怎样当一名科学家ONBEINGASCIENTIST.doc

ON BEING
A SCIENTIST
RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT
IN RESEARCH
PREFACE
The scientific research enterprise, like other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct.
In the past, young scientists learned the ethics of research largely through informal means-by working with senior scientists and watching how they dealt with ethical questions. That tradition is still vitally important. But science has become so complex and so closely intertwined with society’s needs that a more formal introduction to research ethics and the responsibilities that these commitments imply is also needed-an introduction that can supplement the informal lessons provided by research supervisors and mentors.
The original “On Being a Scientist,” published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1989,was designed to meet that need. Written for beginning researchers, it sought to describe the ethical foundations of scientific practices and some of the personal and professional issues that researchers encounter in their work. It was meant to apply to all forms of research-whether in academic, industrial, or governmental settings-and to all scientific disciplines. Over 200,000 copies of the booklet were distributed to graduate and undergraduate science students. It continues to be used today in courses, seminars, and informal discussions.
Much has happened in the six years since” On Being a Scientist” first appeared. Research institutions and federal agencies have developed important new policies for dealing with behaviors that violate the ethical standards of science. A distinguished panel convened by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine issued a major report on research conduct entitled Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Continued questions have reemphasized the importance of the ethical decisions that researchers must make.
To reflect the developments of the last six years, the National Academy complex is issuing this new version of “On Being a Scientist.” This version incorporates new material from Responsible Science and other recent reports. It reflects suggestions from readers of the original booklet, from instructors who used the original booklet in their classes and seminars, and from graduate students and professors who critiqued drafts of the revision. This version of “On Being a Scientist” also includes a number of hypothetical scenarios, which have proved in recent years to provide an effective means of presenting research ethics. An appendix at the end of the booklet offers guidance in thinking about and discussing these scenarios, but the scenarios remain essentially open-ended. As is the case for the entire document, input from readers is welcomed.
Though “On Being a scientist” is aimed primarily at graduate students and beginning researchers, its lessons apply to all scientists at all stages of their scientific careers. In particular, senior scientists have a special responsibility in upholding the highest standards for conduct, serving as role models for students and young scientists, designing educational programs, and responding to alleged violations of ethical norms. Senior scientists can themselves gain a new appreciation for the importance of ethical issues by discussing with their students what had previously been largely tacit knowledge. In the process, they help provide the leadership that is essential for high standards of conduct to be maintained.
The original “On Being a Scientist” was produced under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences by the Committee on the Conduct of Science, which consisted of Robert McCormick Adams, Francisco Ayala (chairman), Mary-Dell Chilton, Gerald Holton, David Hull, Kumar Patel, Frank Press, Michael Ruse, and Phillip Sharp. Several members of that committee were involved directly in the revision of the booklet, and the others were consulted during the revision and reviewed the resulting document.
This new version of the booklet was prepared under the auspices of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which is a joint committee of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. The revision was overseen by a guidance group consisting of Robert McCormick Adams, David Challoner, Bernard fields, Kumar Patel, Frank Press, and Phillip Sharp(group chairman).
The future of science depends on attracting outstanding young people to research--not only people of enormous energy and talent but people of strong character who will be tomorrow’s leaders. It is incumbent on all scientists and all administrators of science to help provide a research environment that, through its adherence to high ethical standards and creative productivity, will attract and retain individuals of outstanding intellect and character to one of society’s most important professions.
BRUCE ALBERTS
President, National Academy of Sciences
KENNETH SHINE
President, Institute of Medicine
ROBERT WHITE
President, National Academy of Engineering
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The committee thanks the graduate students of Boston University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of California, Irvine, who participated in focus group sessions which provided invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of the document, as well as Charles Cantor, Frank Solomon, and F. Sherwood Rowland, who sponsored those sessions at the respective institutions.
In addition, the committee thanks a number of individuals who teach research ethics and provided guidance on earlier drafts as to the “teachability” of the document, especially: Joan Steitz, Caroline Whitbeck, Penny Gilmer, Michael Zigmond, Frank Solomon, and Indira Nair.
Finally, the committee thanks its able staff: Steve Olson, science writer, whose help in drafting this revision was invaluable; Deborah Stine, who managed the project and ran the focus groups on the document; and Jeffrey Peck and Patrick Sevcik, who provided administrative support at various stages.
A NOTE ON USING THIS BOOKLET
This booklet makes the point that scientific knowledge is defined collectively through discussion and debate. Collective deliberation is also the best procedure to apply in using this booklet. Group discussion--whether in seminars, orientations. Research settings, or informal settings-can demonstrate how different individuals would react in specific situations, often leading to conclusions that no one would have arrived at individually.
These observations apply with particular force to the hypothetical scenarios in this booklet. Each scenario concludes with a series of questions, but these questions have many answers-some better, some worse-rather than a single right answer. An appendix at the end of this booklet examines specific issues involved in several of the scenarios as a way of suggesting possible topics for consideration and discussion.
