Kognitive Mobilität. Eine makroskopische Untersuchung der Wanderung von Wissenschaftlern zwischen Forschungsgebieten am Beispiel der Mathematik

Cognitive Mobility, a Macroscopic Investigation of Migration of Scientists between Research Fields Studied by Example of Mathematics. — In history of science, scientific migrations of famous scientists are well-known. Nothing is known, however, about the total of migrations between fields of science, despite the importance of scientific mobility for information transfer and exchange. In the present investigation all migrations between the major 39 subdisciplines of mathematics from 1959 through 1975 are studied in a macroscopic manner. The quantitative importance of migration for the development of mathematical fields is assessed. In an analysis of the relationship between the affinity of fields and mobility between them a „principle of least migration distance” is established. Furthermore, some aspects of a Markov-chain treatment of scientific mobility are discussed. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Good to the last drop? Millikan stories as “canned” pedagogy

In recent literature, the famous Millikan oil-drop experiment appears as a case of “good scientific judgment” on the one hand, and scientific misconduct on the other. This article discusses different interpretations of the fact that Nobel laureate Robert Millikan’s notebooks show that he eliminated a number of oildrops in his published 1913 paper on the charge of the electron, while reporting that he had included all the drops. Starting with the common source of all Millikan stories, historian of physics Gerald Holton’s 1978 paper, I discuss recent “canned” versions of Millikan-as-misbehaver in books on scientific fraud. Then I examine some versions of Millikan-as-good-scientist, particularly the reconstruction by historian of physics Allan Franklin, and the views of some practicing physicists. Finally, we have an instructive head-on collision between the two standard treatments of Millikan. The problem with canned stories is not only insufficient information; we also lack a realistic evaluation of the role of ethics in science. As a fundamentally knowledge-seeking enterprise, science may harbor an inherent, perhaps irresolvable, conflict between scientific and ethical concerns. The author’s special interests include standards for “good science”, science and values, and social psychology.     

Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct

In response to a series of allegations of scientific misconduct in the 1980’s, a number of scientific societies, national agencies, and academic institutions, including Harvard Medical School, devised guidelines to increase awareness of optimal scientific practices and to attempt to prevent as many episodes of misconduct as possible. The chief argument for adopting guidelines is to promote good science. There is no evidence that well-crafted guidelines have had any detrimental effect on creativity since they focus on design of research studies, documentation of research findings, assignment of credit through authorship, data management and supervision of trainees, not on the origin and evolution of ideas. This paper addresses a spectrum of causes of scientific misconduct or unacceptable scientific behavior and couples these with estimates of the potential for prevention if guidelines for scientific investigation are adopted. The conclusion is that clear and understandable guidelines should help to reduce the chance that flawed research will escape from our institutions. However, they cannot be relied upon alone to prevent all instances of scientific misconduct and should be regarded rather as one means of bolstering the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise.     

From case management to prevention of scientific dishonesty in Denmark

In 1992, The Danish Medical Research Council established a national committee on scientific dishonesty with the twofold task of handling cases of scientific misconduct and taking preventive initiatives. Scientific dishonesty was proven in only five cases, but in another nine cases lesser degrees of deviations from good scientific practice were found. The experiences from a total of 24 treated cases indicated that three key areas were at the basis of most of the accusations and the deviations from good practice: uncertainty about 1) authorship, about 2) rights and duties to use scientific data and about 3) agreements at the initiation of joint studies. As a consequence guidelines on good practice have been issued on these key subjects. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a symposium, Scientific Misconduct. An International Perspective, organised by The Medical University of Warsaw, 16 November, 1998.     

科学心理学的观念及其范畴含义解析

关于心理学作为科学的观念或理想普遍兴起于19世纪下半叶,正是对这个观念或理想的百余年历史的追求和实践,塑造了现代意义上的科学心理学及其历史作为整体的基本面貌,并决定了科学心理学观念的两种范畴含义及其差异,具体表现为在心理学作为科学的整体背景中它的现象学传统或道路与它的科学主义传统或道路之间的对峙关系。历史分析表明,对科学心理学观念的范畴含义的理解和实现,与关于科学观念的范畴含义的探索和理解是密切关联、相互制约的。以人类思维的理论形态的历史转换为背景,我们发现,关于心理学作为科学的观念,只有实现为现象学意义上的科学,才能真正实现它自身;但主流的科学主义传统则要把心理学实现为自然科学,由此实现的科学心理学,只能是对心理学作为科学的观念的异化。     

