Quantifying ethics: Dilemmas in the governance of contemporary science

Scientific integrity constitutes the ethical and methodological foundation of knowledge production, ensuring its credibility and social legitimacy. However, in today’s culture of quantification, ethics runs the risk of becoming a set of metrics and protocols that replace moral reflection and individual responsibility. This article first develops this argument in general terms and then examines it through a case study of Peru, where the adaptation of global integrity instruments to a developing scientific system raises particular challenges. In this context, the Research Integrity Risk Index (RI 2 ) represents a global attempt to assess institutional ethical risks, but it also raises dilemmas about governance and scientific autonomy. Ethics in research has evolved from a personal practice based on moral commitment to an institutional control structure. This change, driven by scientific globalization and cases of fraud, gave rise to integrity indices and indicators that seek to ensure transparency and accountability. However, their application in unequal contexts, such as Peru, can lead to structural inequalities and evaluative distortions if they are not adapted to local realities. The RI 2 helps to highlight ethical vulnerabilities and strengthen scientific governance, but it can lead to an ethic of compliance rather than commitment. In Peru, its adoption requires a formative and participatory approach that combines metrics with ethical deliberation. Only a situated and contextual ethics can balance transparency and autonomy, preventing the measurement of integrity from becoming an instrument of surveillance rather than institutional learning.