The question of who the duty bearers for the right to science remains open until now. In 2015, it was claimed that the ‘supply side’ for the right to science is particularly challenging because the production of science and access to its benefits occur simultaneously and that, ‘As a result, what one may term the “unbounded” nature of science is in tension with the “bounded” nature of human rights.’Footnote 1 This chapter challenges that claim. Rather than viewing science and human rights as structurally incompatible, it argues that the difficulty in identifying duty bearers stems not from the nature of science itself, but from a conceptual gap in understanding the actors within the scientific ecosystem.
To address this issue, the chapter systematically identifies and analyses key stakeholders who can either facilitate or obstruct the realisation of the right to science. These actors are grouped into four main categories: (1) the state, (2) state agents such as universities, research institutions and public funding bodies, (3) international organisations and (4) non-state actors, including private businesses, individual researchers, publishers and private funding institutions.
A brief clarification of terminology is necessary at the outset. This chapter distinguishes between obligations and duties. Obligations refer to justiciable, legal responsibilities that can be enforced by competent authorities. Duties, by contrast, denote broader moral or social expectations that, while significant in shaping behaviour, do not carry the binding force of law.
Closely related to this is the need to distinguish between the terms ‘private actors’ and ‘non-state actors’. The term ‘private actors’ encompasses those who may act as agents of the state according to the in the ILC’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility (DASR), while ‘non-state actors’ refers to entities whose actions are not attributable to the state and therefore encompass ‘all actors that do not fall within the category of States’.Footnote 2 Therefore, as Alston stated, ‘anything that is not a state, whether it be me, IBM, the IMF, Shell, Sendero Luminoso, or Amnesty International, is conceptualised as a “not-a-state”’.Footnote 3
With these definitional distinctions in place, the chapter turns to its core argument: that the main challenge in identifying duty bearers for the right to science lies not in definitional ambiguity or the global and interdisciplinary nature of science, but in the complexity and diversity of the scientific ecosystem itself. Scientific production and dissemination today involve a growing number of actors – many of them private or international – whose actions can either support or undermine the effective enjoyment of the right to science.
Recognising this complexity, this chapter will analyse each group of potential duty bearers in turn. This step is essential to developing a more nuanced understanding of how responsibilities may be shared or distributed across different actors and to ensuring that the right to science is meaningfully implemented within an evolving and multifaceted global landscape.
7.1 The Science Ecosystem
Science is embedded in a distinctive ecosystem marked by a diverse array of stakeholders who fulfil various roles. Within this ecosystem, states and their agents are pivotal in sustaining the infrastructure of universities, research institutions and funding bodies. It is also important to note the existence of a specialised sub-ecosystem within this framework: the academic ecosystem. The latter is governed by institutional freedom and autonomy and adheres to its own set of rules. The self-governance of universities and the broader higher education sector plays a vital role in this context. International organisations also have a significant impact on the right to science and potentially hinder the realisation of the right to science through intellectual property and trade regulations. The increasing prominence of non-state actors in science and technology highlights their potential to both advance and complicate the right to science and introduce incentives that may warrant closer scrutiny. Individual researchers are essential contributors to the scientific domain and bear considerable responsibilities. Acting as the custodians of scientific knowledge dissemination, publishers play a pivotal role in upholding quality of science through peer review and hold sway over publication decisions. Furthermore, private funding entities substantially contribute to the right to science by enabling research projects that might not receive public funding, which underscores their power in the scientific landscape.
Given the wide array of actors in the science ecosystem, it is essential to contextualise these stakeholders within the framework of positive human rights law in line with the doctrinal approach adopted in this book. Human rights law has traditionally placed the state in the role of primary duty bearer. This role not only entails the responsibility to refrain from potential abuses of power but also a proactive obligation to ensure and promote conditions that are conducive to a life of dignity. In recent decades, however, the distribution of power has shifted. While the state remains central, new loci of authority have emerged beyond the public sphere. Economic, social and cultural actors – many of whom operate transnationally – now wield significant influence over the conditions under which rights, including the right to science, are realised.Footnote 4 The Committee has recognised the significant role of stakeholders such as scientists, universities, publishers, scientific associations, funding agencies, libraries, the media and NGOs in the dissemination of knowledge.Footnote 5 Furthermore, non-state actors such as monopolistic technology companies or research and development firms are increasingly gaining influence. They possess the capacity to control access to information and mould public discourse, which underscores their escalating significance and potential impact.Footnote 6 Consequently, non-state actors now occupy a vital and influential position in the contemporary science ecosystem.
