

Funders and employers actively remove systemic constraints affecting people disadvantaged by inequalities such as those based on race, ethnicity, gender and gender identity, disability, socioeconomic background, religion and sexual orientation, as well as by compounding disadvantages for individuals at the intersections of these.

Scientists and innovators take steps to be aware of and reduce their conscious and implicit biases and prejudices.

Students with diverse characteristics are attracted to pursue a career in science. Minoritised scientists and innovators feel they are part of the scientific community, supported to thrive and accepted personally and professionally. The science and innovation talent pool and workforce are reflective of the population in its local context.

This covers the way science is carried out. Good scientific practice is achieved when science and innovation are conducted in a rigorous, ethical and responsible way. Effective science is also open and collaborative, involving the sharing of knowledge and expertise across disciplines, sectors and countries.

This encompasses who is able and enabled to take part in science and innovation. Broad participation requires an inclusive and accessible environment that ensures no one is barred from contributing. And, an open and collaborative approach that brings together the right knowledge and the right people to maximise the quality and impact of science and innovation.

This is about the way people are treated and how they are empowered to achieve their potential. Workplaces that safeguard wellbeing and encourage development are inclusive and accessible, as well as safe and supportive. They also require adherence to ethical and responsible conduct to ensure that no harm is caused to anyone involved.

• A lack of diversity at the point of entry to the STEM talent pool is holding back progress in increasing diversity of the workforce at later career stages
• It remains challenging, especially in academia, to balance a career with caring responsibilities due to a lack of job-share and part-time working models, and a recognition system focused on the individual over the collective
• Good practice is not always rewarded, and practice that does get rewarded is not always good practice. This disconnect, alongside a lack of consistent (mandatory) training, is a key barrier to achieving rigorous, open, ethical and responsible science and innovation
• Creating a no-blame environment where mistakes can be made, and questions can be asked openly, is challenging. Several participants highlighted a lack of safety to have these kind of conversations
• Leaders and managers are expected to play a significant role in improving science culture, but their responsibilities might not always be clear, and they don’t always have the support to develop the required skills. In addition, neither management contributions nor contributions to improving culture are well recognised

Progress

Participants in our engagement process said they are witnessing growing momentum to improve science culture at several levels, e.g. institutional, organisational, funder and professional society levels.

In academia, this is primarily manifested in regular informal discussions among peers. Some shared the impression that greater progress is being made in non-academic sectors, where a focus on improving culture is more visible in the strategic priorities and governance of some organisations.

Participants also observed that most discussions, whether informal or formal, link to the themes of inclusion and diversity or open science (in academia), with less attention paid to other areas.

Barriers

A number of participants highlighted the challenge of getting the entire community to participate in efforts to improve science culture. Some said they found it difficult to find others with an interest in improving culture or to identify ways to get involved in their own environments. There was the sense that improving culture is often perceived as someone else’s responsibility – for example those who have volunteered for related committee activities – rather than a shared task.

Several participants also mentioned that they perceived some management and senior staff to fulfil requirements as a box-ticking exercise, rather than genuinely engaging with cultural changes. This practice, as well as more general resistance to change across the community, was seen as a considerable barrier, and participants were unsure of how to change these attitudes.

Another barrier relates to differences in resources and staff dedicated to improving science culture in different countries and across institutions and organisations. This was perceived to exclude less well-resourced countries from conversations on these topics, and create significant differences in the levels of progress that can be realistically made.

Support needs

A range of ideas were shared for how the community can be supported in efforts to improve science culture. Many participants indicated that signposting to useful resources would be extremely valuable, including suggested actions with strategies for implementation, good (and bad) practice examples with lessons learned, and tools to track progress.

Since funders in some countries are starting to implement requirements in relation to science culture, participants also highlighted that signposting opportunities to be involved in conversations on how these will be applied would be useful.

It was noted that to achieve our science culture vision, concerted action will be needed across the community. Some participants flagged that academic and non-academic sectors have different areas of strength and there might be opportunities to learn from one another.

