1、新编研究生综合英语教程 Advanced English for Graduate Students: General Skills &Academic Literacy,Unit One Research and Methodology,Text A Why Teach Research EthicsText B The Nature of Inquiry,In addition to a body of knowledge that includes formulas and facts, science is the practice by which we pursue answers
2、 to the questions that can be approached scientifically. This practice is referred to collectively as scientific research, and while the techniques that scientists use to conduct research may differ between disciplines, like biology, chemistry, geology, physics, or any other scientific field, the un
3、derlying principles and objectives are similar. Now we are at a time in which the need to build trust between science and society is becoming ever more important.,Preface,lt is vital that the conduct of science itself is based on the highest ethical considerations and that misconduct within science
4、itself can be identified and dealt with in an open and transparent manner. Text A, Why Teach Research Ethics, examines the role and importance of ethical education on the part of students and faculty. Beginning with two stories about unconscious misconduct, Judy E. Stern and Deni Elliott bring up th
5、e urgent need to teach ethics in order to ensure a good practice of science.,Such necessity arises from the inadequacy of traditional individual mentoring in helping learn conventions of science. One aspect of research ethics concerns researchers professional spirit in the pursuit of ultimate truth,
6、 that is to say, good science must be conducted through rigorous, systematic and replicable procedure. In Text B, The Nature of Inquiry, the authors will elaborate on how scientific research distinguishes itself from common-sense knowing, how researchers approach reality differently, and what philos
7、ophical assumptions underpin each approach.,Background Information Pre-reading QuestionsText A Why Teach Research Ethics VocabularyExercises,Text A Why Teach Research Ethics,Background Information,Text A Why Teach Research Ethics,Vocabulary,V Writing,Exercises,IV Translation,Why Teach Research Ethic
8、s selected from “The Ethics of Scientific Research” Hanover and London: University Press of New England, Hanover, 1997.,Judy E. Stern & Deni Elliott,Background Information,3. Cultural Background Information,Judy E. Stern is a professor from Giesel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College. Her profess
9、ional interests include outcomes of assisted reproductive technology, ethical issues in assisted reproduction, ethical issues in scientific research and reproductive immunology. D. Elliott is an ethicist and ethics scholar, and has been active in practical ethics since the 1980s.,Background,1. Infor
10、mation about the authors,:Research ethics involves the application of fundamental ethical principles to a variety of topics involving research, including scientific research. These include the design of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic sca
11、ndal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism), whistle blowing; regulation of research, etc. Research ethics is most developed as a concept in medical research. The key agreement here is the 1974 Declaration of Helsinki. The Nuremberg Code is a former agre
12、ement, but with many still important notes. Research in the social sciences presents a different set of issues than those in medical research.,Background,2. Information about research ethics,Research ethics involves the application of fundamental ethical principles to a variety of topics on scientif
13、ic research. These topics include the design and implementation of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism) whistleblowing, regulation of research, etc. R
14、esearch ethics is most developed as a concept in medical research. The key agreement here is the 1974 Declaration of Helsinki. The Nuremberg Code is a former agreement, but Nith many still important notes. Research in social sciences presents a different set of issues than those in medical research.
15、,3. Cultural Background Information,The academic research enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Researchers trust that the results reported by others are sound. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists and other researchers to describe the world acc
16、urately and without bias. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical research conduct.,There are many ethical issues to be taken into serious consideration for research. Sociologists need to be aware
17、of having the responsibility to secure the actual permission and interests of all those involved in the study. They should not misuse any of the information discovered, and there should be a certain moral responsibility maintained towards the participants. There is a duty to protect the rights of pe
18、ople in the study as well as their privacy and sensitivity. The confidentiality of those involved in the observation must be carried out, keeping their anonymity and privacy secure. As pointed out in the BSA for Sociology, all of these ethics must be honored unless there are other overriding reasons