7.2 The State
States are traditionally regarded as the primary duty bearers under human rights law. They operate within a vertical framework of accountability, in which they and their agents bear responsibility for the protection and fulfilment of the rights of individuals within their jurisdiction. This foundational role is affirmed in the UN Charter, which outlines human rights obligations incumbent upon member states (Art. 1(3), 55 and 56), and further codified in Common Art. 2(1) of both the ICCPR and the ICESCR.
The ICESCR reinforces this obligation by specifying that the Covenant applies to all parts of federal states without exception (Art. 28), thereby preventing states from invoking internal constitutional arrangements to evade their treaty obligations. While the ICESCR and other human rights instruments designate ‘state parties’ as the primary bearers of obligations, they do not clearly delineate which specific organs, institutions or agents fall within this designation. This ambiguity has led to reliance on broader principles of public international law – particularly the law of state responsibility – to determine attribution and accountability. In this regard, the framework set out in the ILC’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, an authoritative codification of customary international law, provides essential interpretive guidance.Footnote 7 According to it, the state includes all branches of government,Footnote 8 whether legislative, executive or judicial, and other public governmental authorities, whatever position it holds in the organisation of the state (Art. 4(1) of the DASR). An organ is any person or entity which is considered an organ in accordance with the internal law of the state (Art. 4(2) of the DASR). Furthermore, private parties may also act as agents of the state.
7.2.1 Agents of the State
Identifying the relevant agents of the state is critical to understanding state obligations under the right to science. In human rights law, violations often result from the actions of individuals who either act in an official capacity or whose actions are attributable to the state through recognised doctrines of international responsibility. This includes situations where individuals exceed their authority (ultra vires) or where private actors operate with the state’s consent, acquiescence or under its direction or control.Footnote 9
Attribution of conduct to the state, as articulated in the DASR, encompasses more than the actions of formal state organs. In addition to conduct by officials acting in their official capacity, state responsibility extends to acts performed ultra vires, insofar as the individual is an organ of the state or purports to act as such (Art. 7 DASR).
Further, attribution may occur where private entities perform elements of governmental authority (Art. 5), act under the direction or control of the state (Art. 8) or when the state acknowledges and adopts private conduct as its own (Art. 11). These well-established principles provide a nuanced basis for determining responsibility in complex institutional contexts.
Regarding the right to science, state agents may include government agencies, public universities, schools, scientific foundations and health agencies as key state actors. By contrast, private educational institutions, which require state accreditation but do not typically act as state agents, are considered non-state actors. The following section uses universities, public research institutions and public funding agencies as examples to illustrate the positioning of state agents within the science ecosystem.Footnote 10
7.2.2 Universities, Research Institutions and Funding Agencies
In the research sector, prominent entities such as universities, research institutions and funding agencies play a pivotal role in upholding and promoting human rights – particularly the freedom of science – when acting as state agents. This responsibility is especially significant in public institutions, where improper interference with research agendas, teaching methods or learning environments may compromise the core principles of scientific inquiry, which are fundamentally grounded in the pursuit of truth (see Section 3.2.2.1). Universities, by virtue of their expertise and critical discernment, are particularly well placed to identify gaps in existing knowledge and to recognise the need for new directions in research. Their capacity to guide the course of scientific inquiry is grounded in the understanding that ‘over-regulation distorts or kills intuition’.Footnote 11 The same principle applies to public research institutions, where institutional autonomy is equally vital to cultivating an environment conducive to scientific progress and innovation.
