1. Recently, one of us had the opportunity 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 literature 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!\"
2. Dr. Z is perhaps a bit naive. Certainly, most researchers would know that the student's 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 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.\"
At one seminar, a senior researcher (let's 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 unacceptable research practice. However, he had a reason to give authorship to his student.
The student had worked for several years on a project suggested by him and the project had yielded to publishable 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, he reasoned, the authorship was not a \"gift.\"
3. These two stories point up a major reason for encouraging courses in research ethics: Good intentions do 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. Z's indefensible error was that he was unaware of the conventions of the field.
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 the 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.
4. Well-meaning 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 responsibility to know professional conventions
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”。
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。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。 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.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。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. 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
as well as to understand the public nature of morality.
5.There are scientists for whom a course in research ethics will be less useful. Efraim Racker, in 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 researcher, Elias Alsabti, described by D. J. Miller, was a meticulous plagiarizer.
This physician-researcher fabricated his curriculum vitae, copied a colleague's grant for his own use, published other people's 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 practitioners.
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 ethics 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. 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 designed 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 misconduct, 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.
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 publication 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. 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 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 的
本质。
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。
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. 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。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？”
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的影响。
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，
number of institutions, and the accused parties were funded by a variety 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.
The federal government and individual institutions have been struggling to clarify the standards under which misconduct can be adjudicated. The central definitions that delineate misconduct in science include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, these are confused by other less clear categories of misconduct, which include \"other questionable behavior\" or \"other misconduct.\" Within this confusion of definitions it is not always obvious to students or faculty where and toward whom their obligations lie.
10 Complicating the confusion generated by the way in which we define research misconduct is the teaching process by which students routinely learn about the ethical obligations of their profession. Traditionally a scientist trains with a single mentor. From this mentoring relationship the graduate student is expected to learn about scientific method, the body of knowledge that constitutes the specific field of science she is studying, and the \"institution\" of science.
What is learned about the institution of science includes knowledge of the mechanics of obtaining funding, information on the writing of grants and papers, and an understanding of the roles and responsibilities for maintaining and sharing research data. As part of her instruction in all of these areas, it is assumed that she will also learn the ethics of scientific research.
