I. FORMAL INTERNAL REQUEST

The growing freedom of speech about cases of sexual harassment has revealed its presence in all countries and all walks of life. This has encouraged COMETS to analyse this phenomenon in higher education and research, and to put forward recommendations. Taking into account the cases that have been reported-cases that are intolerable with respect to the basic ethical principles of any human activity-COMETS is facing the issue of whether the resources used today to counter sexual harassment in the research sector are sufficient. The committee is therefore investigating new ways of helping victims and hopes in doing so to attract people's attention to the seriousness of such facts in higher education and research, especially within the CNRS.

COMETS would like to specify that the analyses of this Opinion are not intended to introduce codified instructions on conduct between men and women, limiting the freedom of inter-personal relationships.

II. ANALYSIS

Sexist, disparaging, discriminatory or paternalistic behaviour may be seen throughout society 1. It results from stereotypes that are deeply rooted in mentalities, as shown by multiple gender studies 2 . Sexual harassment is an extreme case of such behaviour. It may be seen as a type of infringement of the principles of mutual respect that each person should uphold in public or in private. Whether in a public laboratory or a private company, it is sometimes associated with moral harassment, which is distinguished by a broader range of behaviour. This Opinion addresses sexual harassment in higher education and research that results above all from individual misconduct, even if the latter is founded on collective representations that extend beyond the scope of the research community.

A. Sexual harassment: how is it defined? Who does it concern?

French criminal law defines sexual harassment as the repeated imposition upon somebody of remarks or behaviour of a sexual nature that either undermine personal dignity due to their degrading or humiliating character, or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive situation for the person involved. Sexual harassment is regarded by the legislature as misconduct corresponding to the use, even when not repeated, of any form of severe pressure in the real or apparent goal of obtaining acts of a sexual nature, whether for the perpetrator or for a third party 3 . This behaviour is subject to the same penalties as sexual harassment, though in this case, the harassment is not defined by its repeated nature but by its very purpose.

Since the Act of 2012, sexual harassment no longer necessarily involves a working relationship or a pre-established legal link. It is therefore recognised whether the relationship involves any hierarchical subordination or not 4 . Consequently, within the research community, sexual harassment may originate with a researcher and be directed towards one of his/her own students, the student of a colleague, or indeed his/her own colleagues or administrative or laboratory staff. Obviously, even though sexual harassment often involves a man pressuring a woman, it is not limited to this situation alone, and the law similarly punishes harassment of a man by a woman or even harassment of people of the same sex 5 (see the Annex for details on the legal treatment of harassment cases). In the French civil 1 See, for example, Annick Cojean's interview with Françoise Héritier for the Matinale du Monde on 7 November 2017 2 See, for example, Geneviève Fraisse 'Les excès du genre. Concept, image, nudité', Editions Ligne, 20143 See Act no. 2012-954 of 6 August 2012, art. 222-33, I and II 4 For example, CA Douai, 23 May 2000, JurisData no. 2000-148863, concerning the victim of an internship adviser. 5 CA Besançon, 27 June 2000, JurisData no. 2000-121868. service, the 'Le Pors'6 Act specifies the rights and duties of civil servants confronted with sexual harassment.

B. Cases of sexual harassment in the research sector are too rarely punished

Sexual harassment is present in all countries and sectors7 . This global issue has given rise to a growing awareness in France8 . In the realm of higher education, belonging to a laboratory-which is a place of knowledge and culture-does not prevent sexism and its extreme form, sexual harassment, from occurring just like elsewhere. Laboratories require collaborative work, and are therefore characteristically both a place of exchange and a particularly confined arena in which staff members are subject to numerous pressures.

Cases are regularly reported by CLASCHES 9 , a feminist association founded to collect the testimonies of victims of sexual harassment in higher education and offer them advice. However, few lead to the filing of a complaint and up to recent months, selfcensorship and the code of silence have prevailed on such issues. Two very serious cases of sexual harassment were nonetheless revealed by the press in 2017, and led to exemplary disciplinary measures by the institutions concerned. One was at the University of Lille III, where a lecturer 10 was banned from teaching or supervising students for 18 months, with a subsequent halving of his salary. The other was in a research unit on infectious diseases in Marseille, where a CNRS senior researcher was removed following a recommendation by the Commission Administrative Paritaire (CAP) 11 . Note that in this case, sexual harassment was accompanied by a general atmosphere of moral harassment affecting all the laboratory staff 12 . Another case of the removal of a researcher was notified in the same Official Bulletin 13 . At the CNRS, three or four cases are reported nationally every year, and since 2011, seven have been investigated. Of these, four have so far (in 2017) given rise to disciplinary measures 14 . The number of actual cases is unknown, but is no doubt higher, taking into consideration the difficulty in reporting facts (see below). Institutions such as universities or the CNRS, when the victim chooses to rely on them, have clear-cut procedures for handling reported cases of harassment 15 . By respect for those involved, the enquiries are carried out with the greatest discretion, and confidentiality is ensured until serious evidence is brought to light. Even beyond the enquiry, when at the last stage the CAP meets to propose disciplinary measures on the basis of the enquiry, it can also decide to keep everything anonymous, taking into account the difficulty that many victims have with their situation becoming common knowledge 16 . Indeed, it is often difficult for them to handle their return into their initial work place 17 . This partly explains why only quite a small proportion of sexual harassment cases in the laboratory come to light. Others are dealt with locally and do not go further than a report. Finally, there are numerous cases that are never even addressed.

C. Reporting cases of sexual harassment is a difficult step to take

The victims of sexual harassment find it very difficult to formulate their complaints. Harassment can take different forms: it may be physical or verbal, repeated or one-off, in public or private. The statements of the victim and perpetrator are often contradictory. There is a risk of harassment claims being the fruit of autosuggestion or even slander: a thorough investigation should clear this matter up. In relationships between PhD students and their supervisors, cases are complicated by the fact that you need to consider the supervisors' intellectual authority over their students and the seductive aspects that may enter their relationship. Most of the time, a hierarchical relationship positions the victim as psychologically dominated by the perpetrator. Harassers commonly cast doubt over a victim's capacities, leading the victim to lose self-esteem on all fronts and finally all confidence in him-or herself. In the event of open conflict, there is a real danger of the PhD students losing the resources needed to finish their thesis. There is also a major risk to their future career if they join another team without a recommendation from their original laboratory. The situation of young PhD or post-doctoral students in a foreign country (whether foreigners in France or French students abroad) can be particularly critical. There are similar career risks for all laboratory staff, especially those with little job security 18 .

14 See the blog of the CNRS HR department of 12 October 'harcèlement, la parole se libère' 15 See the circular on the handling of sexual harassment cases within the CNRS 16 The place and initials of the people concerned (perpetrator and victim) are usually mentioned in the Official Bulletin. If full anonymity is required, neither the place nor the initials are mentioned 17 Note that a return to work after disciplinary measures can also be problematic for the perpetrator, who has to be reintegrated once the measures have been taken unless irrevocably excluded. The possibility of further infringements has to be taken into consideration 18 See the IFOP enquiry of 2014 on sexual harassment in the workplace. This investigation into different occupations revealed that 30% of harassment victims are in precarious job situations Many factors combine to discourage complaints, including the fear that nobody would do anything anyway, or that speaking out would be worse than keeping quiet, as well as the actual humiliation of sexual harassment. However, the trauma suffered by victims is often very serious. It can paralyse them in their work, discourage them from continuing or even create mental blockages making it impossible to pursue research that could otherwise have been fruitful. The seriousness of sexual harassment should never be underestimated, even if there is no physical aggression. It is therefore necessary to do whatever is required to facilitate reporting and restore a climate of trust in the workplace. It is advisable for victims to seek testimonies from other victims to consolidate their own. Denouncing the perpetrator to the laboratory management or a departmental head is a logical first step, which should stop the harassment. However, this may not be enough, and may even be impossible19 : the victim should then request the support of local management and/or trade unions. The victim should also be encouraged not to remain alone but to join, for example, a network such as CLASCHES. Generally speaking, it is easier to talk outside the workplace. The creation of advice and support centres composed of professionals and offering the assurance of confidentiality should thus be supported and made more widespread.

D. The complaint process is difficult to initiate and intimidating for the victim

Once a case has been reported, other difficulties begin. The victim can choose legal action and go to court. In this case he/she must bring tangible and concrete proof of the allegations made against the perpetrator, which may be particularly difficult in the case of sexual harassment.