In the context of this book, research institutions are understood as specialised entities distinct from universities, dedicated to conducting research within a clearly defined field. These institutions may be either public or private. Unlike private business entities, their primary aim is often to serve the public interest rather than generate profit. They are typically established to advance knowledge in specific domains that hold societal relevance and benefit.Footnote 12
Funding agencies play a pivotal role in shaping the research landscape, particularly through their strategies for awarding grants and determining eligibility for research schemes – an influence recognised by both the CommitteeFootnote 13 and the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.Footnote 14 A core obligation under the right to science is that priority should be accorded to research in domains where there is an urgent need for scientific advancement during the allocation of public resources (see Section 5.4.2). This includes, but is not limited to, domains such as health, food and other essential sectors closely tied to economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the general well-being of the population. This obligation is especially pressing in relation to vulnerable and marginalised groups, whose needs must be addressed through targeted scientific progress.Footnote 15
Nevertheless, funding decisions often reflect a preference for ‘trendy’ topics. To uphold the freedom of science more effectively, greater emphasis should be placed on increasing core institutional funding and reducing dependence on competitive grant models. In academic environments, recognition and respect from the scientific community should be primary motivators for scientists. However, the current competitive landscape, which focuses on quantity of publications, citations and funding, can result in the proliferation of work with lesser impact. This competitive pressure may overshadow intrinsic motivation, unique methodologies, individual talent and fundamental research, which leads to a shift from quality to quantity and substance to form and an escalation of bureaucratic processes, all of which are detrimental to authentic research.Footnote 16
Moreover, funding agencies wield considerable influence over the direction and autonomy of research through their inclusion or exclusion of specific topics or researchers. A prominent example is the blanket exclusion of Russian scientists from Horizon Europe, a decision that has raised critical concerns about its implications for scientific freedom. Such actions illustrate the far-reaching impact funding bodies can have on scientific careers and the broader research environment.Footnote 17
7.3 International Organisations
States remain responsible for the conduct of agents who act on their behalf. This raises an important question: Can international organisations also be considered bearers of human rights? Moreover, do member states of such organisations still carry human rights obligations upon joining an international organisation? Specifically, what implications would this have for the right to science? These questions are particularly pertinent to the right to science, where international cooperation and institutional involvement are central.
International organisations are commonly categorised as non-state actors, as the definition of non-state actors ‘includes all actors that are not classified as States’.Footnote 18 However, one exception is intergovernmental organisations, which can be considered ‘state-empowered entities’.Footnote 19 The term ‘state-empowered entities’ refers to entities that states have authorised to perform specific functions and may include state representatives.Footnote 20 As a hybrid between state and non-state actors, international organisations are therefore treated in a separate section. International organisations as state-empowered entities reflect the growing trend of states delegating authority to international organisations that possess decision-making capabilities and the authority to issue binding resolutions.Footnote 21 Moreover, international organisations are increasingly involved in supporting projects – financially or otherwise – that could potentially infringe upon human rights. Agents of such organisations may also breach human rights norms when acting ultra vires.Footnote 22
7.3.1 Legal Responsibility of International Organisations under International Law
A preliminary answer to the question about the responsibility of international organisations can be found in the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations and their Member States (DARIO).Footnote 23 These closely mirror the DASR.Footnote 24 According to the DARIO, an international organisation bears responsibility for actions undertaken by its organs or agents that breach international obligations. Furthermore, international organisations are held accountable when they make decisions that oblige member states to engage in conduct that, if committed by the organisation itself, would violate international law.Footnote 25
Against this backdrop, the ICJ outlined as early as 1980 that international organisations are ‘bound by any obligations incumbent upon them under general rules of international law, under their constitutions or under international agreements to which they are parties’.Footnote 26 The Committee stressed that international organisations are also bound by human rights obligations established in key documents such as the UDHR, which form part of customary international law and general principles of law, which are sources of international law. Despite interpretations of the founding agreements of international organisations that suggest otherwise, these institutions must integrate human rights considerations into their decision-making processes. This stance is not concerned with overstepping their authority or focusing on irrelevant issues but rather fulfilling the responsibilities entrusted to them by their Member States without violating human rights. Moreover, entities of the United Nations system, such as the IMF, the World Bank or World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), must align their actions with the purposes of the UN Charter, which include the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms through international economic and social cooperation.Footnote 27
7.3.2 Human Rights Obligations of International Organisations
With regard to states as members of international organisations, the Committee emphasised that states’ participation in international organisations must not disregard their human rights obligations. The Committee has consistently advocated for the integration of the protection of fundamental economic, social and cultural rights into the policies and programmes of these organisations to the fullest extent possible. It emphasised that, as members of such bodies, states have a responsibility to uphold human rights standards.Footnote 28 This principle has been reaffirmed in a number of general comments, which underscored that the delegation of powers to these organisations or the exercise of voting rights within them without consideration of the human rights implications constitutes a breach of obligations.Footnote 29 This requirement also applies to states that are not party to the ICESCR, as these obligations are rooted in general international law. States remain accountable for human rights even when they act in accordance with the rules of an international organisation, which highlights the non-negotiable nature of these obligations in all facets of international engagement.Footnote 30
7.3.3 The Role of International Organisations in the Realisation of the Right to Science (WIPO and the WTO)
International organisations, especially those that focus on intellectual property and trade such as the WIPO and the World Trade Organization (WTO), play a significant role in the context of the right to science. They can either facilitate or obstruct its realisation through their policies and practices. In recent decades, there has been a continuous expansion of intellectual property and trade laws; this is characterised by a marked trend towards heightened protection and exclusion, as demonstrated by the adoption of legal frameworks such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Since intellectual property and trade law have their own ‘ethos’, it is unsurprising that the interests protected under these legal regimes may run contrary to those protected under human rights law and, more specifically, the right to science. As one might expect, interests under intellectual property and trade law grow stronger since more time and focus from states, academics and practitioners (including private economic actors and lobbies) have been invested in the institutionalisation of these legal regimes, whereas the right to science remained neglected, under-developed and consequently under-used.Footnote 31 This is especially the case when, for instance, access to scientific progress and its applications are regulated through patents.
