Two Postdoctoral Researchers for Social Studies of Controversies in Nanobiology (# of pos: 2)

Are you a committed researcher interested by how error correction works in science and what obstacles it faces? And would you like to work at the forefront of science in a dynamic, international research team? We are looking for two postdocs that will investigate one of two projects concerning controversies about error correction in the field of nanobiology, and the activism surrounding this topic.
In contested research fields such as nanobiology, concerned scientists have expressed worries about systematic error, sloppy research, or even outright research fraud. Some of these scientists have become veritable activists, raising attention among scientists, sleuthing for evidence of fraud, or campaigning for institutional reforms. They call for enhanced peer review, better validation practices, improved methodological transparency or rigour, or more open communication in science. Some 'epistemic activists' have even quit their research jobs to devote all of their time to these campaigns. However, the backlash against these epistemic activists can be quite fierce, with potential career damage, slander challenges in court and even outright threats. As a result, some activists operate anonymously, which in turn provokes criticism. This first postdoctoral study describes the activists and their motivations, analyses how these activists and their 'scientific movement' are received by other scientists, what contributes to the success of their campaigns, and how they accommodate their activism with their scientific careers. The particular focus will be on epistemic activists in nanobiology.

The second project involves a qualitative social science study of scientific correction practices, in particularly in nanobiology. Studies show that correction of the scientific literature is relatively rare: most erroneous work is simply abandoned, ignored or superseded by other research. Nevertheless, there is also a strong movement in science arguing for more extensive correction in the literature, advocating systematic scans and cross-checks against databases, or more wide-spread use of replication studies or meta-analysis to verify facts and check errors. The project analyses the dynamics of error correction: the social and discursive strategies involved in error correction attempts, as well as in the responses they provoke (e.g. by the scientists or journals that get corrected). The project also encompasses a participative study of replication work undertaken in our own programme investigating crucial but highly debated claims in nanobiology. The objective of the project is to contribute to improved correction practices in research.