This booklet has been prepared for use in many different settings, including:
n Classes on research ethics
n Classes on research methods or statistics
n Classes on the history, sociology, or philosophy of science
n Seminars to discuss research practices or results
n Meetings sponsored by scientific societies on a local, regional, or national level
n Meetings held to develop ethics policies or guidelines for a specific laboratory or institution
n Orientation sessions
n Journal clubs
A useful format in any of these situations is to have a panel discussion involving three or four researchers who are at different stages of their careers—for example, a graduate student, a postdoctoral fellow, a junior faculty member, and a senior faculty member. Such panels can identify the ambiguities in a problem situation, devise ways to get the information needed to resolve the ambiguities. And demonstrate the full range of perspectives that are involved in ethical deliberations. They can also show how institutional policies and resources can influence an individual’s response to a given situation, which will emphasize the importance for all researchers to know what those institutional policies and resources are.
Finally, discussion of these issues with a broad range of researchers can demonstrate that research ethics is not a complete and finalized body of knowledge. These issues are still being discussed, explored, and debated, and all researchers have a responsibility to move the discussion forward.
CONTENTS
[1]Introduction…………………………………………………………………….……(46)
[2]The Social Foundations of Science……………………… ………………….……(49)
[3]Experimental Techniques and the Treatment of Data…………………………..……..(52)
[4]Values in Science……………………………………………………………..….……(57)
[5]Conflicts of Interest…………………………………………………………..….……(61)
[6]Publication and Openness…………………………………………………..………..(63)
[7]The Allocation of Credit…………………………………………………………..….(68)
[8]Authorship Practices………………………………………….…………………..…..(70)
[9]Error and Negligence in Science………………………………………….……….…(73)
[10]Misconduct in Science………………………………………………………..…….(76)
[11]Responding to Violations of Ethical standards.……………………………..………(80)
[12]The Scientist in Society…………………………………………………..………...(84)
[13]Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..(88)
[14]Appendix: Discussion of Case Studies……………………………………………..(93)
[1] INTRODUCTION
The geneticist Barbara McClintock once said of her research, ’’I was just so interested in what I was doing I could hardly wait to get up in the morning and get at it . one of my friends, a geneticist, said I was a child, because only children can’t wait to get up in the morning to get at what they want to do.” Anyone who has experienced the childlike wonder evoked by observing or understanding something that no one has ever observed or understood before will recognize McClintock’s enthusiasm. The pursuit of that experience is one of the forces that keep researchers rooted to their laboratory benches, climbing through the undergrowth of a sweltering jungle, or following the threads of a difficult theoretical problem. To succeed in research is a personal triumph that earns and deserves individual recognition. But it is also a communal achievement, for in learning something new the discoverer both draws on and contributes to the body of knowledge held in common by all scientists.
Scientific research offers many other satisfactions in addition to the exhilaration of discovery. Researchers have the opportunity to associate with colleagues who have made important contributions to human knowledge, with peers who think deeply and care passionately about subjects of common interest, and with students who can be counted on to challenge assumptions. With many important developments occurring in areas where disciplines overlap, scientists have many opportunities to work with different people, explore new fields, and broaden their expertise. Researchers often have considerable freedom both in choosing what to investigate and in deciding how to organize their professional and personal lives. They are part of a community based on ideals of trust and freedom ,where hard work and achievement are recognized as deserving the highest rewards. And their work can have a direct and immediate impact on society, which ensures that the public will have an interest in the findings and implications of research.
Research can entail frustrations and disappointments as well as satisfactions. An experiment may fail because of poor design, technical complications, or the sheer intractability of nature. A favored hypothesis may turn out to be incorrect after consuming months of effort. Colleagues may disagree over the validity of experimental data, the interpretation of results, or credit for work done. Difficulties such as these are virtually impossible to avoid in science. They can strain the composure of the beginning and senior scientist alike. Yet struggling with them can also be a spur to important progress.
Scientific progress and changes in the relationship between science and society are creating new challenges for the scientific community. The numbers of trained researchers and exciting research opportunities have grown faster than have available financial resources, which has increased the pressure on the research system and on individual scientists. Research endeavors are becoming larger, more complex, and more expensive, creating new kinds of situations and relationships among researchers. The conduct of research is more closely monitored and regulated than it was in the past. The part played by science in society has become more prominent and more complex, with consequences that are both invigorating and stressful.
To nonscientists, the rich interplay of competition, elation, frustration, and cooperation at the frontiers of scientific research seems paradoxical. Science results in knowledge that is often presented as being fixed and universal. Yet scientific knowledge obviously emerges from a process that is intensely human, a process indelibly shaped by human virtues, values, and limitations and by societal contexts. How is the limited, sometimes fallible, work of individual scientists converted into the enduring edifice of scientific knowledge?
The answer lies partly in the relationship between human knowledge and the physical world. Science has progressed through a uniquely productive marriage of human creativity and hard—nosed skepticism, of openness to new scientific contributions and persistent questioning of those contributions and the existing scientific consensus. Based on their observations and their ideas about the world, researchers make new observations and develop new ideas that seen to describe the physical, biological, or social world more accurately or completely. Scientists engaged in applied research may have more utilitarian aims, such as improving the reliability of a semiconductor chip. But the ultimate effect of their work is the same: they are able to make claims about the world that are subject to empirical tests.
The empirical objectivity of scientific claims is not the whole story, however. As will be described in a moment, the reliability of scientific knowledge also derives partly from the interactions among scientists themselves. In engaging in these social interactions, researchers must call on much more than just their scientific understanding of the world. They must also be able to convince a community of peers of the correctnes