11 In the case of the story of Dr. Z above, it is clear that Dr. Z's relationship with his mentor did not result in his having learned a basic convention of the field. So, it is not surprising that Dr. Z was prepared to pass his unrecognized confusion to a student who was working with him. Mentoring relationships within science education do not necessarily result in adequate familiarity with the ethics of research.
12 Judith Swazey 5 of the Acadia Institute has studied this issue and presents some very distressing data of the efficacy of mentoring relationships in graduate education. Although 89% of 2,000 graduate student respondents from 98 departments of major research institutions said that they related to a single faculty member who was particularly supportive of their work, less than 45% of students felt that this faculty member gave them \"a lot\" of help toward teaching them the details of good research practice, and 15 to 20% of the students felt that the help they got in this area was \"none.\"
并且当事人均受到各种基金的资助。
9. 学术不端并不是能够简单评价的问题。其中一个重要问题是，在科学领域里，对于什么样的行为有违伦理规范，应当受到惩罚，仍然模棱两可。工程，法律，和医学领域对道德行为的定义有明确的书面指导原则。虽然某些特别复杂的案例会挑战这些原则的底线，但多数原则具有指导意义。科学研究也并不提供书面的行为准则。 联邦政府和私人机构一直试图阐明学术不端行为的裁定标准，比如一些描述科研不端行为的核心定义，包括编造，篡改和等等。然而这些行为容易与包含“可疑行为”在内的其他不太确定的类别相互混淆。这些混淆的定义让学生和教职人员也不是很清楚他们到底承担哪些责任和义务？
10.我们对学术不端的定义往往会带来困惑，而学生们日常学习职业道德规范的过程则更加剧了人们的困惑。传统而言，一位科研工作者要接受导师的培训指导。通过指导，这名研究会学到科学研究方法，构成她得学科领域的知识体系，和科学的“制度”。
这些“制度”包括获取经费的技术性细节，关于基金申请和论文撰写的知识，以及在维护和共享研究数据中的角色和职责的理解。除了以上这些方面，科学研究伦理也将是她课程学习的一部分。
11. 以Dr. Z的案子为例，很显然，Dr. Z与他的导师的关系并没有使他学到了这个领域的一个基本公约。所以，随后Dr. Z把他的困惑传递给了他的学生，也就不足为奇了。因此，科学教育中的师徒关系不一定能使学生充分了解学术道德。
12. 阿卡迪亚学院的Judith Swazey对这一问题进行了研究，研究数据显示研究生教育中师徒关系的效果令人失望。在对98所主要研究机构中抽取的2000名研究生的调查中， 89%的受访者说他们只与一位非常支持他们工作的师长有联系，不到45%的学生认为这为师长在告诉他们如何提高研究质量的细节方面，给了他们“许多”帮助。15%—20%的学生觉得他们在这一领域没有收获。
Fewer than 45% of students believed that they got \"a lot\" of helpful criticism on a regular basis. In the majority of cases, students felt that their faculty support person did not provide the type of mentoring relationship that one would hope for in the ethics training of a research scientist.
13 When Swazey asked students to compare the role that a department should take in preparing students to recognize and deal with ethical issues in their field to the role actually taken by the department, her results were equally disturbing. Eighty-two percent of students felt the department should take an \"active\" or \"very active\" role in this process, while only 22% felt that an active or very active role was actually taken.
14 The perceptions of faculty were not much different from those of the students. Ninety-nine percent of 2 ,000 faculty members surveyed felt that \"academics should exercise collective responsibility for the professional conduct of their graduate students;\" only 27% of these faculty felt that they followed through with this responsibility.
15 These data provide evidence to indicate that individual mentoring is a less than adequate teaching method for ethics. If the majority of students do not receive mentoring that leaves them with a clear understanding of their responsibilities as scientists, then cases of unintentional misconduct and questionable practice are inevitable.
16 The role and importance of ethics education have begun to be recognized by the NIH. Guidelines for NIF research training grants now require a minimal number of hours of ethics educatio'1. Ethics need not be taught within a single graduate course, but it is beginning to be recognized that education in the basic conventions of the field and in the basic approaches to ethical decision making can no longer be left to one-on-one mentoring alone.
As the ever-dwindling availability of research funds fuels the fire of competition, there will be increased pressure on scientists to bend or break rules. Research laboratories, particularly large groups where some students rarely see their faculty advisers, cannot be assumed to teach research ethics, or even to train students in all research conventions.
17 Whether scientific ethics is approached through a single course or a series of courses or seminars throughout the graduate curriculum, it has become obvious that students need exposure to ethics in a number of contexts. Research ethics can and must be taught in a formalized manner. It is our belief that courses in research ethics that incorporate a solid philosophical framework have the greatest potential for long-term usefulness to students.