Whether legal proceedings are initiated or not, the reporting of a case of sexual harassment implies that it is brought to the notice of the research institution involved. Amicable, if not fully satisfactory, settlements may be reached: the perpetrator may have to change laboratory, for instance, or his/her contract be terminated. If the institution initiates disciplinary procedures, they may take a long time. An "isolated" case is where just one person is the victim of another person. This is a particularly difficult situation to handle because proof is hard to establish and may be complicated by the protagonists' emotional involvement. The most frequent case, which may be described as "recurrent", involves several victims of the same perpetrator. The convergence of testimonies thus makes it easier to establish deviant behaviour. The procedures, which should comply with the presumption of innocence of the accused, may end in disciplinary measures taken by the Chair of the institution in accordance with the recommendations put forward by the CAP (see above). The range of measures is huge, going from a temporary ban on supervisory duties to exclusion from the civil service. However, the details of disciplinary measures applicable to perpetrators are not well known among staff20 . This information could nonetheless be valuable as a means of prevention.

The stages of the disciplinary procedure designed to punish the abuser are distressing for the victim. As a witness, the victim is generally disoriented, forced to repeat painful facts numerous times, and humiliated by having to convince people that he/she is telling the truth when interviewed by the CAP. The victim is also unsettled during confrontations with the perpetrator. Unlike the latter, the victim does not have the support of a lawyer21 . It should be remembered that the law still does not consider the victim of sexual harassment as a victim, but merely a witness of unethical behaviour. This is why he or she cannot call upon a lawyer. It also explains why the victim has no legal or, more simply, psychological support from a person of his or her own choosing throughout the procedure 22 . The time taken before pronouncing disciplinary measures for proven cases of sexual harassment is often discouraging if not to say inadmissible23 , even though this is partly justified by the time required by the procedures24 to ensure an adequate quality. They may take longer in order to collect a number of concordant testimonies indicating the abuser's recurrent pattern of behaviour. Finally, we cannot hide the fact that the procedures are very often dragged out due to the lack of genuine commitment among team leaders or laboratory managers who hesitate to have their teams tainted by scandals, and who remain unaware of the seriousness of the psychosocial risks to staff harassed in this way25 .

E. How can we combat sexual harassment in higher education and research?

Frédérique Vidal, French minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, underlined in 2017 the importance she attaches to the issue of gender-based and sexual violence against women26 . She firmly enjoined institutional leaders to refuse any tolerance or weakness in this respect within universities, schools and research institutions in general.

Reminding them of the Le Pors 27 Act, she emphasised the need to combat sexual harassment. The CNRS's "Mission Pour la Place des Femmes", an observatory designed to foster gender equality within the CNRS, dedicated a major symposium to these issues in 2014 28 and continues to train personnel. There is a very complete guide on sexual harassment in higher education and research jointly written by three associations 29 . The latest update was published in 2017. It may be used by CNRS or university personnel. More specifically for the CNRS, the guide contains pertinent advice on conduct in the event of sexual harassment 30 , for example on the website of the 'Mission Pour la Place des Femmes'. However, the procedures mentioned prove insufficient in many circumstances.

The growing freedom of speech about sexual harassment has made it a societal phenomenon affecting most western countries. The combat against sexual harassment must also be recognised as a priority among French research and higher education establishments. 27 See note 6 28 See online videos of the National awareness day of sexual harassment in the workplace at the CNRS on 26 November 2014 29 Sexual harassment in higher education and research, vade-mecum for institutions, Issue of 2017, 127 pages, jointly written by three associations: CLASCHES, ANEF (Association nationale des études féministes) and the CPED (Conférence Permanente des chargé(e)s de mission Egalité et Diversité for higher education and research) 30 See the CNRS circular of 2013 on the handling of cases of sexual harassment in the workplace: components, applicable sanctions and management within the CNRS.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

In compliance with the wishes of the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, COMETS herein puts forward recommendations for both institutions and victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

• COMETS advises victims not to remain isolated, but instead to seek the testimony of similar cases of sexual harassment in their workplace with a view to confronting their abuser. Contacts with outside networks such as CLASCHES are also suggested to help victims talk about their experience.

• COMETS recommends the setting up of advice and support centres separate from institutional channels and positioned at establishment level (university, engineering school, or regional delegation of the CNRS). These centres could even be shared by the various institutions. Their main goal would be to allow victims of sexual harassment to talk about it anonymously and in confidence outside their work circle.

• The support centre could also counsel the victim and, with his/her agreement, could help the victim to report the incident to the level required in the establishment so as to initiate a procedure and offer him/her psychological support at the time of confrontation with the perpetrator.

• For cases when issues cannot be solved locally, COMETS suggests that a monitoring and support centre on sexual harassment be set up at the CNRS. This centre should be easy to access, and its address should be clearly visible on the CNRS website. It should furthermore offer every guarantee that confidentiality will be respected.

• COMETS recommends that legislation concerning the civil service should be changed so that victims may be assisted by a person of their choice when confronting their abuser.

• COMETS emphasises the usefulness of a review of sexual harassment cases reported to the CNRS, whether or not these lead to disciplinary measures, while respecting the anonymity of both victims and perpetrators in compliance with the rules in force within the civil service, so as to have as accurate an initial estimation as possible of the scale of the problem.

• COMETS strongly recommends a clearer presentation of the disciplinary measures that may be taken in the event of sexual harassment and greater transparency on the measures actually taken as a means of dissuasion.

• COMETS emphasises the need to consolidate training on the prevention of sexual harassment among staff at all hierarchical levels, with a particular focus on research unit directors, who are often at a loss when faced with these issues, and young recruits (longrun regular and contract holders, including PhD students) who represent the most frequent targets of harassers.

• COMETS recommends updating the CNRS circular on sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly with respect to reporting cases. A general distribution of the 2017 guide (mentioned in note 30), or a shorter version of it, may be a useful tool for training and prevention.

V. ANNEX: SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE LAW

French criminal law punishes sexual harassment by two years' imprisonment and a fine of €30,000 (art. 222-33, III, of the Penal Code). In the event of aggravating factorsparticularly misuse of authority or exploitation of known vulnerability-the penalties may be extended to three years' imprisonment and a fine of €45,000. The victim has to lodge an official complaint. Since Act no. 2017-242 of 27 February 2017, the victim has six years after the end of the sexual harassment in which to act.

In the eyes of the law, it is important to specify that should the perpetrator of the deeds go beyond psychological pressure and make physical contact with the victim, theoretically the infraction is no longer considered sexual harassment but sexual assault31 . If there is no sexual penetration (touching, fondling or kissing, etc.), in the absence of the victim's consent it is an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000 (art. 222-27 of the Penal Code) or seven years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000 in the case of misusing authority, for example (art. 222-28 of the Penal Code). If the sexual assault includes any "act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise" then it is considered rape, punished through art. 222-23 of the Penal Code by fifteen years' criminal imprisonment. This sentence may be extended to twenty years' criminal imprisonment, particularly in the case of misusing authority (art. 222-24 of the Penal Code). This crime is then referred to the Criminal Court.

Act of 13 July 1983 known as the 'Le Pors' Act, consolidated in 2016 (Act No. 2016-483, article 6 ter), relating to sexual harassment in the civil service. It specifies in particular that any denial of promotion, shunting into a siding or dismissal by an employer following a report, complaint or legal action, is considered discriminatory.

See, for example, Joni Hersch -Sexual harassment in the workplace, IZA World of Labor, 2015

See, for example, Harcèlement sexuel au travail, prévenir, alerter, agir, [Sexual harassment in the workplace, prevention, alerts and actions] on the 'Défenseur des droits' human rights website, and the instructive videos of young women that illustrate it.

The motto of CLASCHES (Collectif de Lutte contre le Harcèlement Sexuel dans l'Enseignement Supérieur) is 'defend, inform, testify and act'.

A faculty member in the psychology department of the University of Lille III was subject to disciplinary measures in December 2017 after a five-month-long enquiry for sexually harassing at least four students. He was banned from teaching or supervising students for 18 months and his salary was halved.

Official Bulletin, Decision no. DEC172858DRH, October 2017. The CAP is an administrative committee representing civil servants. It is consulted and makes recommendations on matters affecting individual careers.

http://www.ferc-cgt.org/communique-de-presse-sur-l-umr-urmite-13-novembre-2017-marseille

Removal of a research fellow with a prestigious European Research Council contract(Official Bulletin, Decision No. DEC172856DRH, October 2017)

Impossible if the person in a position of authority is him-or herself the perpetrator or directly linked to the perpetrator. Insufficient if the person has no training on how to address the issue, or worse, if somebody tries to protect the institution's reputation (see note 25 below)

The CNRS circular mentioned in note 12 reviews possible disciplinary measures but for the moment gives no details. Since 2015, the cases of disciplinary measures for harassment within the CNRS have been published in the Official Bulletin, with either full or partial anonymity for the victims and perpetrators (the latter being designated by their initials)

According to civil service rules, when appearing before the CAP, only the defendant has the right to assistance, such as a lawyer. The victim testifies without any such support

This imbalanced situation has been denounced by research trade unions. See the Open letter of the SNTRS-CGT of 31 October 2017 and the SNCS release of 10 November 2017

Seven years passed between the first case of harassment observed in Marseille and the disciplinary measures taken; see note 12

See the article by Alexis Zarca in the human rights review, 'Revue des Droits de l'Homme', December 2017, La répression disciplinaire du harcèlement sexuel à l'université

See the analysis published by Nature for research agencies in the United States(Nature 530, p 138-139, 11 February 2016), "How should science funders deal with sexual harassers? US science agencies threaten harsh penalties but many have yet to take action"

Talk by Frédérique Vidal during the symposium of 4 December 2017 at the University of Paris-Diderot: Violences sexistes et sexuelles dans l'ESR ; de la prise de conscience à la prise en charge [Gender-based and sexual violence in higher education and research: from awareness to management]

Cass. crim., June 15 2000, n° 99-84.171, JurisData n° 2000-003128.