Finally, it was highlighted that organisations need encouragement and support to set out longer-term goals and strategies in relation to science culture.

Progress

Inclusion and diversity was identified as the area where most progress has been made, though some participants argued that there are a lot of box-ticking approaches and sometimes little improvement has been made in practice.

A wide range of examples was shared to reflect the types of efforts underway, including increased data collection and improved or new policies, programmes, working groups, training and fellowships targeted at underrepresented groups, and the embedding of inclusion and diversity in company values.

Barriers

Diversifying the workforce was raised as a key challenge. Many groups expressed the view that the lack of diversity at the point of entry to the talent pool is limiting diversity at later stages. Elitism and a lack of transparency in intake and recruitment processes were also flagged as barriers throughout education and career paths.

Some participants also expressed the view that, while recruitment practices are starting to result in more diversity at entry level, minoritised groups are not necessarily empowered to progress further. They are often also expected to contribute more substantially to activities towards improving inclusion and diversity, although such efforts often don’t count towards promotion or career advancement.

A second theme was the continued difficulty of balancing a career with caring responsibilities, particularly in academia, and the lack of job-share and part-time working opportunities to accommodate this.

In relation to accessibility, limited accessibility for scientists with a physical disability, especially in lab environments, was highlighted several times.

On the topic of collaboration, several participants mentioned that, while organisational narratives increasingly express the value of collaboration, in practice the balance weighs more heavily to competition.

Finally, the role of leaders and managers in creating an accessible, inclusive and collaborative culture came up repeatedly, with the perception that leaders are often under-educated on these issues. It was also mentioned several times that power dynamics often interfere with teamwork, and that leaders have a responsibility to address unhealthy dynamics.

Support needs

In response to challenges identified at the entry level of the talent pool, participants called for more involvement of industry in educational outreach activities, as well as getting chemists across sectors involved in outreach earlier in their careers.

Several discussions explored the development of realistic models for job-share, part-time working or job cover options to support scientists and innovators with caring responsibilities (in academia). It was concluded that, while the related issues are well known, little effort has been made to develop workable models. This would require action at the government, funder and institutional level.

A final need identified was to be signposted to resources to help ensure inclusive committees, conferences, authorship and funding bids.

Progress

Several participants mentioned progress in terms of the support received on ethical practice and the availability of a code of conduct at their organisations. Improved mechanisms to report malpractice, including via new technologies, were mentioned in some countries.

While participants suggested that non-academic sectors were ahead in several areas, some felt that rigour was the exception to this general trend. Participants indicated that there was growing awareness of implicit bias and training to mitigate it across both academia and non-academic sectors.

Several participants from the academic community were positive about funder efforts on open science through mandating open access – increasingly without high article processing charges – as well as starting to mandate FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) data requirements.

Barriers

The "pressure to publish" prevalent in academic culture was highlighted several times as a barrier to rigorous, ethical and open science, with the observation that many scientists are aware of occasions where corners are cut, or open science practice is deprioritised, to publish outputs faster.

Biases, gatekeeping and power dynamics in publishing were also mentioned as barriers. Some participants indicated that the FAIR principles for data are not well understood and that there is a lack of standards on how they should be implemented for the chemical sciences.

Despite progress in open access publishing, lack of access to research outputs was still mentioned as a barrier to openness by some non-academic participants.

Support needs

Several participants called for mandatory training, including on responsible peer review (for everyone from PhD level onward), ethics (for every active scientist or innovator) and implicit bias (for everyone involved in decision-making). Some participants highlighted there would be value in further exploring peer review models such as open peer review.

Specific funding for open access publishing was mentioned as a support need in the context of unequal resources available in different countries and across institutions and organisations.

Finally, participants called for more alignment on data standards and sharing practices, both at national and international levels.

Progress

Mental wellbeing was the one area where participants reported progress across sectors, observing that this has received increased attention during and following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aside from this, few examples of progress were mentioned and those highlighted were mainly shared by non-academic participants. They included support on health and safety being increasingly built into corporate practice, and accessible career development training and clear progression schemes being embedded in companies.

