Measures of Mentoring,Department Climate,and Graduate Student Preparedness in the Responsible Conduct of Psychological Research

Drawing upon two independent national samples of 201 and 241 psychology graduate students, this article describes the development and psychometric evaluation of 4 Web-based student self-report scales tapping student socialization in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) with human participants. The Mentoring the Responsible Conduct of Research Scale (MRCR) is composed of 2 subscales assessing RCR instruction and modeling by research mentors. The 2 subscales of the RCR Department Climate Scale (RCR-DC) assess RCR department policies and faculty and student RCR practices. The RCR Preparedness scale (RCR-P) and the RCR Field Integrity scale (RCR-FI) measure respectively students' confidence in their ability to conduct research responsibly and their belief in the RCR integrity of psychology as a discipline. Factor analysis, coefficient alphas, correlations, and multiple regression analyses demonstrated each of the scales had good internal consistency and concurrent and construct validity.     

The morality of scientific openness

The ideal of scientific openness — i.e. the idea that scientific information should be freely accessible to interested parties — is strongly supported throughout the scientific community. At the same time, however, this ideal does not appear to be absolute in the everyday practice of science. In order to get the credit for new scientific advances, scientists often keep information to themselves. Also, it is common practice to withhold information obtained in commissioned research when the scientist has agreed with his or her employer to do so. The secrecy may be intended for ever, as in the military area, but also temporarily until a patent application has been made. The paper explores to what extent such secrecy is undesirable, as seems to be suggested by the ideal of scientific openness. Should this ideal be interpreted as having certain exceptions which make the above-mentioned practices acceptable? Are there, on closer inspection, good arguments for the ideal of scientific openness, and for officially upholding it? Possible versions of the ideal of scientific openness are explored and the issue is found to be rather complex, allowing for wide variations depending on the acting parties, beneficiaries, types of information and moral requirements involved. We conclude that the arguments usually given in favour of this ideal are weaker than what seems to be generally believed, and that, on closer inspection, they leave plenty of room for exceptions to it. These exceptions only partly cover the actual practice of withholding scientific information, and there may still be good reason to advocate, teach and enforce the ideal of scientific openness within the scientific community.     

政府与个人的责任——中国当代医疗改革的责任伦理学剖析

卫生改革的重点必须放在政府部门;公共卫生,预防与初级医疗保健是人类生存的需要,带有鲜明的公益性和福利性。应由政府投资为主筹集资源,以国家投资为主体负担费用,这个层次的卫生服务产品,属非商品经济部分,并不以赢利为目的,不能引进市场经济,个人对健康负有重要责任,包括：选择医疗保健,决定花费数额,生活方式和卫生习惯的养成,主动接受健康教育,抵抗压力,支持国家与地区的卫生保健政策;个人对自身健康负责是一种道德责任,健商（health quotient)这一重要概念,具有伦理价值和普遍的医学人类学意义;个人对健康负责是一种社会风尚。     

The Mysterious Silence of Mother Earth in Laudato Si'

Laudato si' attempts simultaneously to disrupt prevailing global environmental discourse and to reorient central concepts in Catholic moral tradition by requalifying the meaning of dominion and by ecologically expanding human dignity. The image of Earth crying out to humans from within a kinship relation plays a central role in both arguments. However, the political consequences of those shifts remain vague because the “voice” of Earth remains silent in crucial loci of the encyclical's argument.     

Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished?

In 1985, after nearly a decade of inconclusive professional response to public concern about misconduct in research, Congress passed legislation requiring action. Subsequent to this legislation, federal agencies and research universities adopted policies for responding to allegations of misconduct in research. Conferences, sessions at professional meetings, and special publications were organized. New educational initiatives were begun, many in response to a 1989 National Institutes of Health/ Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration requirement to include ethics instruction in training grants. Notwithstanding a few key unresolved issues, such as the lack of a uniform federal definition of misconduct in research, the years since 1985 have witnessed a marked change in the professional response to misconduct in research. This paper evaluates the change since 1985 from the perspective of three key goals: 1) confronting misconduct, 2) promoting integrity and 3) ensuring integrity. While significant progress has been made in achieving the first two goals, the third remains largely unaddressed. The latter is due to the fact that researchers have not been interested in studying the integrity of their own profession. It is therefore suggested that studies are needed of routine or normal research practices and their impact on integrity for use in making decisions about research conduct policy. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium entitled “Misconduct in Science: A Decade of Progress or Merely Years of Controversy” held during the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 13 February, 1998.     