Keywords: integrity, fraud, officer, whistleblower, transparency, training

This position paper focuses on how CNRS can implement the principles set out in the National Code of Ethics for Research Professions, which it signed in January 2015 along with a large number of French research institutions. The Code of Ethics falls within the framework of the French law on ethics and the rights and obligations of officials of 20 April 2016, and takes the general concern for ethics into account at European level. This position paper identifies various practices that violate scientific integrity, ranging from fraud -including plagiarism and the fabrication and falsification of results -to non-disclosed conflicts of interest. It explores the issues in relation to their exposure once they have been identified and how institutions handle the allegations made. COMETS believes CNRS should encourage and facilitate the internal submission of reliable allegations of misconduct or fraud against staff in its research units. It suggests that CNRS would benefit from appointing an integrity officer alongside the ombudsman to receive fraud allegations from laboratories and organise a response, in liaison with the Institutes' deputy scientific directors and the National Scientific Research Committee (CoNRS). This officer could also work in cooperation with advisers in each main academic field. Whatever system CNRS chooses to put in place, COMETS believes it is especially important to provide a single, easily accessible and clearly identified point of entry for allegations of fraud. This raises the question of whistleblower protection. COMETS would like to see greater transparency in how the institution handles cases of fraud and the penalties imposed as a result. Inposition paper, COMETS reflects on the risk posed to scientific integrity by putting pressure on publications. It sets out recommendations for reversing this trend, based on researcher and project evaluation practices especially. It also suggests that results are published with raw data where applicable. Finally, COMETS underlines the need to put in place training in scientific integrity for all research staff at CNRS in accordance with the National Code of Ethics for Research Professions, which it has promised to enforce in partnership with universities and other research bodies.

II. SELF-REFERRAL

This paper falls within the framework of the French law of 20 April 2016 on ethics and the rights and obligations of officials and its provisions with regard to conflicts of interest. It also takes into account the texts concerning whistleblowing and whistleblower protection. Its implementation is an extension of the National Code of Ethics for Research Professions signed in January 2015 by CNRS together with all French universities and a large number of research institutions in France. This code serves as a national version of the key international texts in this area. Its preamble states that "It is the responsibility of every public teaching and research body or institution to implement this code by promoting good research practices (...) and by putting in place clear and widely recognised procedures to prevent and address any deviations from ethical standards." Respecting scientific integrity is a national and international concern. The French State is particularly focused on this issue and has launched a commission initially responsible for offering a postgraduate training course in research ethics. The Science-Europe associationof which CNRS is a memberhas published a text on preserving scientific integrity intended for inclusion in the Horizon 2020 programmes at European level. This position paper published by COMETS falls within this evolving framework. It follows the publication of the committee's guide "Promoting integrated and responsible research" in 2014, which was distributed to all stakeholders in CNRS research units. It also develops two previous reports published in 2006 ("Scientific fraud at CNRS") and 2012 ("The need to implement procedures with a view to promoting research integrity at CNRS"). COMETS believes that effective methods should be put in place on every level to prevent malpractice in research professions as much as possible. Generally speaking, this relates to any integrity violation that leads to the publication of erroneous or non-reproducible resultsespecially fraud. This includes the fabrication or falsification of results, plagiarism and nondisclosed conflicts of interest.

The National Code of Ethics advises research staff to expose any cases of fraud they may be aware of. In view of these recommendations, COMETS examines the most suitable procedures for receiving allegations of scientific integrity violations at CNRS. After considering the increasing role played by social networks in exposing cases of fraud in its position paper "Discussion and moderation of scientific publications on social networks and in the media", COMETS believes it is necessary to clarify and develop these procedures further. It also offers suggestions on how to limit violations of best practices and calls for the consideration of ethics training and research integrity for all types of staff.

III. ANALYSIS

A. INTEGRITY VIOLATIONS TAKE VARIOUS FORMS

The most serious integrity violations concern the publication of fraudulent results. The publication of unreliable and non-reproducible results due to the falsification or even complete fabrication of experiment data is an extremely serious matter. Integrity violations also include seeking to influence results in one way or another by adopting biased research protocols and omitting results that deviate from the researcher's expectations. The latter often occurs when there are non-disclosed conflicts of interest or private contracts are at stake. Researchers' actual contribution to writing published articles is also a common cause of conflict. Finally, plagiarising publications or parts of publications constitutes a major source of fraud. Such practices -which extend beyond the list given here -undermine research integrity and damage science and its public image to varying degrees. There are also issues associated with their exposure and how institutions handle them once they have been identified.

ENCOURAGING THE INTERNAL SUBMISSION OF ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT OR FRAUD

In 2015, the scientific community in France was shaken by the discovery of falsified data in several publications written by a CNRS research director. The fraud was exposed by the PubPeer website and made public on the Retraction Watch website. The case was widely reported in the press and media while the institution was still investigating the matter. This raised questions from research and public stakeholders, as the President of CNRS pointed out in an article in the CNRS Journal. The seriousness of the alleged misconduct was established by an ad hoc committee of experts whose identity remained anonymous. The institution's management imposed harsh penalties after an investigation by a joint committee (Commission Administrative Paritaire or CAP). This sequence of events highlighted the role played by social networks in exposing scientific misconduct. Although research institutions can no longer ignore social media (see COMETS' position paper from 6 April 2016), COMETS believes that CNRS would benefit from addressing these questions sooner rather than later to prevent such information being disclosed on social networks as far as possible. In view of this, CNRS must put in place a suitable framework for the submission of allegations of misconduct or fraud against staff in its research units. It must then provide an appropriate response by evaluating the allegations and taking appropriate measures, as well as preventing the spread of slanderous allegations. This suggestion reflects the French Council of State's recommendations, which advise companies and administrations to introduce a range of whistleblowing mechanisms internally and then externally before considering public disclosure (Proposal no. 2).

There are many advantages to handling allegations internally. It prevents anonymous accusations, which is an unpopular practice in France (see COMETS' position paper published in April 2016). Furthermore, teams can search for solutions before tensions become too great and put a stop to unethical practices as soon as they arise. Finally, it prevents the development of rumours that could be potentially damaging to science and its public image.

B. RECEIVING ALLEGATIONS OF INTEGRITY VIOLATION

Remember that CNRS has signed the National Code of Ethics, which advises research staff to expose any cases of fraud they may be aware of. This presupposes the use of clear procedures by CNRS to receive allegations in the event of such practices being identified internally or by scientists who are familiar with the field. CNRS must facilitate access to mechanisms for all at the appropriate level. The institution must also discuss the procedures that need to be put in place, taking into account the international and European context especially. These issues are currently under consideration at ministerial level in France with respect to all research institutions. COMETS advises CNRS to put in place clear procedures for receiving allegations so that reported cases may be investigated, provided that they are based on justifiable evidence. COMETS believes the anonymous submission of allegations should be avoided to prevent the risk of malicious behaviour or hidden conflicts of interest. However, the whistleblower's identity must remain confidential to minimise the risk of reprisals against individuals. The methods of maintaining confidentiality have yet to be defined. A single point of entry is important in this respect.

The ombudsman at CNRS currently receives allegations at national level in principle. The ombudsman is responsible for helping to resolve disputes and difficulties that arise in the internal running of the institution, as laid down in his statute. The ombudsman plays a crucial role and addresses a wide range of relational and constitutional problems, as well as disputes in relation to publications. COMETS advises CNRS to appoint an integrity officer to work alongside the ombudsman, like other research institutions and universities. The integrity officer would be responsible for receiving fraud allegations from laboratories and organising a response, in cooperation with the Institutes' deputy scientific directors and the CoNRS. The ombudsman takes action in respect of malicious allegations. The integrity officer at CNRS could work in cooperation with integrity officers from other research institutions who are facing problems of a similar nature. This would soon establish a national network, which would enable a collective response to cases of integrity violation involving several institutions. The integrity officer must have a scientific background and a good understanding of the research system in order to perform the necessary duties and anticipate the potential impact of fraud. The question of the integrity officer's position in relation to CNRS management remains open, and the officer may or may not be part of a network of integrity officers designated by Institutes for each general subject area. Note that institutions often appoint researchers near retirement to perform this function, after they have previously held positions of responsibility in research. These researchers wish to be of use to their institution without the risk of being personally involved in any problems that come to light.

