Cover Image
QR Code

Architectures of Trust: Open Science between Ivory Tower and Panopticon.

Transparency and openness are frequently praised as vital institutional strategies to foster public trust in science. The expectation is that transparent and open science will be more trusted, either because publics will have access to information about what scientists do or because scientists will...

Full description

Published in:NanoEthics Vol. 19; no. 3; pp. 1 - 18
Main Authors: Kallergi, Amalia, Landeweerd, Laurens
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Dec2025
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=188768387&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 188768387
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        18714757
        46ON
      jtl: NanoEthics
      issn: 18714757
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2025
      vid: 19
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        188768387
        10.1007/s11569-025-00481-0
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 17
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 602KB
      tig:
        atl: Architectures of Trust: Open Science between Ivory Tower and Panopticon.
      aug:
        au:
          Kallergi, Amalia
          Landeweerd, Laurens
        affil: https://ror.org/016xsfp80 Institute for Science in Society, box 77, Radboud University, 9010, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
      sug:
      keyword:
        Open Science
        Science policy
        Transparency
        Trust in science
      ab: Transparency and openness are frequently praised as vital institutional strategies to foster public trust in science. The expectation is that transparent and open science will be more trusted, either because publics will have access to information about what scientists do or because scientists will behave better under the watchful gaze of others. In this contribution, we challenge this widespread assumption by searching for the downsides of transparency in relation to public trust in science. The question we ask is: could transparency also have unintended negative effects on public trust? First, we consider theoretical treatments of transparency that challenge its status as an absolute value. This analysis highlights the benefits of seclusion and secrecy and the perils of excessive transparency. Next, we turn to the practice of transparency, as enacted via open-science strategies. Open Science is a framework defined by a commitment to openness, sharing and collaboration; effectively, it offers a set of actionable strategies for scientists to be transparent. We examine risks associated with both specific open-science strategies and an Open Science normativity. This allows us to explicate three concrete pathways via which the enactment of transparency could inadvertently harm public trust in science. These pathways indicate that transparency (as enacted via open-science strategies) could fuel 1) well-placed distrust, 2) misplaced trust or 3) misplaced distrust. Eventually, we conclude that the architecture of Open Science needs a conditional and contextual operationalisation of transparency which results in new responsibilities for the scientific community.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: NanoEthics is a copyright of Springer, 2025. All Rights Reserved.
      item: NanoEthics
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2025
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N