Guidelines for training in the ethical conduct of scientific research

Historically, scientists in training have learned the rules of ethical conduct by the example of their advisors and other senior scientists and by practice. This paper is intended to serve as a guide for the beginning scientist to some fundamental principles of scientific research ethics. The paper focuses less on issues of outright dishonesty or fraud, and more on the positive aspects of ethical scientific behavior; in other words, what a scientist should do to maintain a high level of ethical conduct in research. There are a number of fairly specific rules, guidelines, or commonly accepted operating principles that have evolved for the ethical conduct of science. In order to discuss this code of ethics, this paper is divided into sections dealing with specific areas of scientific ethics. These areas are: data collection and storage, ownership of data, confidentiality, communication, authorship, collaboration, the peer review system, and rules of dealing with ethical complaints. Illustrative case histories are presented to provide examples of the type of ethical dispute or problem being discussed. If scientific trainees learn the accepted rules of behavior that govern the conduct of science, ethical problems that arise out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or poor communication can be avoided.     

Defending Priority Views from the Gunk/Junk Argument

Recently, Jonathan Tallant has argued that we should reject priority views, which hold that some objects are fundamental and others are dependent. Tallant’s argument relies on two proposed mereological possibilities: a gunky world, where everything has a proper part, and a junky world, where everything is a proper part. In this paper, I criticise Tallant’s argument and argue that neither of these possibilities threaten priority views per se; at most, they threaten only particular forms of priority views that contain a certain independently controversial assumption. First, I defend priority pluralism against the gunk argument: the genuine conceivability of gunk can be plausibly doubted on the basis of a certain principle concerning metaphysical possibility, and even if this principle is false, the possibility of a gunky world poses no devastative problem for pluralism per se because it can be considered to be consistent with nonatomism. Second, I defend priority monism against the junk argument: the possibility of a junky world poses no devastative problem for monism per se because it can be considered to be consistent with nonholism in a twofold sense. Finally, I show that even monism as defined as genuinely holistic can be plausibly defended against the junk argument once the claim of the possible nonexistence of the maximal whole is reinterpreted based on the priority-based conception of existence.     

对科学主义新版本的质疑

一、科学主义的旧版本关于科学主义的旧版本,说法也很多,选择几种有代表性的。1.“科学主义”一词最早出现于1877年。它的原意是指“作为科学家特征的方法、精神态度等等。”2.随后我们便发现了一本专门讲科学主义的书,英国学者汤姆·索雷尔的《科学主义》,书中指出:“科学主义就是这样的信念:科学特别是自然科学是人类知识中最有价值的部分——因为它最有权威,最严肃和最有益。”     

皮锡瑞之易学观

皮锡瑞相信伏羲画卦,同意司马迁等人以文王重卦的观点,认为卦、爻辞都是孔子所作,并以“十翼”中的一些篇目出自孔子.皮氏论《周易》的作者和成书时代彰显了他对“汉学“的尊崇,体现了他崇经尊孔观念.由于他有着今文经学的立场,所以其对易学各派的评论也多受先人为主的经学观念的影响.皮锡瑞对王弼义理易学表示推崇,然而他并不忽视象数之学.他从易学史的高度论述了清代易家之易学.在具体的治《易》方法上,皮氏有继承,也有创新.他推崇焦循以“假借说《易》”,还主张以汉碑证《易》.     

Experimental evaluation of self-efficacy treatment on technical/scientific career outcomes

A technology education programme designed to provide mastery experiences described in self-efficacy theory and predicted to improve career decision-making was evaluated. Seventh- and eighth-grade students (N = 169) were stratified by grade level and randomly assigned either to a published technology education programme or to control curricula. Over a 7-week period, the experimental programme attempted to foster exploration and performance accomplishments in the students' choice of three (out of 21 possible) technical and scientific careers. Pre- and post-test instruments assessed technical/scientific self-efficacy and career interest. No treatment effects were found. However, an experimental demand measure showed greater valuing of the technology education programme. Implications and suggested improvements to the treatment are discussed.     