In addition to receiving allegations, the integrity officer could work with a network of CNRS advisers to monitor scientific research and identify and analyse the most relevant information concerning publications that appear on dedicated websites, such as PubPeer, Pubmed commons etc. The integrity officer would also be able to launch an investigation in the event of repeated allegations of fraud being made against a CNRS researcher Overall, COMETS believes that whatever system is put in place at CNRS, it is especially important to clearly identify and facilitate access to the point of entry for allegations of fraud. It should be very visible on the CNRS website and communicated to all research unit directors as well as new entrants.

C. PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO REPORT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD

Difficulties may arise when a whistleblower reports a case of fraud. Individuals who report a fraud should be clearly aware of the seriousness of their actions and that the allegation must be based on reliable scientific arguments. Any allegation is likely to have a significant impact on the smooth running of the laboratory concerned and could damage its image and the discipline more widely. The whistleblower should therefore contact the laboratory director first in order to address the problem downstream and deter anyone who might have been tempted by the fraud. However, the head of the research unit may not be in a position to solve the problem in some cases. This person could even be involved in the worst case scenario. In most other cases, the head of the research unit is not trained in how to resolve these situations; this is why it is vital that CNRS research unit staff have access to a national mechanism.

As allegations must not be made anonymously, it is important to protect whistleblower confidentiality. The institution must also ensure that any allegation of fraud within a team does not have a damaging effect on the career or personal life of the individual who made the allegation. This is important for young researchers and research support staff who are in a particularly vulnerable position because their careers might depend on the head of the team or laboratory director, who may be implicated in the fraud or have a connection to the person who is. These problems can only be addressed on a case by case basis. With respect to the issues raised when an allegation is made, COMETS believes it is particularly important for CNRS to consider the protection of whistleblowers. This reflection may fall within the framework of the law on ethics in the public sector, which mentions the protection of whistleblowers explicitly. This protection should be extended to temporary employees, such as postgraduate and postdoctoral students, as suggested in a study by the French Council of State (Proposal n°3).

D. HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD

Allegations must be handled as quickly as possible using clearly identified procedures. Procedures for handling cases of fraud consistently and in line with international regulatory frameworks must be clarified, as they have been in a number of other countries. It must be possible to apply the same procedures in other cases of suspected misconduct, such as those relating to the misappropriation of results obtained by other researchers.

Generally speaking, CNRS appoints one or several researchers to carry out an investigation. In addition to the required skills and integrity, researchers must receive prior training in order to fulfil the brief. They should be given information on the legal and institutional framework within which they operate. Their task must be clearly defined and they must receive the necessary means to carry out their duties, which includes access to all the documents required for the task.

It is the institution's responsibility to put concrete measures in place if the commissioned reports conclude that the authors of a publication have violated scientific integrity. These conclusions must be sent to the team in question to calm any tensions that may have arisen, with support from the HR department if necessary. CoNRS will carefully monitor activities carried out by the team to ensure that such behaviour does not reoccur in the future. Authors of offending publications will be required to publish corrective statements and ask the publisher to retract the publications if necessary. As the French Council of State highlights in its study, provisions in relation to whistleblowers tend to overlook the issue of follow-up action. Finally, COMETS would like to see an annual report on cases of fraud handled by the integrity officer, without the identity of those involved being revealed. As outlined in the COMETS 2007 report on scientific fraud at CNRS, it is important for this committee to be able to refine its assessment of research integrity in France and get some perspective on these issues so that they can be better addressed in future.

E. PUTTING LESS PRESSURE ON RESEARCHERS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS

Global awareness of the urgent need to prevent publication malpractice has been rapidly increasing over the past few years. The growing number of participants at the World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) is testament to this. Malpractice obviously refers to cases of serious fraud, including falsified observational data as discussed earlier, which require investigation and result in penalties. However, there is a grey area of questionable research practices that are becoming much more frequent (unsuitable or unreliable methodologies, disputes over the authorship of articles etc.). These are mentioned in The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and in the guide "Promoting integrated and responsible research" published by COMETS. Although not as serious, these integrity violations have a negative impact on the credibility of published research and are also harmful to researchers' careers, human relationships in laboratories and science's social image. Numerous international analyses agree that these lapses are partly the result of too much pressure on researchers to publish a high volume of work and in high impact scientific journals, which are thought to be the most prestigious. Putting less pressure on researchers is therefore highly recommended in more ways than one. Such pressure comes down to the criteria used to assess researchers' abilities at the beginning and throughout their careers as well as their submissions in response to calls for papers. The Leiden Manifesto provides excellent guidance on the proper use of bibliometric indicators. Remember that COMETS criticised the overenthusiasm for major high impact journals of a generalist nature in a position paper published in 2014. Their limitations are condemned by the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). COMETS can only urge CNRS to clarify fair assessment methods on a regular basis -particularly for members of CoNRS. These methods should be primarily based on the detailed analysis of a few major publications while also making good use of quantitative indicators.

PREVENTING LAPSES IN INTEGRITY BY PUBLISHING DATA PREVENTING LAPSES IN INTEGRITY BY PUBLISHING DATA

This is about more than just appealing to researchers' sense of responsibility. It is vital to address the underlying causes that have gradually distorted the publication systemif such a thing were still possible. Prevention methods must be envisaged to ensure lapses in integrity become less frequent. A useful idea would be to make raw data systematically available alongside published results at the time of publication. However, this only applies to certain fields. This will prevent researchers from publishing results too quickly without checking their reproducibility. This means there will be less opportunity to deliberately falsify results. It will also help experts verify the results in the event of any suspicion. Certain publishers, such as PLOS, are beginning to insist on this in order to avoid retractions. Such measures are not possible in all fields and obstacles must be removed before they can be put in place. Moreover, the data must be provided in a format that can be clearly understood by another expert. Making the data shareable creates additional work. COMETS believes that researchers should be given credit for taking the time to make raw data accessible as part of an overall assessment. COMETS previouslyrecommended publishing raw data in its position paper "The ethical issues of scientific data sharing" in 2015. Making data available on dedicated platforms and the opportunities provided by open archives such as HAL have helped to increase transparency. Remember that these methods fall within the international framework of Open Science, which COMETS is strongly in favour of.

F. RESEARCH INTEGRITY TRAINING

COMETS reiterates that the code of ethics supports the need for integrity and responsibility in research professions. These principles have been clarified in many previous reports and especially in the guide "Promoting integrated and responsible research", which is now distributed to all new entrants at CNRS. COMETS encourages the widespread availability of this guide, which is regularly updated and intended to be an evolving tool. The head of each unit should also encourage its discussion in the laboratory, in accordance with the provisions laid down by the law on ethics in the public sector concerning the role played by heads of department. It seems particularly important to raise awareness and even offer specific training for team leaders alongside essential postgraduate training. What matters most of all in practice is the exemplary role played by teaching staff, as everyone knows. Training in research ethics will also become crucial within the framework of European projects carried out as part of the Horizon 2020 initiative and certain international collaborations. COMETS urges CNRS to work with institutional partners to ensure that researchers are encouraged to complete training in ethics and professional codes of practice. CNRS has an obvious role to play in the national effort to put in place online training modules in research integrity, designed to raise awareness and encourage all staff to consider these issues. Online modules are supported by classroom training sessions given by individuals within the field of academia, if possible. This work should especially be carried out with universities that have already developed specific frameworks for ethics and codes of practice. Means are required to put these systems in place, and CNRS could offer ongoing training in order to achieve this. Continuing these efforts to offer integrity training would put CNRS in a position to investigate the motives behind fraud across all disciplines.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

COMETS believes CNRS must put in place a suitable framework for the submission of allegations of scientific integrity violations against staff in its research units and address these allegations internally in a timely manner, in accordance with the National Code of Ethics for Research Professions. Adopting this approach will ensure cases are handled sooner rather than later and in a measured way, without the pressure of distribution via social networks.

It is strongly recommended that research staff communicate proven scientific misconduct either in their team or in the context of collaborations as soon as any tangible evidence is found to support the allegations, while being fully aware of the seriousness of the matter. A single point of entry for allegations made by whistleblowers must be established if it is impossible or useless to contact the laboratory director. This must be made clearly visible on the home page of the CNRS website and indicated by the laboratory director to all staff and all new entrants. COMETS advises CNRS to appoint an integrity officer, like an increasing number of universities and other research bodies. The integrity officer would be responsible for receiving allegations of fraud and organising a response, in cooperation with the Institutes' deputy scientific directors and the CoNRS, with assistance from the ombudsman where required. Supported by a network of officers in each main disciplinary field, the integrity officer would be able to work in partnership with integrity officers from other research institutions facing similar problems.

