To realize a science system that demonstrates a relational duty of care to all its participants — including those on the margins, in precarious positions and in support roles — systematic, collaborative and whole-of-community action is needed. We advocate for action that is responsive to diverse geopolitical, cultural and temporal contexts, made global by a shared ethical orientation and mobilization towards a science system that enables individual, collective and scholarly flourishing13.
We see promise in five interconnected pathways, with each intersecting with most or all six conditions of systems change (Fig. 1b):
How we act
We encourage scientific communities and organizations to identify their shared values and uphold contextually responsive ethical and professional principles. For instance, our approach to research at Te Pūnaha Matatini (a Centre of Research Excellence in Aotearoa–New Zealand) is guided by four principles, which are expressed through a Māori lens. Pono, or a commitment to truth and genuineness, provides the foundation principle to guide both the purpose and practice of our research, and thereby frames the following: tika is to undertake research in ways that are just or right for a given context; and tapu is to do so in ways that recognize the intrinsic value, and rights, of every person and thing. Manaakitanga is to do so in ways that enhance reciprocal relationships of care.
How we lead
We encourage a shift towards models of mentorship, learning and respectful collaboration that demonstrate reciprocity and engender trust. Research communities such as Te Pūnaha Matatini offer pathways to pursue relational models in which everyone has something to gain and to give; here, mentoring and advisory roles are built into projects to foster growth into research leadership, with early-career members supported to lead research clusters and applications for seed funding.
How we resource
We support funding models that provide long-term support and equitable access to funding opportunities (for example, as signalled by Canada’s Tri-Agency EDI Action Plan). For example, high-trust, flexible contracting and meaningful investment into relationship building, codesign and growing capability will better enable sustained participatory and transdisciplinary work.
How we evaluate others
Many institutions and funding schemes — even those designed to address complex intergenerational challenges — still rely on narrow market-based metrics such as publication productivity and journal impact factor to evaluate ‘excellence’. We support the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which promotes practical, robust and community-driven approaches to research evaluation14. DORA’s recommendations have informed NSERC Canada’s recent guidelines and the widespread introduction of narrative-style CVs, including in Aotearoa–New Zealand. Initiatives such as these can be used to recognize and affirm diverse expertise, societal impact and care work (such as equity work, mentorship, teaching and peer support) in promotions, hiring and funding decisions.
How we evaluate ourselves
We encourage reflexivity when performing relational duties of care. We urge scientific communities, organizations and funding bodies to recognize diverse histories; to investigate how funding and authority are distributed; to attend to qualitative and quantitative data15 about why people enter, leave and remain in the science system; and to evaluate and adapt policies accordingly. In general, ongoing reflection on how we are situated in relation to others in the science community — including the purpose and consequences of our work — will help to navigate real-world complexity in ways that are consistent with our principles, and which support the messy work of ‘getting along’ in just ways.