Conceptualization of scientific sovereignty in the context of global transformations

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.