“Ethics wars”: Reflections on the Antagonism between Bioethicists and Social Science Observers of Biomedicine1

Social scientists often lament the fact that philosophically trained ethicists pay limited attention to the insights they generate. This paper presents an overview of tendencies in sociological and anthropological studies of morality, ethics and bioethics, and suggests that a lack in philosophical interest might be related to a tendency among social scientists to employ either a deficit model (social science perspectives accommodate the sense of context that philosophical ethics lacks), a replacement model (social scientists have finally found the “right way” of doing ethics), or a dismissal model (ethics should be abandoned all together as a misconstrued veil of power). Increased awareness of differences in styles of reasoning and objects of research interest might help to overcome the hostility, and an anthropological project is presented as an invitation to a dialogue informed by awareness of such differences.This paper was first presented at the 4S/EASST Conference in Paris, August 25–28,2004 in a panel co-convened with Richard Tutton, who came up with ‘‘Ethics Wars’’ as the appropriate title for the state of affairs we wanted to discuss. Bryn William-Jones contributed to the panel and provided detailed and very useful comments to the paper. The project on which the article reports was financially supported by the Swedish Ethics in Healthcare Programme (Grant 2000/56) and the Danish Social Science Research Council (Grant 24-03-0219).     

Development ethics – Why? What? How? A formulation of the field

The paper assesses the rationale, contributions, structure, and challenges of the field of development ethics. Processes of social and economic transformation involve great risks and costs and great opportunities for gain, but the benefits, costs, and risks are typically hugely unevenly and inequitably distributed, as is participation in specifying what they are and their relative importance. The ethics of development examines the benefits, costs, risks, formulations, participation, and options. The paper outlines a series of ways of characterizing such work, arguments for and against its importance, and some of its major sources and contributions, especially from the interdisciplinary stream of work represented over several decades by Denis Goulet. Definitions are diverse since the work covers many different intersections of practice and theorizing, at multiple levels. The paper considers and replies to arguments against discussing development ethics: the claim that it involves only endless proliferation of different opinions, is an expensive luxury that undermines long-run development, is superfluous if one already works with the capability approach or the human rights tradition, or never has influence. Finally, it presents suggestions for how development ethics thinking can have increased impact, with reference to incorporation in policy analysis and planning methods, professional codes and training, and to its intellectual location and communication strategies. The field should articulate the methodological pragmatism which much of it has adopted, consistent with its required role as a practice-oriented interdisciplinary meeting ground.     

Graduate Socialization in the Responsible Conduct of Research: A National Survey on the Research Ethics Training Experiences of Psychology Doctoral Students

Little is known about the mechanisms by which psychology graduate programs transmit responsible conduct of research (RCR) values. A national sample of 968 current students and recent graduates of mission-diverse doctoral psychology programs completed a Web-based survey on their research ethics challenges, perceptions of RCR mentoring and department climate, whether they were prepared to conduct research responsibly, and whether they believed psychology as a discipline promotes scientific integrity. Research experience, mentor RCR instruction and modeling, and department RCR policies predicted student RCR preparedness. Mentor RCR instruction, department RCR policies, and faculty modeling of RCR behaviors predicted confidence in the RCR integrity of the discipline. Implications for training are discussed.     

社会责任消费的结构、形成机制及企业响应

社会责任消费是指消费者通过个人努力来促进促进环境保护和社会良性发展的一种消费模式。社会责任消费结构与测量从单一维度逐渐过渡到了多维度, 并涵盖了从产品获得、使用到购后垃圾处理的整个过程。从影响社会责任消费的心理距离来看, 社会责任消费的形成机制主要包括三类：进化心理机制阐述了作为人类进化结果的亲社会偏好是如何影响社会责任消费的, 属于远端机制; 社会规范机制阐述了外部的社会规范(命令性规范与描述性规范)是如何发挥作用的, 属于中端机制; 态度-行为(意愿)模型则主要阐述了消费者内部心理因素的影响, 属于近端机制。随着消费者社会责任消费影响力的扩大, 企业纷纷重视其自身社会责任行为, 并由此衍生出以企业社会责任为导向的营销策略, 然而其效果受到诸多因素影响。文章最后指出了已有研究尚未解决的问题以及未来的一些研究方向。     

Safety in Online Research With Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: What About the Children?

The significant co-occurrence between men’s violence against female partners and child abuse and neglect is well documented. It is less clear how child safety should be managed in family violence research with their mothers. This issue is salient to isafe, a New Zealand–based Internet intervention study testing improvement in safety decisions and mental health outcomes for women experiencing intimate partner violence. This article discusses the legislative, professional, and ethical considerations that contribute to the development of the child safety protocols and discusses the development of the isafe protocol. Hypothetical scenarios of the application of the isafe protocol are used to illuminate the issues and provide a basis for future discussion.