19、 not to do so - for example, any illegal or terrorist activity.,Q1: Do you think ethics are the same as morals? What is research ethics?Q2: Has your supervisor introduced you to the research ethics in your field? If yes, how did he or she do so ?Q3: What do you think is an effective way of preventin
20、g unethical behaviors in scientific study?Q4: What is your personal stance on the academic dishonesty like faking data , stealing ideas, or plagiarism?Q5: In your mind, what are the criteria for a good practice of science?,Pre-reading Questions,Comparison chart,It involves the application of fundame
21、ntal ethical principles to a variety of researches, including scientific research. These include the design and implementation of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data
22、 and plagiarism), whistleblowing(揭发，告密); regulation of research, etc.,Research ethics,Background,South Korean Scientist Hwang Woo-Suk was accused of fabricating data,Professor of Xian Jiaotong University Li Liansheng was deprived of the National Award for plagiarism.,1. Recently, one of us had the o
23、pportunity to speak with a medical student about a research rotation that the student was planning to do. She would be working with Dr. Z, who had given her the project of writing a paper for which he had designed the protocol, collected the data, and compiled the results. The student was to do a li
24、terature search and write the first draft of the manuscript. For this she would become first author on the final publication. When concerns were raised about the proposed project, Dr. Z was shocked. “l thought I was doing her a favor,“ he said innocently, “and besides, I hate writing!“,Text A Why Te
25、ach Research Ethics,1. 最近，我们当中的一员有机会与一名医科学生谈论她正计划要做的一个实验室轮转项目。她将与给她布置论文撰写任务的Dr.Z一起完成该项目。Dr.Z已经设计好研究工具，并收集数据，整理了实验结果。该学生只需做做文献检索，然后撰写初稿。这样，在论文最终出版的时候，她就可以成为第一作者。然而，当该项目受到越来越多非议时， Dr.Z震惊之余无辜地说，“我以为我是在帮她，而我也确实讨厌写作”。,Judy E. Stern & Deni Elliott,2. Dr. Z is perhaps a bit naive. Certainly, most researche
26、rs would know that the students work would not merit first authorship. They would know that “gift“ authorship is not an acceptable research practice. However, an earlier experience in our work makes us wonder. Several years ago, in conjunction with the grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Pott
27、 Secondary Education (FIPSE), a team of philosophers and scientists at Dartmouth College 2 ran a University Seminar series for faculty on the topic “Ethical Issues in scientific Research.“,2. Dr.Z或许有一点天真。当然，大多数研究人员都知道，该学生所做的工作并不称第一作者这个头衔。他们知道，这种“赠予”原创作者头衔的做法，并不是可以接受的科研行为。然而，早期的工作经验使我们产生疑问。若干年前，在高等教育
28、改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一个由哲学家和科学家组成的团队在达特茅斯学院，为全体教员举办以“科学研究中的伦理问题”为主题的系列讲座。,At one seminar, a senior researcher (lets call him Professor R) argued a similar position to that of Dr. Z. In this case Professor R knew that “gift“ authorship, authorship without a significant research contribution, was an unacce
29、ptable research practice. However, he had a reason to give authorship to his student.,在其中一次研讨会上，一个资深研究员（让我们叫他R教授）与Dr.Z持有相似的观点。在这个案例中，R教授明知道把原创作者身份“赠予”没有研究贡献的人是不符合学术道德规范的。然而，他却有理由给他的学生一个作者身份。,The student had worked for several years on a project suggested by him and the project had yielded to publish
30、able data. Believing that he had a duty to the student to ensure a publication, Professor R had given the student some data that he himself had collected and told the student to write it up. The student had worked hard, he said, albeit on another project, and the student would do the writing. Thus,
31、he reasoned, the authorship was not a “gift.“,因为这个学生已经在他所建议的项目上花费了几年的功夫，然而却没能发表任何研究结果。他认为他有责任帮助这名学生发表论文。于是R教授给了该学生一些他自己收集的数据，让其撰写一篇论文。R教授说这名学生一直努力的做项目，尽管不是同一项目，而且该生还负责论文写作，所以他认为原创作者头衔并不算“赠予”。,3. These two stories point up a major reason for encouraging courses in research ethics: Good intentions do
32、not necessarily result in ethical decisions. Both of the faculty members in the above scenarios “meant well.“ In both cases, the faculty members truly believed that what they were doing was morally acceptable. In the first case, Dr. Zs indefensible error was that he was unaware of the conventions of
33、 the field.,3.这两个故事都强调了推动开设科研伦理课程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引导人们做出正确的道德选择。上述两个情节中的教师本意是好的。这两个案例中的教师认为他们所做的事情在道德层面上是可以接受的。在第一个案例中，Dr.Z的解释之所以站不住脚是因为他没有意识到这一领域的公约。,In particular, he seemed blissfully oblivious to the meaning of first authorship. In the second case, Professor R was do ng what he thought best for th
34、e student without taking into consideration that moral. ty is a public system and that his actions with regard to a single student have public consequences for the practice of science as a profession.,而他似乎也遗忘了第一作者的概念。在第二个案例中，R教授自认为他所做的事情都是对他学生最有益的，然而却没有考虑道德是一个公共体系，他对这一名学生的做法却对科学研究产生了公共影响。,4. Well-me