COMETS urges CNRS to consider the best way of offering special protection for whistleblowers who make allegations of scientific fraud. The first step towards protecting whistleblowers is to receive allegations in the strictest confidentiality. It is important to remember that young researchers and research support staff are in a vulnerable position within the hierarchical structure of certain teams.

COMETS recommends that CNRS announce cases of fraud and the penalties imposed if these allegations are proven internally as well as externally, within the framework of the law. COMETS would like to be informed about cases of serious misconduct on a regular basis so that the committee can refine its analyses of CNRS researchers' behaviour, not just at institutional level but also in relation to observations at national and international level.

Within the framework of Open Science, COMETS believes CNRS should strongly encourage researchers to provide access to the raw data on which published results are based. COMETS reiterates the importance of helping to ensure there is less pressure on all CNRS researchers to publish prolifically. Recommendations on this subject for CoNRS members, including advice on the proper use of bibliometric (quantitative) indicators, must be clarified and regularly updated.


I. SUMMARY

The relations between science and society have altered profoundly over the course of history. Since the 1970s, the notion of progress has come under fire with growing awarenessa of its impacts on the environment and human health. Today, this puts the spotlight on the questions citizens ask of researchers and research institutions, as well as the need for researchers to explain the nature and importance of their approach to society as a whole. Here, COMETS expresses the urgent need for a relationship of trust to be built between citizens and scientists. Two avenues are considered: participatory science and a renewed dialogue between science and citizens.

Participatory science, a fast developing phenomenon today thanks to the Internet, involves amateur citizens in scientific activities for the collection of data and sometimes the joint formulation or interpretation of results. This brings considerable mutual benefits, firstly through it contribution to the production of knowledge, and secondly in educating citizens in the scientific method and mindset. It is also an approach that encourages scientific vocations amongst young people. COMETS puts forward recommendations on the establishment of frameworks for the practices of amateur networks, on the importance of validating results, on the respect for anonymity in the case of private data, and finally on the status and recognition owed to contributors.

In a world shaken by successive crises and riven by controversies on sensitive subjects, COMETS is of the view that researchers and their institutions need to listen to the public's questions on the impacts of their choices. While reaffirming the autonomy of the scientific sphere, it considers it necessary to reflect on the forms that the public debate around research questions should take. It strongly stresses the importance of disseminating scientific culture and actively promoting it at all levels of society. It recommends that the assessments made by scientists on issues that have a societal impact should be conducted in the absence of conflicts of interest, within an interdisciplinary and if possible international framework. It recommends that CNRS should support the involvement of research teams in the analysis of perceptions of science and encourage initiatives that tackle sensitive topics. Finally, it suggests that CNRS should develop a collective expertise that can be applied in responding to approaches from public decision-makers and democratic bodies.

II. SELF-REFERRAL

The concept of "citizen science" encompasses several very topical phenomena that COMETS has chosen to tackle, although its treatment will be far from exhaustive. First, the concept refers to science to which citizen amateurs contribute alongside research professionals. It is also understood as science that possesses civic virtues, which serves society in its organisation and implementation.

Amateurs and people driven by curiosity have long -in particular since the 19 th century -been associated with the advance of scientific activities and practices, be it in astronomy or meteorology, in the natural sciences or in Earth sciences. They have participated in the collection of data for the description of plant and animal species, for observation of the stars and of celestial or atmospheric phenomena. This early phase persists today thanks to information technologies, in particular the Internet, which has massively boosted the opportunities for participation. The production of relevant observations can benefit from the involvement of citizens, whether scientists or amateurs. Very much in vogue today, this research practice raises a number of questions about its effectiveness, its benefits, the nature of the contribution of amateurs and, more generally, about the role that they can hope to play in the production of knowledge.

The relations between science and society have gradually changed. In the aftermath of the Second World War, scientific progress was seen as the primary driver of economic and social development, and science proved to be at the heart of state security. The 1970s saw a shift in attitudes, with the growing perception of the limitations of the forms of growth associated with the post-war years, reflected in the steady rise of environmentalist concerns bolstered by increasing awareness that the earth's resources are not infinitely renewable. With the consciousness of new risks (chemical, nuclear accidents, genetic manipulation, etc.), public opinion has become increasingly divided between admiration at the meteoric progress of science, in particular in the medical sphere, and worry about certain technological developments that arouse controversies across the world. Moreover, the complexity of knowledge means that unequivocal responses are no longer possible. In many countries, we are witnessing the emergence of critiques from citizens and groups demanding transparency, and opposition to -even control over -scientific choices.

The questions raised by citizen science are highly topical. On the one hand, with regard to participatory science, cooperation between researchers and amateur contributors is is a fast-growing phenomenon, in particular with "crowdsourcing", defined as the participatory production of knowledge. It is breathing new life into a practice of research in which everyone can be involved. This fact raises a number of questions about the effectiveness of such science, about its virtues, about the nature of the contribution of citizens and, more generally, about the role that they can hope to play in the production of knowledge. On the other hand, it is important to re-establish a dialogue of trust between science and citizens, and to elucidate the controversies around the consequences of the large-scale deployment of science. Researchers have a frontline role to play in making expert assessments that are not tainted by conflicts of interest and in becoming involved in debates with their fellow citizens. Without claiming to provide a a full account of the fundamental questions raised here, for which solutions remain to be found in a fast-changing world, COMETS proposes to analyse the ethical implications of the two facets of citizen sciences outlined above, emphasising the particular role that researchers and their institutions have to play.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Participatory science: contribution of citizen amateurs to scientific knowledge

There have always been citizens who have contributed in an amateur capacity to the advancement of scientific knowledge. They are generally motivated by curiosity, the satisfaction of searching and finding, the intellectual stimulation that it entails, and the pleasure in the sense of belonging to a community.

History of participatory science

The term "citizen science" was coined by Alan Irwin in his 1995 book of the same name, 1 where he explains how knowledge about the environment can be obtained from reports of individual experience by large numbers of people. At roughly the same time, in the United States, the term "citizen science" came to be used in reference to public participation in research. 2 It is often associated with Rick Bonney's work in an ornithology laboratory administered by New York's Cornell University, where in the 1950s the laboratory's founder Arthur Allen recruited amateurs to report observations on different species of birds. Previously, through learned societies or research networks (cartography, meteorological, astronomy, etc.), voluntary contributions from across the world were often the source of data relevant to scientific research. In astronomy, a plethora of amateurs has contributed to the discovery of comets or variable stars. Before the 20 th century, it was commonplace to cite the work of amateurs who, despite having received no formal scientific education, were considered great scientists. In fact, it was only in the 19 th century that the word "scientist" began to be used substantively in reference to people who devoted themselves exclusively to a science. 3 [1]

The upsurge of participatory science today

In recent years, the upsurge of participatory science has been spectacular: in the USA, the "American Association for the Advancement of Science" (AAAS) sponsors the "citizen science" association. A programme of the same name is being developed in the UK. In 2013, the European Community produced a report on Environmental Citizen Science.4 In France, citizen observatories are being set up all over the country, for purposes such as collecting data about the France's coasts. Note that the CNRS's Ecology and Environment Institute (INEE) runs several units dedicated to participatory science.

In recent years, information technology has given a very sharp boost to the methods of participatory science, both conceptually and practically. As regards the principle, these methods are inspired by the peer collaboration practices employed in the development of open source software. To encourage cooperation, a range of so-called "free" licences have been developed to facilitate the reproduction, distribution and modification of such software. The results are convincing: numerous pieces of software produced in this way compete on equal terms with proprietary industrial software. This is the model on which a growing proportion of scientific activity is developing. Internet progress now makes it possible to coordinate the activity and contributions of a large number of people. This has given rise to what is called crowdsourcing, a way of aggregating the conscious or unconscious contributions of multiple citizens. The term is derived from "outsourcing", which in business management refers to the use of external contractors to provide certain skills. Crowdsourcing draws too on the technologies of the social web, also called web 2.0 (or indeed the "participatory web", because it asks users to give their recommendations for sites, books, films, etc.). In short, it is a form of outsourcing that uses the web to get a large number of nonspecialists to perform certain tasks. Using these techniques, collaborative science websites can recruit anyone who wishes to contribute to the collection -or even interpretation -of observations for scientific purposes. 5 Amateurs participate in various ways, through a gradation of contributions. The European report on citizen science identifies four degrees of participation, from the simple gathering of observations where citizens are used as collectors or elementary processors, to so-called "distributed" science where citizens are not restricted to observation and calculation, but interpret the data, to a third level where citizens are stakeholders in the design of the project, and finally to a fourth so-called "extreme citizen science" level where citizens participate in the analysis of the data collected and make a theoretical contribution. For the present position paper, we will concentrate on two forms of participation, which cut across the four gradations above: data collection, on the one hand, co-creation and codesign, on the other.