7.3.4 Intellectual Property Law and the Right to Science: A Tense Relationship
Patents provide inventors with a temporary monopoly to exploit their developed technology, but current patent laws suffer from overprotection. This leads to high prices for patented products and reduced productivity in the technology sector. Innovation is further hampered by the granting of inadequate patents for inventions that do not meet robust criteria of non-obviousness and, in developing countries, the requirement to pay excessive royalties to develop patented technology.Footnote 32 The issue of vaccine equity during the COVID-19 pandemic starkly highlighted this aspect.Footnote 33
Specifically in the context of the right to science, the Committee noted the complex impact of the intertwining of private scientific research and intellectual property laws on the right to science in its General Comment No. 25 on science and ESC rights.Footnote 34 This subject has also garnered increased attention in scholarly discourse.Footnote 35 Intellectual property laws can drive science and technology development by offering economic incentives such as patents and fostering private sector engagement. However, they may also hinder scientific progress and access to its benefits. Key issues include the fact that intellectual property laws often favour commercially viable projects and sideline critical areas such as neglected diseases. Additionally, certain intellectual property regulations in TRIPS-Plus treaties limit knowledge sharing, and the high cost of scientific publications restricts access to science for researchers in low-income or developing countries. Furthermore, while intellectual property stimulates innovation, it can also restrict access to scientific advancements that are essential for realising other rights (e.g. health), particularly when patents lead to high prices for essential products and services.Footnote 36
The tension between exclusive rights and the human right to access the benefits of scientific progress becomes even more complex in light of Art. 15(1)(c) ICESCR, which guarantees the right of everyone ‘to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author’. This provision recognises the author’s moral and material interests as a human right, distinct from but often conflated with intellectual property rights. However, this human right remains rarely invoked in practice, which is puzzling given the expanding global emphasis on intellectual property protection. Importantly, Art. 15(1)(c) does not equate to intellectual property law as codified in domestic or international regimes. The human right of authorship is not intended to serve corporate or purely economic interests but rather to protect the individual creator’s dignity and autonomy.Footnote 37
In the context of the right to science, the gap between authors’ rights and access rights could be addressed through a case-by-case balancing of interests between the rights holder and the public, mediated by state actors such as patent offices or judicial bodies. This approach would align with Art. 4 ICESCR, which permits limitations on ESC rights only if determined by law, compatible with the nature of these rights, and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. A nuanced application of this provision could facilitate a more equitable reconciliation between the protection of authors and the collective right of access to scientific benefits.
In summary, with regard to the two international organisations highlighted in this chapter, the WTO and WIPO, the determination of their status as duty bearers is somewhat sobering in the context of the right to science. Both organisations are bound by human rights obligations, as the rights established in the UDHR have reached the status of customary law and the right to science is enshrined in Art. 27 UDHR. Given that WIPO is a specialised agency of the UN, it is additionally bound to the principles outlined in the UN Charter, which include the realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms (one of the UN’s core purposes). Furthermore, it is evident that states, as members of these international organisations, must not neglect their human rights obligations. Yet, international organisations such as the WTO are comprised of states and their policies are primarily shaped by the interests of these member states. Thus, newcomers frequently have little choice but to adhere to existing rules to secure their position within the organisation. Whether a well-defined right to science can effectively counteract this dynamic remains an open question.
