“科学不端行为”问题的演变:历史回顾。

M C Lafollette
{"title":"“科学不端行为”问题的演变:历史回顾。","authors":"M C Lafollette","doi":"10.1177/153537020022400405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific misconduct became a controversial public policy issue in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s when several cases of faked and fabricated research were discovered in prestigious academic institutions and resulted in coverage in the general as well as scientific press. This publicity drew Congressional and federal agency attention to what, until then, had been treated primarily as a matter of institutional or laboratory policy. No scientist had ever condoned such behavior, but most preferred to handle the investigation or resolution internally and quietly, regardless of the source of funding or the prestige or standing of the accused. Once the issue drew public attention, it became quickly clouded by emotion, personality, power-brokering, and politics. There were reiterative debates over what action(s) should be considered \"wrong\" (and if so, whose rules had been broken and who should investigate) and whether even objective analysis of misconduct might somehow damage the reputation of the research system overall. Scientists, policymakers, philosophers, and lawyers argued over whether \"the problem\" was that of \"a few bad apples\" or \"a rotten barrel,\" and some even questioned whether the scientific community should voluntarily cooperate with federal investigations. Fortunately, more objective, measured discussion has replaced the volatile atmosphere of the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the initial reactions of many scientists who purported to speak for all of science, coupled with delays in university investigations and the development of ethics codes, not only resulted in further expansion of the federal regulatory presence on university campuses but also helped to create a situation in which an accusation","PeriodicalId":20675,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/153537020022400405","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The evolution of the \\\"scientific misconduct\\\" issue: An historical overview.\",\"authors\":\"M C Lafollette\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/153537020022400405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientific misconduct became a controversial public policy issue in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s when several cases of faked and fabricated research were discovered in prestigious academic institutions and resulted in coverage in the general as well as scientific press. This publicity drew Congressional and federal agency attention to what, until then, had been treated primarily as a matter of institutional or laboratory policy. No scientist had ever condoned such behavior, but most preferred to handle the investigation or resolution internally and quietly, regardless of the source of funding or the prestige or standing of the accused. Once the issue drew public attention, it became quickly clouded by emotion, personality, power-brokering, and politics. There were reiterative debates over what action(s) should be considered \\\"wrong\\\" (and if so, whose rules had been broken and who should investigate) and whether even objective analysis of misconduct might somehow damage the reputation of the research system overall. Scientists, policymakers, philosophers, and lawyers argued over whether \\\"the problem\\\" was that of \\\"a few bad apples\\\" or \\\"a rotten barrel,\\\" and some even questioned whether the scientific community should voluntarily cooperate with federal investigations. Fortunately, more objective, measured discussion has replaced the volatile atmosphere of the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the initial reactions of many scientists who purported to speak for all of science, coupled with delays in university investigations and the development of ethics codes, not only resulted in further expansion of the federal regulatory presence on university campuses but also helped to create a situation in which an accusation\",\"PeriodicalId\":20675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/153537020022400405\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/153537020022400405\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/153537020022400405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The evolution of the "scientific misconduct" issue: An historical overview.
Scientific misconduct became a controversial public policy issue in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s when several cases of faked and fabricated research were discovered in prestigious academic institutions and resulted in coverage in the general as well as scientific press. This publicity drew Congressional and federal agency attention to what, until then, had been treated primarily as a matter of institutional or laboratory policy. No scientist had ever condoned such behavior, but most preferred to handle the investigation or resolution internally and quietly, regardless of the source of funding or the prestige or standing of the accused. Once the issue drew public attention, it became quickly clouded by emotion, personality, power-brokering, and politics. There were reiterative debates over what action(s) should be considered "wrong" (and if so, whose rules had been broken and who should investigate) and whether even objective analysis of misconduct might somehow damage the reputation of the research system overall. Scientists, policymakers, philosophers, and lawyers argued over whether "the problem" was that of "a few bad apples" or "a rotten barrel," and some even questioned whether the scientific community should voluntarily cooperate with federal investigations. Fortunately, more objective, measured discussion has replaced the volatile atmosphere of the 1980s and early 1990s. However, the initial reactions of many scientists who purported to speak for all of science, coupled with delays in university investigations and the development of ethics codes, not only resulted in further expansion of the federal regulatory presence on university campuses but also helped to create a situation in which an accusation
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Melatonin and the synthesis of vasopressin in pinealectomized male rats. Characterization of the calcium signaling system in the submandibular cell line SMG-C6. Renal function and glucose transport in male and female mice with diet-induced type II diabetes mellitus. Introduction: low-saturated fat, high-carbohydrate diets: effects on triglyceride and LDL synthesis, the LDL receptor, and cardiovascular disease risk. Effect of high-carbohydrate feeding on triglyceride and saturated fatty acid synthesis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1