In order to question what is research fraud and research ethics, this paper first considered the origin and role of the journal community which manage quality of research of scientific community. Next, this paper examined problems of the peer-review system which is a mechanism maintaining the journal community. Then, we name the publishing system assuring quality of research protected by the modern journal community as “20th century model”, and reconsider the cognitive authority relied on the 20th century model. Through this reconsideration, this paper suggests that research ethics can be considered as being established by converting customs for preserving cognitive authority made by the 20th century model into regulation. Furthermore, if we apply Porter (1995)’s examination on the origin of objectivity, we can see the origin of “autonomy” of scientific community as “response to external pressure”. Contemporary research fraud can be thought of as resistance to researchers’ autonomy against external pressure. Finally, with reference to RRI in Europe, this paper shows the need to rethink the current situation that converting customs in order to protect the 20th century model into regulation, without detailed discussion.

　In Japan, scientific misconduct became a social problem after the STAP cell problem of 2014, which resulted in the reinforcement of research integrity education. On the contrary, in this paper, we focus on the social background that produced scientific misconduct and aim to clarify the transformation of knowledge production including science in the modern society. For this purpose, not only the scientific misconduct but also the peer review and impact factor as a mechanism of knowledge production were analyzed and the theoretical examinations were also conducted critically on PLACE theory and post-normal · science theory. As a result, it has been suggested that social changes after the 1970-80s; such as, the change of the social function of the university, researcher’s precariazation, institutionalization of competition in knowledge production, etc. are structural factors which forced researchers to conduct scientific misconduct. In order to solve the problem of scientific misconduct, ethical education of research integrity on each researcher is not an answer. It is necessary to radically rethink the current state of research and development system in science.

　In Japan, the problem of research inaccuracies, especially in the life science field, has received wide attention. As a result, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology improved guidelines for research integrity defined in 2006, producing new guidelines in 2014. The Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare also produced new guidelines. However, I consider skeptically whether we can solve research inaccuracy problem by mandating ethics education, or tightening rules. I argue that a fundamental issue for the methodology of life science research and for the kind of social changes life science research will bring, is research misconduct. In this paper, I outline from my own experience the actual conditions governing research within the life sciences ― focusing particularly on the regenerative medicine ― and bring out the wider implications.

　Research misconducts （such as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism） threat the credibility of research papers, and we do not have effective means to guard against misconducts. Can the peer review system, or some revision of it, be used to improve the situation by detecting misconducts? This paper tries to answer the question from the viewpoint of social epistemology. There are several studies in social epistemology which deal with peer review and research misconduct. Applying these viewpoints, this paper suggests that even though peer review can detect some research misconducts this cannot be its major function, and that revising the system so that it can also detect misconducts may lead to an overall loss of epistemic merit of peer review.

　In order to conduct research with integrity, researchers need to fulfill various responsibilities. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the role of open scientific communication in fulfilling its responsibilities by scientists. For that purpose, case studies of online discussions after the revelation of data fabrication in archeology were conducted. Case study 1 focused on the responsibility of assuring the quality of the specialized knowledge and skills. For that responsibility, open science communication enables the collaboration among discussants with various expertise and fills up the deficiency in knowledge. Case study 2 focused on the responsibility of scientific autonomy. For that responsibility, open science communication monitors derogations from common practices in science. Case study 3 focused on the responsibility of understanding the relationships between science, technology and society. For that responsibility, open science communication supports mutual understanding with reality and finding problems in the bud.

　“Who should be an author?” is controversial in the scenes of scientific practices where many scientists collaborate and publish articles together. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors （ICMJE） publishes recommendations that set ethical and editorial standards for academic publication including authorship, and those ICMJE’s authorship standards are now adopted in most leading medical journals as well as many scientific journals of other disciplines. Against those standards, however, there are also many criticisms such that they do not consider fair evaluation of academic contribution, and they make fragile the institutional and conceptional basis of authorship. We therefore examine the original meaning of author and responsibility of author, and then propose another authorship standard relying upon autonomy of researchers that takes into consideration varied disciplinary features for originality.