(1902 words)
不足45%的学生认为他们定期的得到了很多有益的批评教育。但在大多数情况下，学生们觉得他们的师长并没有和他们建立那种他们希望的导师制关系，一种可以从中学习到的一个科学家需要具备的学术道德的关系。
13. 在辨别和应对学科领域的道德问题方面，Swazey让学生们比较所在院系应起的作用和实际所起的作用，结果同样令人担忧。82%的学生觉得院系应该起到“积极的”或“非常积极的”作用，而只有22%的学生认为所在院系起到了“积极的”和“非常积极的”作用。
14. 教职人员和学生们的看法没有多大的不同。在接受调查的2000名教职人员中，有99%的人认为“学者们”应该对研究生的职业行为负有集体责任，而只有27%的教职人员认为他们履行了这一职责。
15. 这些数据提供的证据表明，单独的师生指导并不是最理想的道德教育方法。如果大多数学生所接受的指导，不能让他们清晰地了解科研工作者的职责所在，那么无意识的学术不端行为与可疑的学术不端行为将在所难免。
16. 美国国立卫生研究院首先认识到学术道德教育的作用和重要性。美国国立卫生研究院资助的研究培训指南要求用最短时间完成学术道德教育。学术道德不需要以单独一门课程讲授，但是人们开始认识到，学科基本惯例和道德决策的基本方法不能再仅仅依赖一对一的师生指导。 由于科研基金数量持续减少，业内的竞争愈发激烈，更多的科学家将迫于压力而打破规则。尤其是在大型的研究实验室，学生很少能见到他们的指导教师，所以无法指望实验室教授学术道德，培养学生科研规范。
17. 无论科研伦理是通过一个课程，一系列课程或是穿插在研究生课程中的研讨班来学习，学生显然需要更多的机会接触学术道德。研究伦理需要而且必须以正式的方式教授。我们相信，在坚实的哲学理论框架指引下，学术伦理课程一定会给广大学子带来长远的益处。
英译汉
Cases of misconduct are not simple matters to evaluate. One source of concern is confusion within the field of science about just what constitutes a punishable infringement of ethical 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. The federal government and individual institutions have been struggling to clarify the standards under which misconduct can be adjudicated.
The central definitions that delineate misconduct in science include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, these are confused by other less clear categories of misconduct, which include “other questionable behavior” or“other misconduct.” Within this confusion of definitions it is not always obvious to students or faculty where and toward whom their obligations lie.
汉译英
Researchers should tell every participant about all the characteristics and details of the study, though such an act may affect the willingness of subjects. Researchers should also try to answer or explain any question about the experiment from subjects.
Frankness and sincerity are supposed to be essential to the relationship between researchers and subjects. When researchers have to hide from or deceive subjects for methodological reasons, they need to have subjects understand the reasons for doing so and try to recover their original relationships.
Researchers should respect the subjects’ rights and freedom to refuse or terminate their participation in the study at any time. This point is even more salient when researchers have higher power-relationship than subjects.
As regards the moral acceptability of experimental procedures and measures, there must be a clear and fair agreement reached by researchers and subjects at the outset in order to clarify each other’s responsibility. Researchers have a responsibility to abide by and comply with the provisions of commitments and obligations in the agreement.
学术不端并不是能够简单评价的问题。其中一个重要问题是，在科学领域里，对于什么样的行为有违伦理规范，应当受到惩罚，仍然模棱两可。工程，法律，和医学领域对道德行为的定义有明确的书面指导原则。
虽然某些特别复杂的案例会挑战这些原则的底线，但多数原则具有指导意义。科学研究也并不提供书面的行为准则。联邦政府和私人机构一直试图阐明学术不端行为的裁定标准，比如一些描述科研不端行为的核心定义，包括编造，篡改和等等。
然而这些行为容易与包含“可疑行为”在内的其他不太确定的类别相互混淆。这些混淆的定义让学生和教职人员也不是很清楚他们到底承担哪些责任和义务？
研究者应告诉所有参加研究的被试有关研究的一切特点和细节，尽管这样做也许会影响被试参加实验的意愿，但还是应该这样做。研究者应对被试提出关于实验的各种问题给予解释和回答。
坦率和诚恳应当是研究者和被试之间关系的基本点。当研究出于方法上的需要不得不向被试隐瞒或欺骗时，研究者必须设法让被试理解这样做的理由，并力求回复两者之间原有的关系。
研究者应尊重被试在研究中任何时候自由提出拒绝参加或终止实验的要求，特别是当研究者的权力高于被试时，更需要注意这一点。
有关实验步骤和措施在道德上的可接受性，应该在一开始就要在研究者和被试之间达成明确和公正的一致意见，明确每个人的责任。研究者有责任遵守和履行协议中规定的承诺和义务。
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容