7.4 Non-State Actors
The contemporary landscape of scientific research reveals a growing influence of non-state actors, a development with important implications for the realisation of the right to science. Traditionally, international human rights law has centred on states as the primary duty bearers. However, the increasing involvement of private entities in research, funding and the dissemination of scientific knowledge challenges this state-centric paradigm. This shift has prompted debate over whether non-state actors should also be recognised as bearers of responsibilities under the right to science.
Critiques of the state-centred model point to its limitations in addressing contemporary challenges. These include the expanding dominance of private research initiatives, often driven by market incentives, and the reinforcement of intellectual property regimes that can impede equitable access to the benefits of scientific progress. In such contexts, the risk of conflicts of interest becomes more pronounced, especially when scientific agendas are shaped by private economic interests rather than public welfare.
Against this backdrop, the role of non-state actors in both facilitating and obstructing scientific advancement deserves closer scrutiny. The evolving nature of scientific inquiry and its societal implications require a reconsideration of the responsibilities of non-state actors in supporting or undermining human rights, including the right to science.
7.4.1 Defining Non-State Actors
Non-state actors as understood in this book are all actors that do not fall under the category of statesFootnote 38 and whose actions are not attributable to the state, such as business entities, transnational corporations,Footnote 39 professional bodies, civil society organisations, international organisations and armed opposition groups.Footnote 40
In particular, business entities and transnational corporations have become major players in the global economy. They influence trade, investment and technology transfer and possess coveted investment capital and technological assets. Given that business entities can exert influence that is comparable to or even surpasses that of states, the question of whether they should bear human rights duties becomes increasingly urgent. This issue is particularly pertinent in the context of the right to science, in which research and innovation are not exclusively the purview of state-run entities but also occur within private research institutions and corporations. In such scenarios, international human rights law can have direct or indirect horizontal effects.Footnote 41
7.4.2 Direct or Indirect Horizontal Effects of Human Rights Law
The direct horizontal effects of human rights law on non-state actors can accrue via international human rights law or criminal law. Yet, there are very few instances in which human rights instruments outline a direct horizontal effect. For example, the preamble to the UDHR and the ICESCR states that ‘every individual and every organ of society’ has duties in human rights. However, it does not elaborate on the bearer or content of such duties.Footnote 42 An indirect horizontal effect on non-state actors stems from the obligation to protect, which requires the state to protect people against harmful activities undertaken by non-state actors and to prevent violations by non-state actors. The obligation to protect against non-state actors is indirect because it is rooted in international law but manifests within the domain of national law when the state fulfils its corresponding obligation to implement non-legislative and/or legislative measures (see Section 8.2).Footnote 43
7.4.3 Responsibilities of Non-State Actors
Given the constraints associated with the direct or indirect horizontal effects of human rights law, the increasing involvement of non-state actors in human rights abuses has recently spurred various international initiatives, predominantly in the area of business and human rights and in relation to the issue of corporate social responsibility (see Section 7.4.4.1). In recent years, efforts to extend human rights duties to non-state actors have resulted in the adoption of various soft law instruments such as the UN Global Compact Initiative,Footnote 44 the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,Footnote 45 and the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises developed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).Footnote 46 In 2011, the UN endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (also known as the Ruggie Principles or UNGPs).Footnote 47 This soft law instrument serves as a foundational framework for establishing human rights standards that are applicable not only to states but also intergovernmental organisations and non-state actors that are engaged in business activities.
Furthermore, the DASR outlines that a direct responsibility ‘may accrue directly to any person or entity other than the state’ (Art. 33(2) of the DASR). In addition, Art. 29 UDHR provides for ‘duties to the community’ and the preamble to the UDHR states that it directly addresses individuals and organs of society. Similarly, the preambles to the ICESCR and the ICCPR also directly address individuals. This implies that human rights are not only addressed to states but also every individual and organ of society. Furthermore, as with Art. 30 UDHR, Common Art. 5(1) ICESCR and the ICCPR outlines that no entity, whether a state, group or individual, has the right to undermine or excessively limit the rights and freedoms outlined in the ICESCR. These observations illustrate that human rights extend beyond states to include non-state actors.
