Kalichman Michael, Sweet Monica, Plemmons Dena
Research Ethics Program, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA,
Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Dec;20(4):885-96. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9500-1. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, focus groups, and interviews, was distributed in November 2010 to U.S. faculty from 50 graduate programs for each of four different disciplines: microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. The survey addressed practices and perceived standards, as well as perceptions about teaching and learning. Over 1,300 responses (response rate of 21 %) yielded statistically significant differences in responses to nearly all questions. However the magnitude of these differences was typically small, leaving little reason to argue for community consensus on standards. For nearly all questions asked, the clear finding was that there was nothing approaching consensus. These results may be useful not so much to teach what the standards are, but to increase student awareness of the diversity of those standards in reported practice.
科研实践充满了伦理挑战,其中许多挑战或许可通过开展负责任的科研行为(RCR)教学来解决。尽管此类培训的要求日益增多,但对于RCR课程的目标或内容,尚无明确的共识。本研究旨在评估科研实践三个领域的共同体标准:作者身份、合作及数据管理。通过内容专家、焦点小组及访谈提供的建议开发了一项调查问卷,并于2010年11月分发给来自微生物学、神经科学、护理学和心理学四个不同学科的50个研究生项目的美国教员。该调查问卷涉及实践情况、感知到的标准以及对教学的看法。超过1300份回复(回复率为21%)显示,几乎所有问题的回复都存在统计学上的显著差异。然而,这些差异的幅度通常较小,几乎没有理由认为在标准方面存在共同体共识。对于所问的几乎所有问题,明确的发现是不存在接近共识的情况。这些结果的用处与其说是传授标准是什么,不如说是提高学生对已报道实践中这些标准多样性的认识。