35、aning scientists, such as those just mentioned, can, with the best of intentions, make unethical decisions. In some cases, such decisions may lead individuals to become embroiled in cases of misconduct. A course in research ethics can help such scientists to appreciate that it is their responsibilit
36、y to know professional conventions as well as to understand the public nature of morality.,4. 例如刚刚提到的那些善意的科学家，他们的意图是好的，但却做出了不道德的决定。一些情况下，这样的决定可能会导致个人卷入到学术不端的指控中。科研伦理课程可以帮助这样的科学家明白，他们有责任去了解职业惯例以及公共道德的本质。,5.There are scientists for whom a course in research ethics will be less useful. Efraim Racker, i
37、n a 1989 article, described a student in his lab who was a “professional“ fabricator of data. This student composed lab books without performing experiments, added radioactive material to gels to produce bands where he wished those bands to be, and lied to his colleagues about his actions. Another r
38、esearcher, Elias Alsabti, described by D. J. Miller, was a meticulous plagiarizer.,5. 对于有些科学家来说，科研伦理课程可能作用并不大。Efraim Racker在其1989年发表的文章中描述了一个他实验室里“专业的”数据造假者。这名学生没做实验就拼凑出实验书，在凝胶中添加放射性材料来合成他想要的绷带，并欺瞒他的同事。D. J. Miller描述的另一位研究者Elias Alsabti是一个细心的剽窃者。,This physician-researcher fabricated his curriculum v
39、itae, copied a colleagues grant for his own use, published other peoples data under his own name, and co-authored his pilfered data with fictitious collaborators. Individuals such as these are unlikely to learn research ethics through instruction because they are not interested in becoming ethical p
40、ractitioners.,这位医师编造个人履历，抄袭同事的基金申请书为己所用，以个人名义发表他人数据，并虚构合作者一起用剽窃的数据合写论文。像这样的人是不会通过课程学习研究伦理的，因为他们对学术道德并不感兴趣。,6. The ethics of scientific research is somewhat unique within professional ethics in the sense that good science requires the ethical practice of science. Nevertheless, a course in research et
41、hics cannot and should not have as its central focus the question, “Why should I be moral? This question, while important, is not specific to the field of scientific research.,6. 某种程度上讲，科学研究伦理属于职业道德的范畴，并且是独一无二的。而一定意义上，好的科学研究要求符合道德规范的工作。然而，一门学术伦理课程不能够也不应该把 “我为什么应该遵守道德？”作为焦点问题。这个问题虽然重要，但并不只是具体针对学术研究领域
42、。,正如达特茅斯团队预想的那样，一门学术伦理课程必须教会大家如何就科学研究做出有道德的决策。这将是专门为那些致力于成为遵守道德规范的研究人员而设计的课程。这样的一门课程将会给学生提供这个问题的答案，“我怎样才能做出一个符合道德的决定？”,A course in research ethics, as envisioned by the Dartmouth team, must be a course that teaches the tools for making ethical decisions relative to matters of research. It will be de
43、signed for those scientists who are already committed to being ethical researchers. Such a course should provide students the answers to the question, “How can I make moral decisions?“,7 Although it is the fabricators and the plagiarizers whom we most often think of when we think of research miscond
44、uct, these are not the only people accused of misconduct. They are a so not the only people who are guilty of misconduct. Many other scientists have had live and careers affected by misconduct cases.,7. 虽然当我们思考学术不端时，大多数时候我们想到的是数据造假者或者剽窃者，但是这些人并不是唯一被指控学术不端的人。同样，他们也不是唯一被认定学术不端的人。许多科学家的生活和事业都曾受到了学术不端事件
45、的影响。,8 It is undoubtedly unfair to generalize from a few cases of misconduct to an entire profession. Nevertheless, reported cases of misconduct are not uncommon, and this could reflect a failure to train students to the highest ethical standards. The 1993 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 4 public
46、ation reported the 1991-1992caseload to include 29 institutional inquiries, 21 institutional investigations, and ORI inquiries or investigations. The 1995 ORI publication reported the 1994 caseload as 13 institutional inquiries, 17 institutional investigations, and 8 0RI inquiries or investigations.
47、,8.然而，仅凭一些学术不端的个案来推论整个行业无疑是不公平的。不过已披露的学术不端行为的确不在少数，这也反映了学生道德培养水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研诚信办公室（ORI）的报告公布了其在1991年至1992年期间，对其自身以及29个机构的访谈记录和21个机构的调查结果。1995年，该研究室的报告又涵盖了1994年对于13个机构的访问和对17个机构的调查，以及8份该研究室的调查研究。,近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的调查显示出，学术行为中主要涉及伪造、篡改、剽窃等，甚至多种不端行为的并存的情况。对于已结案件的调查中，仅有不足一半涉及不断行为被对方指控受到了制裁。当事
48、人的学术职称从技术人员到教授不等。案件多由科研机构自己披露，并且当事人均受到各种基金的资助。,Of actions closed in these years (5 in 1991-1992; 44 in 1994), some involved fabrication, some falsification, some plagiarism, and others some combination of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and “other misconduct.“ Slightly fewer than half of the
49、 investigated cases closed as of these reports were found to involve misconduct and resulted in sanction against the accused party. The academic rank of the accused ranged from technician to full professor. Cases were reported from a number of institutions, and the accused parties were funded by a v
50、ariety of funding sources.,9 Cases of misconduct are not simple matters to evaluate. One source of concern is confusion within lie field of science about just what constitutes a punishable infringement of ethic al standards. In the fields of engineering, law, and medicine, clear written guidelines exist for defining ethical conduct. Although some particularly difficult cases may test the limits of these guidelines, most do not. In scientific research, a written code of conduct is not available.,