In summary, while it is true that only states are signatories to human rights treaties and therefore the main duty bearers of human rights, non-state actors also have certain responsibilities within the human rights framework.Footnote 48
7.4.4 Non-State Actors under the Right to Science
This section examines in detail the roles and responsibilities of various non-state actors in the scientific ecosystem: business entities, individual researchers and the scientific community, publishers and private funding agencies. This analysis considers not only their contributions to scientific advancement but also the extent to which they are expected to operate within the parameters established by human rights law. While such responsibilities may, in some cases, be grounded in binding legal obligations imposed by the state, they often manifest through voluntary commitments, including internal codes of conduct and self-regulatory mechanisms. The discussion draws primarily on the normative framework of international human rights law, while also incorporating relevant soft law instruments and ethical standards. This dual approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of obligations borne by non-state actors in relation to the right to science.
7.4.4.1 Business Entities
A particular group that has gained considerable global influence, including within the scientific ecosystem, is business entities. This is particularly evident in the context of the right to science, in which a significant portion of scientific progress and technological development is increasingly occurring in the corporate environment. While business entities have considerable power to advance the right to science, they can also sometimes impede its realisation. For instance, pharmaceutical companies may restrict access to medicine through high pricing or stringent patent enforcement, which limits access to essential medicines. However, they can also foster the right to science by adopting flexible patents, setting fair prices and funding research on neglected diseases. Similarly, biotechnology firms may restrict access to crucial genetic materials through patents and affect research and development in vital areas such as agriculture and medicine. However, they also have the potential to promote science by engaging in fair licensing and collaborating with public institutions. Likewise, technology companies may misuse their control over digital platforms to spread misinformation, but they can counteract this by ensuring access to accurate information, fighting mis- and disinformation and backing open-source scientific tools.
a The Role of Business Entities in Relation to the Right to Science
The Committee has issued several general comments regarding the role of business entities within the scope ICESCR.Footnote 49 In 2011, it also issued a statement on state obligations related to corporate responsibilities in the context of Covenant rights.Footnote 50 Finally, in 2017, the Committee published its General Comment No. 24 on state obligations under the ICESCR in the context of business activities.Footnote 51 In the context of the right to science, the Committee noted that contemporary research is frequently undertaken by corporations and various non-state entities. It addressed the role of business entities within the scope of the right to science by observing that a significant proportion of scientific research is now undertaken by these enterprises and other non-state actors. While this aligns with the Covenant and contributes to the realisation of the right to participate in and benefit from scientific progress, the extensive privatisation of scientific research can sometimes be counterproductive to the right to science. The Committee indicated that conflicts of interest may emerge when private entities fund research that is directly tied to their economic interests, as historically evidenced by certain tobacco company practices. To safeguard the integrity of scientific research and the public’s right to benefit from it, mechanisms to disclose real or perceived conflicts of interest are needed, including the alignment of intellectual property regimes with the right to science to ensure transparent and ethical research practices.Footnote 52
The case of Theranos offers a stark example of how corporate conduct can adversely impact the right to science. The company claimed its technology could conduct comprehensive blood tests using only a few drops of blood – claims that were not backed by scientific evidence. The fraudulent nature of these assertions not only deceived investors and misled the public but also diverted attention and resources away from legitimate scientific inquiry. The conviction of Theranos’s Chief Executive Officer, Elizabeth Holmes, to eleven years in prison for fraud underscores the legal consequences of exploiting science for private gain. Moreover, the scandal prompted shifts in investment practices, such as the growing insistence on scientific due diligence and the institutionalisation of advisory boards – an evolution that speaks to the need for greater accountability among business actors in the scientific field.Footnote 53
b Towards Corporate Social Responsibilities and Beyond?
The current trajectory of international law in regulating the adverse human rights impacts of global business activity is gradually shifting from voluntary corporate social responsibility frameworks towards legally binding standards. The past decade, which has been particularly marked by the adoption of the UNGPs and increased scholarly attention towards business and human rights, has witnessed a significant shift.Footnote 54 Initially, companies addressed human rights impacts of their conduct through voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives. However, the effectiveness of these measures has come under scrutiny and led to a movement towards making corporate respect for human rights a legal mandate. Some states have begun to enact legislation to regulate the overseas activities of companies based in their territory. This includes both domestic laws with an extraterritorial scope and direct extraterritorial legislation.Footnote 55 In particular, European states are leading this transition and proposing directives and regulations that require companies to conduct human rights due diligence and hold them accountable for their global operations.Footnote 56 A shift towards a legal obligation for business entities to adhere to human rights would be an important step forward for the right to science; it would not only ensure that everyone can benefit from scientific progress and its applications but also protect individuals from the potentially negative impacts of scientific progress and promote the equitable distribution of its benefits.
