SCIENTISTS ON THE CHALLENGES TO THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF THE RUSSIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

The article examines the problems of the regulatory framework for the professional activities of the scientific community as a component of its human potential, i.e. viability. Based on the analysis of transcripts of 20 in-depth interviews with scientists working in research institutes and universities, representatives of social and humanitarian sciences from different regions of Russia, a range of opinions on violations of research ethics was identified. It was established that informants are tolerant to the plurality of forms of knowledge in modern society, do not claim symbolic dominance of the scientific picture of the world, which today is not perceived as something integral. The emergence of ethical deviations in research activities-falsification and fabrication of results, plagiarism, pursuit of formal indicators, etc., are associated both with the attitudes of the scientists themselves and with ineffective management approaches. The informants consider the reputation of a scientist to be the most effective tool for maintaining the ethical foundations of research activities. They understand it as symbolic capital convertible into social capital: the importance of reputation is determined by the need for joint work, inclusion in teams, and collaboration of researchers. Reputation is the most important mechanism for self-regulation of the scientific community and is based on both formal indicators (publications, citation index, etc.) and informal professional and personal qualities of the researcher. The ability to respond to ethical challenges and independently overcome deviations that are destructive to research activities is the most important component of the human potential of the Russian scientific community.