　Management for the Conflict of Interest （COI） should be required to ensure the justice of studies. In Japan, however, the actual procedure such as creating the rules has just started, and the researchers seem not to have sufficiently understood what the COI is. On one hand, the management for the COI on industry-university joint researches has been promoted due to the research misconduct issues with suspicions raised about the impact by the interests of drug companies, and public distrust of such parties concerned. On the other hand, the COI having impact on scientific advice has also been a significant issue and its management has become a challenge. In this document, the opinions influenced by the COI and actual cases are examined, clarifying the real situation in which the private and public interests have often been confused and melt-mixed. On that basis, the insufficient measure by relying on the information disclosure and individual sense of ethics and the necessity of constructing the countermeasure on the structural aspects such as organizations and legislations regarding researches will be suggested for adequate COI management.

　Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research （RCR） is in the midst of a change in Japan. One trigger of the change was the publication of the Guidelines for Responding to Misconduct in Research by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in 2014. Since the announcement of the guidelines, the demand for suitable materials for use in RCR education has raised dramatically. In this paper, I have focused on the effectiveness and limitations of the Japanese version of CITI online educational resources, one of the major online sources of material in Japan when it comes to RCR education in universities. If the quality assurance of a given educational content is reliable, from the learners’ perspective, the online material has advantages in the sense that users can learn anytime, anywhere. From the perspective of the provider, the advantages are that the online platform is cost effective and the content is easy to update. However, online RCR education is not sufficiently effective without supplementary face-to-face group discussions, lectures, mentoring, and adequate organizational support from each learner’s organization. Moreover, active discussion is needed within the research community about the content and methods of RCR education in the context of Japan.

　Among different practices of responsible research and innovation （RRI） in Japan, their key policy agendas including open access, gender equality and public engagement are relatively visible and measurable with reference to diversity, inclusiveness, openness and transparency. Such emphasis might in turn make less visible asymmetric relationship between experts and citizens and backlash of the bulimic society. In the area of ethics and science education, autonomous development of the norm and mimic strategy among expert communities is necessary to facilitate responsiveness and adaptive change at the person cognitive and behavioral level. Anticipatory and reflective governance to connect research, innovation, education and community service and to envision the development of human resources, institutions and communities should reposition the practice of RRI in the public sphere.

　In Japan, “National Security Technology Research Promotion Fund” for dual-use research was started from FY2015. The research funds are provided from Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency （ATLA）. There are concerns about serious affect the research environment of the university. And what is a dual-use research is being discussed in the academic society. In this paper, based on the development of the dual-use concept in the United States, the overview of how to use “dual use” in Japan since the 2000s. As a result, the academic sector has been paying attention since 2011 to the “application ambiguity” which is the new concept. Meanwhile, the government, defense and corporate sector has been developing “military-commercial duality” in the context of “Science and Technology for a Safe and Secure Society” since 2005. The two concepts are not integrated and are discussed separately. I discussed the problem of controversy about “dual use” in Japan using the framework of RRI （Responsible Research and Innovation）. The current discussion is inadequate and it is not responsive to future problems.

　This paper analyzed role and current situation of academic societies for education for Responsible Research and Innovation （RRI）, considering the progress of discussions of RRI. Content analysis of guidelines, statements, and related documents of 52 academic societies in biological fields was conducted. As the result, there are mentions to Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues （ELSI） and science communication, on the other hand, there a few mentions to several important contents of RRI related to inclusion such as “sense for the minorities and the handicapped” and “antidiscrimination”. At the same time, there are few discussions on dual use. It seems that this lack of viewpoints of RRI have same root of narrow understanding of broad impacts of research activities among scholars. We should consider these current situations into future discussions of RRI education.