7.4.4.2 Individual Researchers and the Scientific Community
Researchers are at the forefront of the scientific ecosystem and play a crucial role not only in the advancement of human knowledge but also its application. Recognised as rights holders, they for example enjoy the freedom of science, as protected under Art. 15(3) ICESCR (see Section 5.4.3). However, the dual-use nature of scientific research – meaning it can serve both civilian and military purposes – highlights the more complex and potentially problematic dimensions of their role. Even research conducted with the most honourable intentions may ultimately be co-opted for harmful ends.Footnote 57 This reality raises a critical and underexplored question: should researchers be considered duty bearers under the right to science, entrusted with the responsibility of exercising due care and ethical judgement in the conduct and dissemination of their scientific work?
Art. 29(1) UDHR states that everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his or her personality is possible. The universal enjoyment of human rights entails the recognition and acceptance of a dual set of duties: the duty to exercise restraint in the exercise of one’s own freedoms and the duty to contribute to the enjoyment of rights by others.Footnote 58 The idea that researchers also possess duties in the pursuit of scientific inquiry is well-reflected in different ethical guidelines or codes of conduct, which also impose a certain duty of self-regulation (see Section 8.3.3). Given the universal and interconnected nature of human rights, the exercise of one’s freedoms and rights should be balanced with the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of rights by others. While researchers enjoy the freedoms of scientific inquiry (see Section 5.4.3), they must also conduct responsible research. These duties stem from the right to be protected from risks of harm to scientific progress and its applications, which can ultimately result in a limitation of the scientific freedom of researchers (see Chapter 8).Footnote 59
This dual responsibility underscores the essential role of researchers in upholding both scientific integrity and human rights standards. It demands a balanced approach to scientific freedom – one that weighs the value of unfettered inquiry against the ethical, legal and societal implications of research.Footnote 60 In certain instances, this balance may warrant a restriction of rights and freedoms under Art. 29(2) UDHR and Art. 4 ICESCR, in order to ensure that scientific progress serves the public good rather than undermines it.Footnote 61
7.4.4.3 Publishers
Publishers play a critical role in the scientific ecosystem and underpin its very structure. They act as gatekeepers, a role that encompasses a variety of key functions. These range from the management of manuscript submissions to the organisation of peer review processes and include the vital assessment of the integrity, impact and novelty of submissions. Thus, publishers’ actions ensure rigorous scrutiny of the scientific discourse and that the resulting output is of the highest standard and promotes the advancement of knowledge across disciplines.Footnote 62
Moreover, publishers are central to the dissemination of research, which they facilitate through a range of media – including academic journals, books and, increasingly, research objects such as datasets, software code and methodological protocols. This process of dissemination is crucial for enabling other researchers to access, replicate and build upon existing work, thereby promoting a cumulative and collaborative scientific process. As such, publishers and their appointed editors bear the responsibility to ensure that all published outputs meet stringent standards of scholarly integrity and contribute meaningfully to the public body of scientific knowledge.
Despite their indispensable role, publishers also wield considerable influence over the scientific ecosystem, a power that can have significant implications for the enjoyment of the right to science.Footnote 63 For example, their control over what is published can inadvertently lead to forms of censorship.Footnote 64 Moreover, publishers are central to the structural issues within the publishing system that hinder equitable access to scientific knowledge. One such issue is the increasing concentration within the publishing sector, which has contributed to a steady rise in subscription prices.Footnote 65 Recent publishing practices have come under scrutiny, such as the use of tools to monitor user dataFootnote 66 and the imposition of high article processing charges (APCs). While intended to remove paywalls for readers, APCs risk shifting the financial burden onto authors, thereby introducing new forms of exclusion – particularly for researchers from the Global South, who often lack the institutional support to absorb these costs.Footnote 67 Indeed, studies have indicated a persistent trend of hyperinflation in the academic publishing industry, reinforcing existing inequalities in access to scientific output.Footnote 68 While publishers are indispensable to the scientific community, there is an emerging need to address these challenges to ensure equitable access to scientific knowledge and participation in science.
