Suppr超能文献

科学行为标准:存在吗?

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

作者信息

Kalichman Michael, Sweet Monica, Plemmons Dena

机构信息

Research Ethics Program, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA,

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Dec;20(4):885-96. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9500-1. Epub 2013 Dec 13.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Dec;20(4):885-96. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9500-1. Epub 2013 Dec 13.
2
Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1085-93. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9594-0. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
3
Standards, double standards and no standards.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Feb;21(1):265. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9507-7. Epub 2014 Jan 10.
5
New graduate students' baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research.
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):838-45. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7956.
6
Ethics in 15 min per week.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Jun;17(2):289-97. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9197-3. Epub 2010 Mar 7.
8
Reported goals of instructors of responsible conduct of research for teaching of skills.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Apr;8(2):95-103. doi: 10.1525/jer.2013.8.2.95.
9
Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Feb;24(1):207-226. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9897-z. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
10
Perceptions of nursing faculty regarding ethical issues in nursing research.
J Nurs Educ. 2004 Jun;43(6):270-9. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20040601-03.

引用本文的文献

1
A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jan 21;117(3):1389-1394. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1917848117. Epub 2020 Jan 9.
2
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 4;4(4):MR000038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2.
3
Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community.
Account Res. 2015;22(6):346-83. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1047707.
4
Establishing good collaborative research practices in the responsible conduct of research in nursing science.
Nurs Outlook. 2015 Mar-Apr;63(2):171-80. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2014.10.007. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
5
Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1085-93. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9594-0. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
6
Standards, double standards and no standards.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Feb;21(1):265. doi: 10.1007/s11948-013-9507-7. Epub 2014 Jan 10.

本文引用的文献

2
A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences.
Ethics Behav. 2009 Sep 1;19(5):379-402. doi: 10.1080/10508420903035380.
4
Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses.
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):846-52. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf.
5
The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research.
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):829-34. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7d4d.
6
Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content.
Account Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;12(3):207-24. doi: 10.1080/08989620500217420.
7
Encouraging accountability in research: a pilot assessment of training efforts.
Account Res. 1999;7(1):85-100. doi: 10.1080/08989629908573943.
8
Phs proposes a new policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research.
Lab Anim (NY). 2000 Oct;29(9):15-7. doi: 10.1038/5000086.
9
Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey.
Public Opin Q. 2000 Summer;64(2):125-48. doi: 10.1086/317759.
10
A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics.
Acad Med. 1992 Nov;67(11):769-75. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199211000-00015.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验