关于中国哲学研究的几点看法

中国哲学事实上早已存在,只是没有"哲学"这种称谓而已.现时代的中国哲学是中国哲学传统在现时代的新开展,是一门能够指导现时代中国人精神生活的学问.体现时代精神的中国哲学有助于社会主义市场经济发展,有助于民主法制建设,有助于科学技术的发展,有助于构建社会主义的和谐社会.由于全球性哲学问题的出现,中国哲学在世界范围内获得广阔的发展空间.中国哲学特别关注人生问题和价值问题,似乎更贴近现时代世界哲学的主题.以马克思主义哲学为指导、葆有中国特色、适应全球化大趋势的中国哲学将有光明的发展前景.     

关于负启动机制的新观点

当N次试验(启动试验)中被忽略的干扰项成为N 1次试验(探测试验)中的靶子(忽略重复组)时,被试对该靶子的反应时比对无关靶子(控制组)的反应时要长,就出现了负启动效应(negative priming,NP)。从20世纪80年代中期至今,负启动现象得到了众多研究者的关注,目前已经发展成为一种较为成熟的研究范式。负启动研究改变了人们对注意机制的认识,注意不再被看成是选择靶子的单一激活过程,而是强调对于受到注意的信息和被忽略的信息的双重加工过程。     

和平与发展问题的伦理思考

和平原则的道德价值,主要表现在对生存原则的肯定、尊重和对不同社会形态、意识形态、文化背景、价值观念的包容。道德融入发展的意义,主要体现在人类最大限度地共享发展带来的丰硕成果的同时,能不断提高自身的文明程度和道德水准,以及促使世界各国谋求发展的目的和手段道德化。和平与共同发展原则不仅是国际关系的基本原则,同时也应成为国际关系伦理的基本原则。     

以人为本与科学无神论的家教发展观

一、“以人为本”的宗教观与“以神为本”的宗教观从宗教发展的历史来看,在欧洲, “神”与“人”的对立是自文艺复兴开始凸显出来的。在中世纪,有神论的宗教观,确切地说,使基督教的宗教观的独占统治达到了顶点,不仅其他社会意识形式如哲学、道德、文学艺术和科学成了它的婢女和仆人,而且人也成了神的创造物和奴仆。在宗教中,神或上帝是作为世界之“本”,即从本体论的意义上被确定为世界的“本原”的。因此,上帝被说成是具有创造一切的、至高无上的无限和绝对: 它创造了万物,又无处不在,无所不包;它威力无边,赏罚分明;它预知你的来生,又支配你的今     

苏轼视域下的筮卦变占

北宋苏轼,既因撰写《东坡易传》而具备了易学家的资格,又不时关注《易》的筮占之用,在筮卦变占方面提出了自己独到的见解。他认为,筮占操作可接通、感通大化流行的宇宙场域或曰人的整个生活的世界,而将与疑惑相关的信息收摄呈现于所得的六爻之卦上。卦有动爻时,断占的规则是,动爻有几个,之卦(变卦)就有几个,因而由本卦向之卦的变迁及其所昭示的时的境域变迁,就是一个前后相继的过程。这与春秋时人以及朱熹的见解存在莫大差异。在后者那里,无论动爻是一还是多,之卦只有一。前者较之后者具有别样深层的易学底蕴,值得我们予以重视,并给予超越筮术的易道层面的深入开掘。     

论康有为、谭嗣同的《论语》观

近代哲学家对《论语》倍加关注,康有为、谭嗣同也不例外。近代哲学家对《论语》的审视和解读既围绕着中国近代社会的救亡图存与思想启蒙展开,因而呈现出明显的一致性;又受制于各自的哲学观、国学观和文化观,因而呈现出差异性。一方面,作为《论语》的近代视界,康有为、谭嗣同的《论语》观带有与生俱来的时代性和一致性。另一方面,两人对《论语》与孔子、曾子关系的认识呈现出明显分歧,对《论语》在孔学中地位的认定和对《论语》的评价相去甚远。康有为、谭嗣同秉持不同的范式解读《论语》,建构了不同形态的《论语》观。     

略论东、西方的"灵魂论"