7.4.4.4 Private Funding Agencies
Beyond the public sector, private funding agencies are increasingly influential actors in the global research and development landscape. Organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Ford Foundation possess a high degree of operational flexibility compared to their governmental counterparts. This flexibility is largely attributable to their independence from public accountability mechanisms and the diversity of their funding sources, which allows them to support more exploratory, unconventional or high-risk projects.
Often at the forefront of innovation, these agencies tend to back initiatives that may struggle to secure public funding due to their speculative nature, long timelines or uncertain outcomes. Their capacity to assume such risks, however, is made possible by the stability and infrastructure established by publicly funded research. In this regard, private funding agencies benefit from a symbiotic relationship with the public research sector, leveraging its foundational work to pursue more novel or experimental ventures with comparatively lower risk.Footnote 69
However, it is important to recognise that private funding agencies do not operate in isolation. Their actions are situated within a wider scientific and funding ecosystem with a complex interplay of influence and responsibility. While private funding agencies can certainly promote laudable scientific endeavours through their funding decisions, there is an inherent risk that they could use their power for less virtuous purposes. The potential for such abuse of influence underscores the need for vigilance and accountability in the management of private funding of scientific research.Footnote 70
7.5 Conclusion
This chapter mapped out the diverse landscape of duty bearers responsible for realising the right to science. Rather than accepting the idea that the ‘unbounded’ nature of science inherently conflicts with the ‘bounded’ nature of human rights, the analysis contextualised this tension within the specific structure of the scientific ecosystem. It demonstrated that the realisation of this right depends not only on legal norms but also on the interplay of various actors with different levels of influence and responsibility.
Duty bearers of the right to science were divided into three categories: the state, international organisations and non-state actors.
The chapter began by reaffirming the state’s role as the central duty bearer under international human rights law. States do not merely hold abstract obligations; they also act through concrete institutional structures – public universities, research institutions and funding agencies – that uphold scientific infrastructure. These state agents shape the conditions under which science is conducted and disseminated.
The discussion then turned to international organisations, which wield increasing influence in areas that directly affect the right to science, such as intellectual property and trade. Although states remain the primary legal duty bearers, they often delegate regulatory powers to these organisations. As ‘state-empowered’ entities, organisations such as the WTO and WIPO exercise authority that blurs the line between state and non-state action. The discussion underscored that states cannot forsake their human rights duties through involvement in international organisations and critiqued the potential impact of international organisations’ policies on the right to science. Finally, the section concluded with a sobering view of the status of international organisations as duty bearers in the context of the right to science. It acknowledged the challenges posed by existing legal frameworks and the pressing need for these organisations and their member states to align their policies with human rights obligations.
The final section addressed non-state actors – business entities, researchers, publishers and private funding bodies – who increasingly shape the scientific landscape. These actors do not hold binding legal obligations under human rights treaties in the same way that states do, yet their decisions have tangible consequences for the availability, direction and accessibility of scientific progress. While business entities influence research through funding and innovation, they can also distort scientific priorities when profit motives override the public interest. Researchers, as both rights holders and potential duty bearers, must balance their scientific freedom with a responsibility to prevent harm and uphold ethical standards. Publishers and private funding agencies, for their part, shape which research is disseminated, who gains access to it and who is able to participate in science – critical questions at the heart of the right to science.
Taken together, these findings challenge the assumption that only states bear responsibility for human rights. In practice, the implementation of the right to science requires a broader and more integrated model of accountability – one that reflects the interdependent nature of the actors involved. States must fulfil their obligations not only through their own conduct but also by regulating or cooperating with international and private actors. International organisations must align their operations with human rights standards, even when navigating powerful commercial interests. Non-state actors must recognise the social impact of their decisions and embrace ethical frameworks that support open, inclusive and responsible scientific inquiry.
Understanding duty bearers through the lens of the right to science offers a richer and more realistic view of where power lies – and where responsibility must follow. This chapter makes clear that advancing the right to science is not a matter of legal theory alone. It is a practical, political and ethical undertaking that requires coordinated engagement across sectors. In this sense, realising the right to science is a shared task: states may carry the weight of formal obligation, but only a collective commitment across the science ecosystem can turn this right from promise into practice.
Open access