Collection of scientific data by amateurs

In the first form of participation, citizens take part in data collection, either reporting observations after some preliminary instruction, or agreeing to become objects of investigation by contributing, whether passively or actively, to the evaluation of an experiment. In the first case, data collection partly overlaps with the very topical theme of 4 Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol (2013). Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Environmental Citizen Science. Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment, December 2013. Available here ici: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy 5 https://www.zooniverse.org/ or http://scistarter.com/ crowdsourcing, referred to above, which has applications to numerous domains, in particular astronomy, where amateurs contribute with observations6 or annotations,7 biodiversity with the collection of plants, insects or fish, meteorology and climate science with distributed local measurements, geography with detailed mapping,8 the humanities with the annotation of texts or images,9 archaeology with the observations carried out by local populations, etc.

In the second of the two forms of participation, individuals can themselves actively take part in studies in which they are the experimental subjects. In medicine, for example, the term usually employed to describe the involvement of patients in observation and care is patient engagement. 10 When participants themselves become objects of investigation, it is important both to protect their privacy and to obtain informed consent, in other words that the researchers responsible for the study ensure that the participants understand the goals of the research and also the risks incurred, whatever their nature. The techniques of contributor profiling employed for validation must meet these principles, in so far as participants must be warned that they such profiling is taking place. In addition, care must be taken that information obtained for research is not reused for other purposes, in particular commercial and especially professional or police purposes.

The importance of validating observations is crucial. This validation needs to be automated, with no human intervention, otherwise the cost of verification would rapidly become prohibitive and wipe out the advantages of collaborative data gathering. The principle usually applied relies on the fact that the involvement of multiple observers leads to a convergence of observations and/or interpretations. Majority judgement here constitutes proof, which -it should be noted -runs counter to the usual scientific approach. This consideration has led to the establishment of different systems of validation, some of them entailing a statistical count of convergent responses, others a competency model, which is either established a priori or derived by automatic induction using machine learning algorithms. Empirical studies show that none of these models is superior to the others, since the results depend on the context of the study, the motivation of the contributors and the task to be performed. Whatever the procedure chosen, epistemological questions arise regarding the nature of evidence in these conditions. Moreover, it can appear problematic in that a number of observations are eliminated because they are deemed either redundant or aberrant. The evaluation criteria need to be clearly specified in order to maintain the necessary scientific rigour.

Generally speaking, collaborative annotations require a common terminology, which are achieved through the establishment of so-called ontologies. Some are established from scratch, others derived from words in general use. The English term for these is folksonomies, i.e. words used by "folk" belonging to the same community. In any case, the researcher needs to play a decisive role in establishing these terminologies, which are at the heart of the collaborative scientific approach.

Amateurs work with researchers in co-creation and co-design

Is participatory science restricted to the involvement of citizen amateurs in the ancillary role of collecting observational data? First, it should be noted that observation is a not insignificant part of normal scientific activity. There is nothing passive about the tasks of annotation and interpretation -they always require significant individual input. In addition, there is a whole gradation of participatory activities, extending to very active involvement by nonspecialists involved in data collection networks. For example, amateur astronomers discover new celestial objects by comparing their observations with established sky maps. Similarly, amateur botanists are involved in the classification of their finds. Another example is the ReClam the Bay project, which seeks to re-establish an oyster and shellfish ecosystem. 11 An extreme case is the network of nonprofessional mathematicians on the Polymath website, which produces collective demonstrations of theorems to which all the online members contribute. Here, we can reasonably speak of genuine networked science. 12 The benefits deriving from these kinds of participatory practice are twofold. On the one hand, they contribute to the establishment of big data banks of observations and annotations. Indeed, there are many tedious activities of collection and -in particularinterpretation that cannot yet be automated, and yet are crucial to the advancement of knowledge. In these cases, the participation of large numbers of amateurs is of value to scientists. In return, the participants acquire knowledge of scientific practices and problems, and training in rigourous research methodology. It is also a way of instilling a vocation for scientific work and of reducing cultural and social barriers.

For this kind of crowdsourcing to be successful, several conditions must be met. First, the participants need to be motivated. In many cases, the incentive comes simply from the playful nature of the activity. In other cases, people are motivated by the idea of taking part in an effort that can benefit society as a whole, for example in the spheres of health or the environment. Contributors can also be rewarded for participation, whether in symbolic or material ways, which raises ethical questions about the implication of the remunerative approach. 13 The dominant approach, essentially utilitarian, is to offer fair rewards, so that contributors -who in any case vary in their degree of autonomy -are motivated without concerns about the sharing of benefits. Paradoxically, it would seem that in some cases reducing the reward leads to a better quality of contributions. Nonetheless, participatory science raises problems about the attribution of ownership, whether under moral or property rights, for research carried out by large populations.

11 http://reclamthebay.org/ 12 Nielsen, Michael (2012). Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 13 There is even a game (cf. http://www.metadatagames.org/) designed to motivate people who agree to annotate

The idea of active participation by the entire population in the construction of knowledge is undoubtedly exciting. Nonetheless, professional scientists retain an important role in these creative processes that involve lay citizens. The balance between amateurs and scientists is not symmetrical. Scientists must contribute to the management of the collective work by providing essential methodological inputs: the protocols for handling the data collected must be well-established, the body of data defined as clearly as possible, sources cited with maximum rigour, ontologies specified to describe the objects of knowledge. It is the task of the scientists to ensure that the methods employed are rigorously managed, and to validate the contributions or at least to establish the validation procedures. One possibility is that appropriate training should be developed and provided for scientists involved in participatory research, where practices are currently developing so fast that it is not always easy for the most appropriate ethical practices to be defined.

B. Renewing the dialogue between scientists and citizens

Science does not occupy a position on the margins of society. This could have been the view in the past, when scientists worked alone, sometimes relying on sponsors, and more recently when scientific results were not expected to produce social and technical innovations. However, the relations between science and citizens have evolved with time. Societies have gradually become scientific societies, because in the last two centuries science has taken up a position at the centre of economic and technological development, at the heart of the state and national security.

Modern science is both a way of knowing and an instrumental activity intended to effect changes in the world. Scientists themselves are motivated primarily by the production of knowledge, always in the belief that they contribute to a common good. Yet they are increasingly obliged to justify their work by its profitable spin-offs in the world of technology. While they do not necessarily control these spin-offs, the public nevertheless calls them to account. With the awareness of the intrinsically limited nature of knowledge, in a world where systems are increasingly complex and less and less controllable, the pact of trust between scientists, citizens and decision-makers has been damaged. 14 The contract between scientists and the state has changed. The aim of this chapter is to identify the conditions required to establish a new contract. In order to make scientific strategies more democratic, it is important for researchers and their institutions to try to answer the public's questions about the impact of scientific choices and to elucidate controversies around sensitive subjects, while maintaining the degree of freedom essential to the creativity of research.

Bringing together science and society by disseminating scientific culture

Disseminating scientific culture is one of the goals of researchers, alongside the progress of knowledge and its transfer to society. 15 While the first step is to consolidate the elementary notions taught in school, the principal aim is to communicate the research process, its operational procedures, and the possible uses of results. It is also important for the research community to instill an enthusiasm for discovery into young people. Although there is still insufficient recognition of the role of cultural dissemination in the evaluation of work done by researchers, many take it seriously.

The domains of knowledge today extend into every dimension. Their fragmentation and complexity make it harder than in the past for the public to understand the world. The extraordinary development of the Internet means that people believe they can understand everything by looking at the information available on the web. These possibilities are cause for celebration, and indeed are positively exploited in participatory science. Nonetheless, citizens are not always able to manage the information they obtain in this way, because they do not necessarily have a sufficient grasp of the basic notions needed to think critically. When tackling questions where the stakes are high, such as the dangers of vaccination, many lack a clear understanding of the meaning and interpretation of probabilities. Sometimes beliefs form within networks, 16 on the basis of unfounded arguments that coalesce into certainties through quantity and repetition. 17 For example, three in five Americans firmly believe that there is a creationist alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution, drawing on pseudoscientific arguments with political implications, propagated with large financial resources. 18 19 Risks relating to the environment and health can encourage such irrational excesses.