人类对世界的认识是从身外的天体和动物之类开始的。蒙昧时期的人类智力和生产力同样低下,由于对强大的自然现象不理解,认为冥冥之中必有某种超自然力的东西主宰着宇宙万物,遂把这个主宰者称作神灵,即产生了最初的万物有灵即“神”的观念。起初,人们以特异的动物为神,比如中国的“四灵”(龙、凤、麟和龟)以及西方的太阳神(公狼)和狮身人面像(斯芬克斯)之类。进入文明时期以后,先后取代动物神地位的是被认为具有     

Influence of the teacher-student relationship on childhood conduct problems: a prospective study.

Examined the influence of the quality of the teacher-student relationship on children's subsequent levels of aggression in a sample of 61 second and third-grade children nominated and rated by their teachers as aggressive. The stability of teachers' and children's reports of relationships quality across academic years was in the low to moderate range. Teachers and children showed little agreement in their reports of relationship quality. Teachers' and children's reports of relationship quality in year 1 (Y1) predicted teacher-rated aggression the following year, controlling for Y1 ratings of aggression. Teachers' reports of relationship quality across Y1 and Y2 predicted peer-rated aggression, but not teacher-rated aggression, in Y3, controlling for Y1 aggression. Consistent with a buffering role for teacher-student relationships, a positive teacher-student relationship was of greatest benefit to children whose mothers reported rejecting parenting histories. We discuss implications for school-based prevention programs.     

对心理学本土化"本土性契合"问题的思考

心理学本土化是一个方兴未艾的话题,本文重点讨论了杨国枢提出的心理学本土化的“本土性契合”判准的含义,并举出两个引例对此一判准进行说明和解释,最后提出了对心理学本土化及“本土性契合”的几点思考,指出心理学本土化应该研究不断运动变化的人们的思维和行为模式,并对心理学本土化研究的具体方向和途径提出了看法。     

论孔子对原始人性和现实人性的看法

在具体分析孔子人性论的时候,我们应该区分原始人性与现实人性.孔子并没有明确界定原始人性的善恶,但是他认为一小部分人的品性极善、资质很高;另一部分人的品性不好、资质愚钝;此外,绝大部分人属于"中人",这部分人之间的本性差不多,孔子没有作出明确的善恶判断.孔子认为现实人性包含有对名利富贵的欲望,但是名利富贵要通过正当的途径来获得,并且欲望不能过度,纵欲是人性变坏的主要原因.此外,统治者的乱政是导致人性变坏的外部原因.所以他又主张通过礼法来约束欲望.     

马克思主义无神论科学性特征之我见

马克思主义无神论的科学性特征有丰富的内涵。根据理论与实践相统一的建构和方法论原则,应体现在理论和实践两个方面。在理论上体现为理论基础、论证原则和论证材料的科学性;在实践上体现为对有神论批判斗争和正确处理与有神论关系的科学性。只有从马克思主义无神论明确的目的性、鲜明的战斗性和严格的科学性相统一的高度,才能完整准确地把握其科学性特征及其丰富内涵和意义。     

Views of Genetics Health Professionals on the Return of Genomic Results

As exome and whole genome sequencing become clinically available, the potential to receive a large number of clinically relevant but incidental results is a significant challenge in the provision of genomic counseling. We conducted three focus groups of a total of 35 individuals who were members of ASHG and/or NSGC, assessing views towards the return of genomic results. Participants stressed that patient autonomy was primary. There was consensus that a mechanism to return results to the healthcare provider, rather than patient, and to streamline integration into the electronic health record would ensure these results had the maximal impact on patient management. All three focus groups agreed that pharmacogenomic results were reasonable to return and that they were not felt to be stigmatizing. With regard to the return of medically relevant results, there was much debate. Participants had difficulty in consistently assigning specific diseases to ‘bins’ that were considered obligatory versus optional for disclosure. Consensus was reached regarding the importance of informed consent and pretest counseling visits to clarify what the return of results process would entail. Evidence based professional guidelines should continue to be developed and regularly revised to assist in consistently and appropriately providing genomic results to patients.