Conceptualization of scientific sovereignty in the context of global transformations

Abstract. The article is devoted to the conceptualization of scientific sovereignty as one of the key factors of national security amid geopolitical fragmentation and the crisis of the global neoliberal model of science organization. The aim of the study is to systematize theoretical approaches to defining scientific sovereignty and identify its structural components. To achieve this goal, the paper undertakes a critical analysis of the global academic architecture, a historical-genetic reconstruction of the evolution of science-state relations, and an identification of the key threats to intellectual independence.
The methodological framework of the research comprises an interdisciplinary synthesis of Robert Merton’s classical sociology of science, Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory, Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems analysis, and the concepts of cognitive capitalism. This approach allows science to be examined as a complex social institution, a hierarchical global system, and a network of heterogeneous elements.
As the main result, the authors propose an original definition of scientific sovereignty, understood as a state’s capacity to independently determine its science and technology development priorities, ensure the reproduction of its scientific potential, protect critical areas of research from external pressure, and participate in international scientific cooperation on an equal footing. A five-component structure of the phenomenon is identified and elaborated, encompassing the epistemological, technological, institutional, human capital, and informational components. For each component, diagnostic indicators are proposed, along with a four-step mechanism for applying the model in science and technology policy (audit, vulnerability mapping, development of strategic measures, monitoring).
The theoretical significance of the work lies in shifting the discussion of scientific sovereignty from the realm of political rhetoric to that of operationalizable categories. Its practical significance stems from the proposed structural model, which can serve as a diagnostic tool for assessing vulnerabilities in national scientific systems and for formulating state science and technology policies.

1. Abramova, A. (2025). The concept of developing scientific and technological sovereignty of the regional electric power ecosystem. Energy Policy, (4), 42–51. EDN: BPYBEZ (in Russian)

2. Bondarenko, V.M. (2022). Scientific and technological sovereignty of Russia: conditions and ways to achieve it. Theoretical Economy, (10), 78–91. EDN: ADMNMA (in Russian)

3. Evstafiev, D.G., & Mezhevich, N.M. (2022). Competition of sovereignty models as a basis for the transition to a post-global world. Contemporary Europe, (5), 146–159. (in Russian)

4. Eremchenko, O.A. (2025). Brain drains from the agricultural sector: the impact of personnel shortages on innovative development of the rural economy. Economics of Science, 11(3), 83–96. EDN: HLPZXL (in Russian)

5. Erokhin, V.V. (2025). The value of knowledge in the age of the knowledge economy. Economics of Science, 11(1), 39–49. EDN: KIZEXK (in Russian)

6. Konstantinov, I.B., & Konstantinova, E.P. (2022). Technological sovereignty as a strategy for the future development of the Russian Economy. Bulletin of the Volga Region Institute of Administration, 22(5), 12–22. EDN: VEETIV (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.22394/1682-2358-2022-5-12-22

7. Kulagina, N.A., & Garipova, V.V. (2025). Monitoring regional technological development and sovereignty: an organizational mechanism. Economics of Science, 11(4), 24–37. EDN: OJWIDC (in Russian)

8. Latour, B. (2017). Visualization and cognition: drawing wings together. Logos, 27(2), 95–156. (in Russian)

9. Makeev, A.A. (2022). Core-periphery relations in world-system analysis: political aspects. Jjournal of political research, 6(4), 69–82. EDN: DMHSLN (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.12737/2587-6295-2022-6-4-69-82

10. Maharajh, R. (2025). Scientific and technological sovereignty: Challenges of our contemporary conjuncture. Valdai Discussion Club. Retrieved March 3, 2026, from https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/scientific-andtechnological-sovereignty-challenge/ (in Russian)

11. Namadov, V.D., & Baurina, S.B. (2025). Policy of technological sovereignty in an open economy: key aspects and limitations. Economic Sciences, (248), 213–219. EDN: DPYPUO (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.14451/1.248.213

12. Nikolina, N.V. (2023). Sociology of science after Robert Merton. National Research Tomsk State University (in Russian)

13. Orlov, A.I. (2021). The harm of focusing on Scopus and Web of Science databases. In Russia: Trends and Development Prospects (Iss.16, Part 1, 835–840). Retrieved March 3, 2026, from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/vred-orientatsii-na-bazy-dannyh-scopus-i-web-of-science (in Russian)

14. Polukhina, V.D. (2025). Technological nationalism as a factor in the struggle for leadership among the leading states in the international arena (using the example of Russia, the USA, and China). International Relations, (1), 159–175. EDN: YWCMVA (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0641.2025.1.72318

15. Popov, E., Popova, N., & Kochetkov, D. (2017). On the phenomenon of scientific imperialism. Society and Economics, (6), 107–123. EDN: YSPICR (in Russian)

16. Primakov, E.M. (2012). Reindustrialization or post-industrialization? Direct Investments, (3), 3. EDN: OPZLUT (in Russian)

17. Romashov, R.A., Romashova, G.T., & Safin, Z.F. (2026). Public law foundations for ensuring scientific sovereignty within the cis space. The Rule-of-Law State: Theory and Practice, (1), 207–214. EDN: VEMFXM (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2026.1.21

18. Rybachuk, M.A. (2025). Axiomatization of project solutions in the construction of agent-based models of innovative technological systems. Economics of Science, 11(4), 38–51. EDN: UBTWOA (in Russian)

19. Semenov, V.A., Zarubin, V.G., & Martyanova, N.A. (2023). Sociology of Robert K. Merton. Yurayt. EDN: AOLAKM (in Russian)

20. Spasennikov, V.V. (2025). Paradoxes of scientometry: ratings of Nobel Prize laureates in economic sciences in international databases. Economics of Science, 11(4), 10–23. EDN: JMVWVR (in Russian)

21. Sukharev, O.S. (2022). The degradation of science and the sovereignty of Russia are incompatible. Economist, (5), 71–85. EDN: IFSAUM (in Russian)

22. Sukharev, O.S. (2024). Technology typification, technological development modes and sovereignty assurance. Stankoinstrument, (4), 24–31. EDN: APCYOJ (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.22184/2499-9407.2024.37.4.24.30

23. Temirbulatova, R.N. (2011). The USSR State Committee for Science and Technology: main areas of activity. In: Control of Motion and Navigation of Aircraft (Part 2, p. 214). Samara: Samara State Aerospace University. (in Russian)

24. Akpoviri, F.I., Baharum, S.N., & Zainol, Z.A. (2023). Digital sequence information and the access and benefitsharing obligation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nanoethics, 17, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-023-00436-3

25. Allmer, T., & Bulut, E. (Eds.). (2018). Academic labour, digital media and capitalism. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 16(1), 44–240. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v16i1.977

26. David, P.A. (2008). The historical origins of ‘open science’: An essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-0213.1040

27. Dupre, J. (1994). Against scientific imperialism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, (2), 374–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1994.2.192948

28. Fumagalli, A., & Morini, C. (2013). Cognitive bio-capitalism, social reproduction and the precarity trap: Why not basic income? Knowledge Cultures, 1(4), 106–126.

29. Hurlbut, J.B. (2017). A science that knows no country: Pandemic preparedness, global risk, sovereign science. Big Data & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717742417

30. Oliveira, T., Marques, F.P. J., Goyanes, M., & Dutta, M. (2025). Structural challenges for the global circulation of knowledge and scientific sovereignty in a multipolar world. Online Media and Global Communication, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2025-0002

31. Slaughter, S. (2005). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306105034005