Participatory science certainly contributes to the dialogue between science and society in the sense that it educates the public in critical thinking and in particular in scientific methods. However, it only reaches a tiny proportion of the population. Yet there are numerous traditional ways in which scientific culture is spread: in France, centres for scientific, technical and industrial culture (CCSTI) and science museums like the Palais de la Découverte in Paris or Espace des Sciences in Rennes, especially when they have highly professional communicators, offer exceptional opportunities for discovery, particularly for 15 Research Code (Art. L411-1) "Staff working in public research contribute to the transfer of knowledge and its application in companies and all domains that contribute to the progress of society". 16 La démocratie des crédules, Gérald Bronner, aux éditions Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), ISBN-13: 978-2130607298 17 We would note the existence of websites dedicated to thwarting the spread of false, out of date or unverifiable information (hoaxes) propagated by Internet users. 18 See, for example, the lavish tome by Harun Yahia, entitled 'The Atlas of Creation', whose superb illustrations mask a serious penury of scientific knowledge, especially in palaeontologyy. This very expensive book was distributed free to a considerable number of people involved in the dissemination of knowledge (teachers, journalists...). 19 For example, 'Global Publishing', which published the books of Adnan Oktar (under the pseudonym Arun Yahia), writes in a note on the author "Harun Yahia is well-known as the author of important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, their invalid claims, and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and such bloody ideologies as fascism and communism." Other excesses can be mentioned associated with the spread of denialist claims. young audiences. Science bars run by scientists encourage often passionate debate. Open scientific workshops and "FabLabs" are places where people can participate in and experience different types of knowledge.20 Researchers regularly hold laboratory open days, prepare for the annual week-long festival of science, organise events during international celebrations like physics year 2005 or chemistry year in 2013, or attempt to draw public attention through collaborations between the arts and science. However, these kinds of events are one-offs, and rural areas that are remote from academic institutions do not receive the same attention. It should not be forgotten that the process whereby citizens learn the scientific method needs to be long-term. In this respect, the most effective sources are undoubtedly primary and secondary school teachers, and scientists should undoubtedly be encouraged to work with them.

Researchers who involve themselves in the dissemination of scientific knowledge, in particular early in their careers, encounter plenty of obstacles: time spent to the detriment of their research, limited resources to design events, continuing lack of recognition from their institutions. We should also note the difficulties specific to communication with the mainstream media. The press, radio and in certain cases television should in principle be the obvious mediators between knowledge producers and the population. However, the role of science journalists as communicators could be developed much further: the space they are allocated in the main daily or weekly papers, or in the audiovisual media, is always very limited. Paradoxically, at a time when science is everywhere, the notion of scientific culture as an integral part of general culture is no longer self-evident… Moreover, scientists who make the effort to write articles for the general public often feel frustrated, because they are asked to provide simplified explanations, which run counter to their instincts as specialists, and they are not entirely in control of what gets printed. 21 Apart from approaches initiated by scientists themselves, other methods of disseminating scientific culture entail more direct participation by the population. Citizen debates and citizen lectures around major questions of societal interest are another very rich avenue for bringing knowledge to the public, which we will return to in the next chapter.

Controversies around the societal impact of scientific and technical choices

No one can fail to be aware that growing numbers of citizens hold an attitude of distrust towards advances in science and particularly in technology, perceiving them as exclusively dedicated to the development of industry, beyond democratic control and unconcerned with public well-being. Even the stunning successes and advances in medicine can fall under suspicion through misgivings over possible collusions of interests. A climate of scepticism is emerging, often reinforced by worries about the future in a society that is changing at a rapid pace. In some cases, there are challenges to the very purpose of major research programmes on sensitive issues. These include, in no particular order, a wide 20 "FabLabs", fabrication laboratories, were created in the late 1990s at MIT in order to make machine tools available to anyone who wanted them -entrepreneurs, tinkerers, designers, artists, etc. -to build prototypes. In the last few years, the arrival of 3-D printers has breathed new life into these workshops. 21 See position paper 109 in the CCNE archives: http://www.upf.edu/pcstacademy/ docs/CCNE-Avis109.pdf range of controversial topics: the causes and effects of climate change, the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture, the toxic effects of pesticides and certain nanoparticles, human "augmentation" by brain stimulation, lasting damage to the environment from the exploitation of shale gas, the harmful effects of mobile phones, the risks of burying nuclear waste, irreversible climate modification by large-scale geoengineering, etc. 22 Controversies within science have always existed between scientists themselves, and are a driver of progress in knowledge. They take a different form, often called "sociotechnical controversies", when they emerge into the public sphere and relate to the environmental, societal and health impacts of scientific and technical developments. In many cases, citizens do not fully trust the assessments made by scientists, sometimes suspecting them of bias in favour of the companies that finance their contracts. Conflicts of interest have been demonstrated, for example in sectors relating to pharmaceuticals or on the damaging effects of products like tobacco or asbestos. Nevertheless, a democratic regime needs to maintain open debate with citizens. As experts, science professionals owe it to themselves to take part, to provide the knowledge that can cast light on the controversies. In so doing, they must always declare any conflict of interest, specify their functions and any links with stakeholders in the domain on which their views are sought. In reaching their assessments, they must always be careful to specify what is known, distinguishing it from what is possible or probable, explaining clearly where the uncertainties lie and the nature of the hypotheses underlying predictive models. As far as possible, they should avoid projecting their assumptions into the debate.23 Moreover, it is obvious that scientists do not always agree, in particular on societal issues that lie outside their of their field of competence, where they formulate opinions in the same way as any other citizen. It is important that different disciplines should contribute collectively to nourish debate through the confrontation of ideas. From this perspective, in their conferences or workshops, researchers in the exact sciences and in the life sciences should do more to involve other disciplines, in particular from the interdisciplinary "Science Technology Society" sector, when their research fields touch on sensitive subjects, in order to try to elucidate the controversies in public understanding and perception.

Citizens increasingly communicate through the Internet, which enables them to pool their information in networks, to reinforce their fears or certainties, to refine their questions. There has been a proliferation of groups of different kinds which provide alerts and education on different social or environmental problems, or warn against the potential dangers of certain avenues of research or the risks that they present to populations worldwide. In many cases, they provide useful pointers that can only be of benefit to scientists. In agriculture, for example, growers, consumer associations and ecologists make a valuable contribution. Similarly with regard to health, patient groups, or even sometimes social insurance bodies, can provide a useful perspective, alongside doctors and pharmaceutical labs, in order to move research forward. This phenomenon forms part of the more general framework that certain epistemologists have, since the 1990s,24 christened "post-normal" science.25

Increased democratisation of scientific strategies

Calls for transparency, or even for control of or opposition to scientific choices, are now coming from citizens and civil society organisations. However, it might be thought thatthrough the intermediary of democratic institutions -the population actually participates in the choice of scientific priorities: parliamentary assemblies vote on the budgets of universities, scientific infrastructures, funding agencies and research bodies. The national committees for research and innovation strategy (SNRI) are consulted by the state to decide major objectives. Elected officials in European bodies establish the principal orientations of research in Europe. Yet despite this indirect participation through their politicians, many citizens (and even scientists…) have the impression of not really being involved in these choices which, on account of their diversity and complexity, demand public debate. For one thing, it is known that certain decisions that have a big impact on the future of society do not go through Parliament; for another, politicians are not always well informed about scientific issues, except through OPECST (parliamentary office for the evaluation of scientific and technical choices), and are remote from citizens on these questions. This is why a special status was given to whistleblowers by in Article 1 of the so-called Blandin Act of 16 April 2013: "any moral or legal person has the right to make public or disseminate in good faith information concerning a fact, a piece of data or an action, provided that ignorance of that fact, that piece of data or that action would seem to constitute a serious risk to public health or to the environment." Now it is legitimate that citizens should be able to ask for certain questions of a scientific nature to be included in discussions on the political agenda, or to raise new questions, and to be involved in one way or another in decisions that affect the future of humanity.

This was the motive behind the creation in France in 2002 of the "Citizen Sciences Foundation", an organisation that seeks to influence parliamentary votes in favour of research policies that contribute to a democratisation of scientific choices. 26 In addition, in 2012, a number of associations announced the creation of a "Sciences-Society Alliance", with the goal of enhancing and promoting interactions between science, research and society, and studying new forms of intermediation. 27 The purpose of citizen conferences is to involve citizens in the public debate. Imported from the Anglo-Saxon countries, which have a longer tradition of such ethical debates, they offer a real opportunity to tackle areas of uncertainty. In order to work well, they need a small-sized sample of the population, well informed about the scientific aspects of the problem, as exemplified by the consensus conferences organised on topics associated with health issues. 28 On the other hand, they tend to work badly in France when they are organised on a larger scale, as has been seen, for example, in national conferences on nanotechnologies or nuclear waste. Clearly, these processes need to be long-term and rooted in interdisciplinary dialogue. And scientists from all backgrounds have a frontline role to play in the public conversation.

The limitations of a "citizen strategy" for research?