Barriers

A common theme was a lack of perceived emotional and psychological safety in several forms. Several participants mentioned a lack of safety to admit gaps in knowledge and ask for help, others noted a lack of safety to challenge senior colleagues. A number also highlighted a fear of saying something deemed insensitive or unintentionally causing upset.

These comments point to considerable challenges in creating an environment where mistakes can be made, where questions can be asked openly (including to and by seniors), and where a no-blame culture is established.

Alongside a lack of safety to challenge more senior colleagues, other barriers in relation to leadership and management came up throughout discussions. This included the need for more compassionate leadership, for better people management and supervision practices, and for adequate support for early-career researchers.

In relation to career development, several participants mentioned limited progression routes for lab-based professionals.

Finally, a culture of overwork was flagged several times as a barrier to a truly safe environment.

Support needs

The most called for support in this area is related to the abilities and responsibilities of leaders and managers to create a safe and supportive culture. Several participants in such positions indicated that they would benefit from support in how to provide psychological safety in practice.

Some participants also highlighted that it would be useful to gain an understanding of the conditions needed to foster a no-blame culture, and to create space for people to own their mistakes. There was a desire for clearer routes for learning from mistakes and making amends, alongside mechanisms to address inappropriate behaviour.

Finally, several participants highlighted the need for clearer identification of the responsibilities of leaders and managers in creating safe and supportive environments, as well as clear routes for holding senior staff accountable where this is not achieved.

Progress

Participants in our community engagement sessions felt only limited progress had been made on broadening recognition. (In the UK context it is expected that the Research Excellence Framework 2028 will increase focus on research culture). 

Examples mentioned included efforts within the RSC prize portfolio to better recognise contributions beyond publications, and more opportunities for recognition for professional research administrators – for example, in applications for the UK Research & Innovation Centre for Doctoral Training in the UK.

Barriers

Some of the barriers mentioned related to the ‘pressure to publish’. Several participants expressed concerns about the overreliance on numerical metrics and the focus on productivity over quality.

This emphasis was believed to link to many other science culture themes, including incentivising ethical science, supporting a more diverse range of careers, and giving equal recognition to all the important contributions that scientists and innovators make. Some also shared the view that luck is sometimes more important than competence, particularly in academia.

Another barrier mentioned several times was the impression that prejudice plays a considerable role in assessment and recognition. Examples included giving more weight to degree qualifications than skills, and favouring proposals or candidates with name recognition in terms of supervisor and/or institution.

Some participants also shared the perception that being awarded prizes in part depended on a candidate’s network or track record of previous prizes, and not only on the quality of their work.

A barrier identified in non-academic sectors was the difficulty of appropriately weighing quality indicators versus commercial indicators, such as profit, in reward and recognition.

Support needs

The main need identified was developing ways to recognise a much wider range of contributions made by scientists and innovators.

Some areas that were highlighted as deserving of better recognition included: the research process and interim products, alongside final outputs; efforts to improve science culture and inclusion and diversity; and soft skills, including performance as a leader or manager.

Several participants expressed the sentiment that assessment and recognition are broader in non-academic sectors. It was suggested that academia may be able to learn from other sectors, for example how to better implement an annual review process as a formal recognition route.

Science culture progress versus recognition

A tension that came up throughout conversations was that contributions to improving science culture are currently extracurricular and largely not given recognition.

Some participants mentioned that this puts researchers in a difficult position, setting expectations for them to contribute to an area that, while essential, takes time away from generating scientific outputs – the main route to career progression in academia.

Open versus collaborative

Several participants mentioned tensions they had experienced in the establishment of industry-academia collaborations, where there were differing priorities on intellectual property and security on the one hand, and open science on the other. Where it was impossible to find a compromise, this resulted in the termination of such collaborations.

