Scientific environment and researcher's creativity in the era of artificial intelligence

Relevance. Many contemporary studies in the field of scientific creativity are characterized by fragmentation. Although psychological, cognitive, sociological, and value approaches allow us to examine individual aspects, they do not provide a holistic understanding of the conditions in which scientific knowledge is formed and reproduced. In the context of the active digitalization of science, this limitation is becoming especially noticeable.
The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual model of the scientific environment that can be used to describe its structure and explain the mechanisms underlying the development of scientific creativity.
The objectives of the study include: identifying the limitations of existing approaches to studying the conditions of scientific creativity; constructing a multi-level model of the scientific environment and describing the interactions between its elements; and analyzing the transformations associated with the introduction of artificial intelligence tools into scientific research.
Methodology. The study is based on a synthesis of social epistemology, philosophy of science, and science and technology studies. Analytical modeling is used, which involves identifying the levels of the scientific environment and formalizing their interactions in the form of a graph structure.
Results. A model is proposed that incorporates interconnected levels of the scientific environment and a crosscutting temporal dimension. It is shown that key properties of the environment are shaped not by individual elements, but by the configuration of connections between them. The applicability of the model is demonstrated using the example of the transformation of research practices in bioinformatics.
Conclusions. The introduction of intelligent technologies is restructuring the scientific environment, affecting both the instrumental, cognitive, and social aspects of scientific creativity.

1. Kasavin I.T. Scientific creativity as a social phenomenon. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki = Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2022;59(3):6–18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259336.

2. Kasavin I.T. Cognition and creativity. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki = Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2010;24(2):5–16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5840/eps201024226.

3. Kasavin I.T. Epistemology today: ideas, problems, discussions. Nizhny Novgorod: Izdatelstvo Nizhegorodskogo gosuniversiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo; 2018. 413 p. (In Russ.)

4. Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Moscow: Izdatel'skii dom Vysshei ekonomicheskoi shkoly; 2014. 384 p. (In Russ.)

5. Latour B., Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1986. 294 p.

6. Hutchins E. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. 381 p.

7. Knorr-Cetina K.K. Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 2007;32(4):361–375. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801807X 163571.

8. Pruzhnin B.I. Ratio serviens?: outlines of cultural-historical epistemology. Moscow: ROSSPEN; 2009. 422 p. (In Russ.)

9. Kasavin I.T., Porus V.N. Philosophy of science: existential turn. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki = Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2023;60(4):7–21. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202360452 (In Russ.)

10. Bergson A. Duration and simultaneity. Saint Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt; 2006. 154 p. (In Russ.)

11. Nawaz M.A., Pamirsky I.E., Golokhvast K.S. Bioinformatics in Russia: history and present-day landscape. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2024;25(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbae513.

12. Orlov Y.L. Bioinformatics methods in medical genetics and genomics. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020;21(17):6224. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21176224.

13. Jumper J., Evans R., Pritzel A., et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596(7873):583–589. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.

14. Hacking I. Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Moscow: Logos; 1998. 296 p. (In Russ.)

15. Price D.J. de Solla. Little Science, Big Science… and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press; 1986. 301 p.

16. Merton R.K. Social theory and social structure. Moscow: AST; 2006. 873 p. (In Russ.)

17. Petrov M.K. Language. Sign. Culture. 2nd ed. Moscow: URSS; 2004. 328 p. (In Russ.)

18. Polanyi M. Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Moscow: Progress; 1985. 344 p. (In Russ.)

19. Pruzhnin B.I. The problem of typologization of scientific knowledge in the context of culturalhistorical epistemology. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki = Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2022;59(3):81–97. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259343.

20. Kasavin I.T., Sakharova A.V. Creativity is not an essence, but an existence! Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki = Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2023;60(1):50–59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.5840/eps20236015.