{"title":"科学研究中的欺骗。","authors":"P. Woolf","doi":"10.4324/9781315244426-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Truth in science depends on the researcher's unbiased application of proven inves? tigative techniques to appropriate experiments. Unfortunately, reports of serious devia? tions from this ideal are becoming increasingly common. The media, the general public, and the scientific community have reacted with shock, disapproval, confusion, and loss of confidence in experimental results. Consequently, congressional committees have taken renewed interest in oversight of research. This article describes recent incidents of alleged misconduct in research and their detection, disclosure, and disciplinary actions taken against the researchers apparently at fault. It argues that stricter, more vigilant procedures to prevent fraudulent research from ever being published are needed. Corrective measures when fraud is discovered after publication must include due process in all investigations and careful retractions in the scientific journals. The article draws attention to several differences in the way that scientists and lawyers assemble and evaluate evidence. No statute of limitations protects the perpetrator of scientific misconduct. The maintenance of integrity in research is therefore a permanent professional responsibility. ?Patricia Woolf is the former co-director of the Ethics and Science Project, Sociology Depart? ment, at Princeton University. She will be teaching at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School in the Spring of 1989. This article is part of the interim report of the Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?American Bar Associ? ation National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. Since this report was initially prepared, a new dispute involving possible error in a published paper on transgenic research has developed into something of a cause celeebre leading even to congressional hearings. See Culliton, A Bitter Battle Over Error, 240 Sei. 1720(1988); Culliton,^! Bitter Battle Over Error (II), 241 Sei. 18 (1988); Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Hearings Be? fore the Subcomm. on Human Resources and Individual Rights of the House of Representatives Comm. on Government Operations, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Apr. 11, 1988); NIH Biomedical Grant Programs: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the House of Representatives Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Apr. 12, 1988).","PeriodicalId":81748,"journal":{"name":"Jurimetrics","volume":"48 1","pages":"67-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deception in scientific research.\",\"authors\":\"P. Woolf\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315244426-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Truth in science depends on the researcher's unbiased application of proven inves? tigative techniques to appropriate experiments. Unfortunately, reports of serious devia? tions from this ideal are becoming increasingly common. The media, the general public, and the scientific community have reacted with shock, disapproval, confusion, and loss of confidence in experimental results. Consequently, congressional committees have taken renewed interest in oversight of research. This article describes recent incidents of alleged misconduct in research and their detection, disclosure, and disciplinary actions taken against the researchers apparently at fault. It argues that stricter, more vigilant procedures to prevent fraudulent research from ever being published are needed. Corrective measures when fraud is discovered after publication must include due process in all investigations and careful retractions in the scientific journals. The article draws attention to several differences in the way that scientists and lawyers assemble and evaluate evidence. No statute of limitations protects the perpetrator of scientific misconduct. The maintenance of integrity in research is therefore a permanent professional responsibility. ?Patricia Woolf is the former co-director of the Ethics and Science Project, Sociology Depart? ment, at Princeton University. She will be teaching at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School in the Spring of 1989. This article is part of the interim report of the Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?American Bar Associ? ation National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. Since this report was initially prepared, a new dispute involving possible error in a published paper on transgenic research has developed into something of a cause celeebre leading even to congressional hearings. See Culliton, A Bitter Battle Over Error, 240 Sei. 1720(1988); Culliton,^! Bitter Battle Over Error (II), 241 Sei. 18 (1988); Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Hearings Be? fore the Subcomm. on Human Resources and Individual Rights of the House of Representatives Comm. on Government Operations, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Apr. 11, 1988); NIH Biomedical Grant Programs: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the House of Representatives Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Apr. 12, 1988).\",\"PeriodicalId\":81748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurimetrics\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"67-95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1988-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurimetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244426-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurimetrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244426-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
摘要
科学中的真理取决于研究者对已证实的实验的公正应用。阴性技术,以适当的实验。不幸的是,有报道称严重的devia?与这种理想相悖的行为正变得越来越普遍。媒体、公众和科学界的反应是震惊、不赞成、困惑和对实验结果失去信心。因此,国会委员会重新对研究监督产生了兴趣。这篇文章描述了最近在研究中被指控的不端行为,以及对这些不端行为的发现、披露和对明显有过错的研究人员采取的纪律处分。它认为,需要更严格、更警惕的程序来防止欺诈性研究的发表。在发表后发现欺诈时,纠正措施必须包括所有调查的正当程序和科学期刊上的谨慎撤回。这篇文章让人们注意到科学家和律师在收集和评估证据的方式上的几个差异。没有法定时效保护科学不端行为的肇事者。因此,维护科研诚信是一项永久的职业责任。帕特里夏·伍尔夫(Patricia Woolf)是社会学系伦理与科学项目的前联合主任。ment,普林斯顿大学教授。本文是美国科学促进会科学欺诈和不端行为项目中期报告的一部分。美国律师协会?全国律师和科学家会议。自从这份报告最初准备好以来,一篇关于转基因研究的已发表论文中可能存在的错误引发了一场新的争议,这已经发展成为一项声名鹊起的事业,甚至导致了国会听证会。参见Culliton, A Bitter Battle of Error, 240 Sei. 1720(1988);Culliton, ^ !《错误的苦战》(下),241卷18期(1988);科学欺诈和不端行为:听证会?在Subcomm之前。关于人力资源和个人权利的众议院委员会政府运作,第100届会议,第二次会议。(1988年4月11日);美国国立卫生研究院生物医学资助计划:小组委员会之前的听证会。关于众议院能源和商业委员会的监督和调查,第100届国会第二次会议。(1988年4月12日)。
Truth in science depends on the researcher's unbiased application of proven inves? tigative techniques to appropriate experiments. Unfortunately, reports of serious devia? tions from this ideal are becoming increasingly common. The media, the general public, and the scientific community have reacted with shock, disapproval, confusion, and loss of confidence in experimental results. Consequently, congressional committees have taken renewed interest in oversight of research. This article describes recent incidents of alleged misconduct in research and their detection, disclosure, and disciplinary actions taken against the researchers apparently at fault. It argues that stricter, more vigilant procedures to prevent fraudulent research from ever being published are needed. Corrective measures when fraud is discovered after publication must include due process in all investigations and careful retractions in the scientific journals. The article draws attention to several differences in the way that scientists and lawyers assemble and evaluate evidence. No statute of limitations protects the perpetrator of scientific misconduct. The maintenance of integrity in research is therefore a permanent professional responsibility. ?Patricia Woolf is the former co-director of the Ethics and Science Project, Sociology Depart? ment, at Princeton University. She will be teaching at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School in the Spring of 1989. This article is part of the interim report of the Project on Scientific Fraud and Misconduct of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?American Bar Associ? ation National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists. Since this report was initially prepared, a new dispute involving possible error in a published paper on transgenic research has developed into something of a cause celeebre leading even to congressional hearings. See Culliton, A Bitter Battle Over Error, 240 Sei. 1720(1988); Culliton,^! Bitter Battle Over Error (II), 241 Sei. 18 (1988); Scientific Fraud and Misconduct: Hearings Be? fore the Subcomm. on Human Resources and Individual Rights of the House of Representatives Comm. on Government Operations, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Apr. 11, 1988); NIH Biomedical Grant Programs: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations of the House of Representatives Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Apr. 12, 1988).