Safe versus accessible

While the importance of making labs accessible to scientists with physical disabilities was widely supported by participants, questions were raised about the need to also ensure safety from physical harm for these scientists, and the challenges that can arise when trying to achieve this in practice.

Inclusive versus open

Several participants expressed support for recent moves towards open access publishing, but the concern was raised that a new form of inequity may be created, as several routes involve a pay-to-publish model.

The view was expressed that openness should also mean open to contribute, and while some organisations, institutions and even parts of the world can now access others’ work more readily, they might be excluded from sharing their own work through a range of publication venues.

Collaborative versus recognition

Several participants said they observed a tension between organisational narratives about collaboration versus the lack of recognition for teams and collaborative work. They expressed the view that assessment and recognition still focuses mainly on the individual rather than the collective, especially in academia.

Ethical versus recognition

Several participants said they experienced a disconnect between their interpretation of good scientific practice and the scientific practice that is recognised and rewarded in practice. Some expressed the sentiment that prevailing performance measures are not necessarily driving ethical and responsible behaviours.

Everyone involved in science should be active participants in establishing a positive science culture. However, all too often the commitment of time and resources to this endeavour can be seen as extra-curricular to someone’s role, rather than an integral part of it. In this session we explore the potential tensions between advancing in your career and focusing on improving aspects of science culture such as inclusion, ethics and more.

Those who pursue a career in academia are normally expected to assume a management role at some point. But how well does a career in academia equip you to be a great manager who sets the scene for a great science culture? In this session we discuss management capability within academia, including the struggles and challenges of being manager, the support and training needed, and what those in academia should be able to expect of their managers.

Personal circumstances can affect us at work in a vast range of ways. Caring responsibilities, neurodivergence and disability, mental health, and the need to balance a range of priorities in our lives all have the potential to clash with our work schedules and responsibilities. In this session we explore the different ways in which our personal situations can impact on us at work and vice versa, and explore ways to find wellbeing and balance.

A special session for Mental Health Awareness Week 2024. According to our Pay and Reward Survey, 15% of disabled RSC members have a mental health condition, with those occupying multiple marginalised identities reporting negative wellbeing in greater numbers. This session focuses on mental health and wellbeing from an intersectional standpoint. We will also discuss accessibility and inclusion for chemists with mental health conditions.

Recognition practices, such as prizes and awards, grants, and other forms of recognition, traditionally focus on academic achievement. In this session we talk about whether other contributions to the community - such as initiatives aimed at improving aspects of science culture - are being appropriately incentivised and recognised.

Open access and open science have become hot topics in the worlds of research and academic publishing, with the drive towards open science enabling better collaboration, alongside greater accessibility and inclusion. But are there downsides to this, and is there a tension between making science open and protecting intellectual property? In this session we will discuss the challenges in this space, and how we might overcome them.

• . An app-based game on resolving research integrity dilemmas, to get researchers talking about issues they might previously have had to grapple with alone.
• . Research integrity resources, collated by the UK Research Integrity Office.
• . Information and materials to support high quality research and reproducibility, collated by the UK Reproducibility Network.
• . Concordats on research integrity to ensure that science organisations’ work is underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity

• Guide to ethics (rsc.org). Guide for ethical practice.
• Minimum standards for inclusion and diversity for scholarly publishing (rsc.org). Set of minimum standards, developed by the RSC in collaboration with other scholarly publishers, upon which all members of the publishing community can build to improve inclusion and diversity in the industry.
• Framework for Action (rsc.org). A framework with actions to ensure that no scientist is left behind in publishing their results.
• Resources to help your laboratory become more sustainable (rsc.org). A collection of useful materials for achieving sustainable laboratory practices from institutions around the world.
• . A series of case studies of positive interventions made by individuals and organisations from across the globe to improve research culture and integrity.
• . Comprehensive toolkit from COPE that explains expected ethical practices in scholarly publishing, and highlights resources for editorial offices to develop their codes of ethical conduct and practice.
• . Standard for sustainable laboratory operations.