The activism of the numerous civil society groups that have grown up around science needs to be approached advisedly. Civil society activism is what gives republican soil its richness. [START_REF]Le parlement des invisibles[END_REF] In practical terms, however, the limitations of citizen-controlled research should not be underestimated. First, there is a certain risk of reinforcing domains that reflect the immediate aspirations of society, to the detriment of pathways that are conceptually more promising, but less easy to put across. For example, technological innovations that have brought great benefit to society, such as the laser for the treatment of cataracts or magnetic resonance for body imaging, grew out of basic research that was not pursued with the aim of developing applications that met public demand. Similarly, citing a poorly understood idea of the precautionary principle, some people demand that toxicity studies should be conducted to a zero risk criterion, which is unreasonable in that it would absorb considerable resources for totally meaningless results. The cost-benefit ratio should not become exorbitant in order to meet this kind of requirement. Moreover, while the organisations that concern themselves with the consequences of scientific choices (or non-choices) and seek to influence them, can play a very positive role in steering research, they are not all the same. As is the case with any form of representation, they may be exploited by pressure groups. Patient associations provide an illustration of this process: we have seen that they can be highly effective, helping to to make rigid laws more flexible, or even promoting new avenues of research; however, they can also cease to be representative and become vehicles for lobbying interests. Other organisations may contribute to distorting the public debate and sometimes even try to influence political decisions unfavourable to their viewpoint, without being founded in sufficient scientific rigour. 30 Finally, one cannot ignore the influence brought to bear by some very well funded bodies entirely created by industrial firms, such as those set up to argue against the effects of asbestos on the lungs [START_REF]La Fabrique du Mensonge : comment les industriels manipulent la science et nous mettent en danger[END_REF] or of passive smoking, [START_REF]Les Marchands de doute (Ou comment une poignée de scientifiques ont masqué la vérité sur des enjeux de société tels que le tabagisme et le réchauffement climatique)[END_REF] or the effect of sugary drinks on childhood obesity. Vigilance and discernment are therefore needed with regard to associations working in the scientific field. It is essential to promote and maintain high-quality interfaces between all the stakeholders, scientists, citizens and their representatives.

With such interfaces in place, researchers in public bodies should be able to feel free in their choice of research within a framework that is jointly defined. This freedom is an essential condition of the researcher's creativity, founded on their intuition regarding important pathways to discovery. It is an intrinsic part of the researcher's condition, as defined in UNESCO's 1974 recommendation, currently undergoing revision. 33

The active role of scientists and their institutions

Despite the reservations set out above, COMETS reaches the general conclusion that by listening more to citizens, researchers will be more able maintain their trust. It is of the view that it is within the competence of research bodies to take account of issues of concern to the public relating to the future of society. In 2011, CNRS mobilised several communities of researchers who contributed to elucidating the question of climate change. 34 It took the same initiative on the question of energy and biodiversity. Other sensitive subjects demand attention from the CNRS, which should encourage its researchers to become involved in them, possibly in partnership with other research institutions. A monitoring unit made up of researchers from all disciplines, for example with a representative from each CNRS Institute, could be formed to respond to requests from bodies such as OPECST (parliamentary office for the evaluation of scientific and technological choices), set up by the National Assembly.

C. Conclusion

In summary, it would seem important to make a clear distinction between the different scientific practices encompassed in the expression "citizen sciences". Experiences of participatory science have been positive in many respects. They can establish a new process of knowledge production through which individual contributions converge within extremely valuable collective activity. They help citizens to learn about science and its methods and therefore play a positive educational role. Moreover, citizen involvement in scientific questions that affect not just societal but also political issues, demands appropriate responsiveness from research bodies, which should assume their share of responsibility in the life of a democracy.

Bringing science and society closer together is essential in many respects. First of all, it leads to the dissemination of scientific culture, a process in which researchers should be much more strongly encouraged to participate. However, "citizen science" cannot be restricted to a dialogue, planned or spontaneous, between researchers and society. From the perspective of consolidating the social contract that exists between research and society, 33 http://portal.unesco.org/fr/ev.php-URLID=13131&URLDO=DOTOPIC&URLSECTION=201.html Member States should seek to encourage conditions in which scientific researchers, with the support of the public authorities, have the responsibility and the right: (a) to work in a spirit of intellectual freedom to pursue, expound and defend the scientific truth as they see it; (b) to contribute to the definition of the aims and objectives of the programmes in which they are engaged and to the determination of the methods to be adopted which should be humanely, socially and ecologically responsible; 34 Le climat à découvert, de C. Jeandel et R. Mosseri -CNRS Editions -Collections A découvert -ISBN : 978-2-271-07198-9 it is important that the state and the scientific institutions should assume their role as facilitators and show more clearly, in their objectives and through the resources they invest, the role that they propose to play in the conditions of implementation of that dialogue. The democratisation of the sciences through society's participation in research priorities is a highly topical issue, for which COMETS can only provide partial matter for reflection. The recommendations that follow more directly concern the role that scientists themselves need to play as members of their research institution.

B. On the dissemination and democratisation of science

•

COMETS stresses the fundamental importance of disseminating scientific culture and actively promoting it at all levels of society. The work of researchers who become involved in this should be strongly encouraged, valued and recognised in their evaluations. It is part of their role and is essential to raising the general knowledge of the population and developing scientific vocations.

• COMETS asserts the need for researchers to listen to the questions emanating from citizens, to try to answer public questions about the impact of scientific choices and to elucidate controversies around sensitive subjects, while maintaining the degree of freedom essential to creativity in research.

• COMETS emphasises the importance of researchers providing rigourous assessments, in particular on sensitive subjects that are a focus of the population's questions and concerns. This necessarily collective expertise should clearly state the margins of uncertainty and incorporate viewpoints originating in different disciplines. It should seek to take an European or international perspective.

• Scientists involved in making assessments on questions that have a societal impact must provide evidence that there is no conflict of interests in the views they put forward. They must declare their positions and any links they have with stakeholders in the assessment.

• COMETS recommends that thought should be given to the procedures for discussion and public debate between researchers and society, drawing on successful experiences, which have generally involved small samples and long-term processes.

•

In conferences and scientific workshops touching on sensitive subjects, it is recommended that -where appropriate -a session should be set aside to explore the science and society aspects of the subjects, which involves making the participants aware of the ethical questions raised by the development of their field and a possible elucidation of the controversies. CNRS needs to increase the involvement of research teams in the analysis of perceptions of science.

• COMETS is of the view that CNRS should encourage initiatives by research teams that wish to tackle sensitive subjects emerging from the development of science and technology.

• It recommends that each CNRS Institute should nominate a representative; these representatives would have a collective assessment role, which would be implemented in response to approaches from bodies such as OPECST.

June 25, 2015

The French Astronomy Association did a census of the collaborative astronomy programmes conducted in France. The results of this census can be viewed in a report published in 2013 (cf. http://www.afanet.fr/pdf/sciences-participatives-afa.pdf)

Galaxy image annotation website: http://www.galaxyzoo.org/

The OpenStreetMap project (http://fr.flossmanuals.net/openstreetmap/) is a good example of the possibilities.

Example, one website asks people to help annotate the notebooks of soldiers in the great War. http://operationwardiary.org/?utmsource=Zooniverse Home&utmmedium=Web&utmcampaign=Homepage Catalogue

This theme is currently very topical, as evidenced by a number of scientific events: http://www.patientengagementsummit.com/

Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique, par Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, Yannick Barthe, éditions du Seuil (2001), ISBN 978-2-02-040432-7

22 Colloquium run by COMETS "Sciences à très grande échelle" on 8 and 9 January 2014

Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J. 1994.The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-normal Science, Ecological Economics, 10(3):197-207.

http://www.nusap.net/ et http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13

http://sciencescitoyennes.org

http://alliance-sciences-société.fr

http://www.conferencedecitoyens.fr

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. On participatory science

• Scientists who draw, for their research, on work originating in participatory science, should ensure that there is a rigourous framework for the methods employed, while providing the contributors with appropriate and socially useful training. They should clarify the data collection and analysis protocols so that it is possible for everyone to monitor the methods and principles underpinning the validation of the results obtained.

•

The lead researchers must specify sources (corpus, methods) when they publish the results of the participatory study and recognise the work of the network of contributors on which they rely. The ownership of the results must be specified between the partners (researchers and network of amateur contributors) prior to the collection of data.

• When the participants themselves become objects of investigation, their privacy must be protected and their informed consent obtained. The researchers responsible for the study must ensure that the contributors understand both the goals of the research and the risks involved, whatever their nature. The contributors to the study must be informed of these requirements.

•

The question of any rewards for occasional contributors should not be ignored; an appropriate form of reward should be determined in each case, depending on the nature of the information supplied.

•

The researchers and the entire team of contributors should be vigilant regarding the possibility of the data collected being acquired and exploited for purposes other than the research objectives (commercial, strategic, military, or indeed political or religious).