英文办刊热潮下中文科技期刊的发展策略

当前英文办刊热和《科学引文索引》（SCI）热充斥着整个科技出版界,中文科技期刊如何在这股热潮下求得生存,如何汲取精华,去其糟粕,获得更好的发展是值得我们思考的问题。介绍了国外科技期刊的先进经验,同时总结了我国科技期刊在缩短出版周期、建立出版规范、提高显示度这三方面所做的探索。提出中文科技期刊应该采用单篇提前出版,不断规范作者、审稿人、编辑的学术行为和采取多种手段进行学术推广,以提高自身水平,进而推动整个中国科技期刊国际影响力的提升。     

中国医科大学附属盛京医院312项科研课题中标情况统计分析

对我院2001年~2005年中标的312项科研课题级别与数量,获经费资助情况,中标科研课题的学科(专业)分布,课题负责人的年龄结构进行系统地统计分析,表明我院承担科研课题的能力在逐年提高,取得了很好的科研成绩。中青年科研人员已成为我院科研发展的主力军,促进了学科的发展。     

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.     

科学隐喻的方法论意义

The essential significance of scientific metaphor lies in applying the general metaphorical theory to specific interpretations and elaborations of scientific theories to form a methodology of scientific explanation. It is a contextual grasp of objective reality. A given metaphorical context and its grasp of the essence of reality can only be valid when the context is continually restructured. Taking the context as a whole, the methodological characteristic of scientific metaphor lies in the unity of understanding and choice, experience and concepts, semantic structures and metaphorical domains, rationality and irrationality. As a form of thinking based on reasons, scientific metaphor plays an important role in invention, representation, explanation, evaluation, and communication. Translated by Liu Yiyu from Zhongguo Shehui Kexue 中国社会科学 (Social Sciences in China), 2004, (2): 92–101     

Tracing the Development of Thought Experiments in the Philosophy of Natural Sciences

Summary  An overview is provided of how the concept of the thought experiment has developed and changed for the natural sciences in the course of the 20th century. First, we discuss the existing definitions of the term ‘thought experiment’ and the origin of the thought experimentation method, identifying it in Greek Presocratics epoch. Second, only in the end of the 19th century showed up the first systematic enquiry on thought experiments by Ernst Mach’s work. After the Mach’s work, a negative attitude towards thought experiments came in the beginning of the 20th century, which went on until the Thomas Kuhn’s and Karl Popper’s work on thought experiments. Only from the mid-1980s did thought experiments begin to be considered relevant to scientific enterprise. Finally, we show the existing empirical and ‘functional’ theories which have developed about the nature and purpose of thought experiments.     

在西方医药审判中的一个亮点--科学哲学

科学证据不仅在司法审判中起着极其重要的作用,而且在科研成果的评价中也是不可取代的,但是在审判和科研成果评估中,对“科学是什么”这样一个更深层次的问题－科学哲学问题,历来没有得到应有的重视,通过美国止吐药本涤汀前后历时20年的审判历程,突出科学哲学在医药审判实践中的地位。     

Misconduct in science and the german law

In the past, only norms and rules developed for other types of illegal activities could be applied to misconduct in science in Germany. But only particularly blatant cases of misconduct can be dealt with efficiently in this way. Nowadays, a couple of very important funding agencies and research institutions have enacted special procedures that apply in cases of suspected scientific misconduct. A strongly decentralised system of dealing with misconduct in science is being established in Germany. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a symposium, Scientific Misconduct. An International Perspective, organised by The Medical University of Warsaw, 16 November, 1998.     

神经递质认识过程的哲学思考

神经递质的认识过程是一个复杂的过程。在此过程中产生和抛弃过许多假说，但新的理论仍在不断发展。这样的过程给予了我们许多哲学启示。     

Journal Reprints as Dissemination of Psychological Research: Courtesy,Obligation, or Obsolescence?

The proliferation of journals and the escalation of journal prices have made it difficult for psychologists, especially those in rural areas without access to comprehensive libraries, to obtain journal articles. A traditional source of otherwise unavailable papers is to request a reprint directly from the author. Although previous researchers found this method to be 60%-80% successful, there have been major changes in journal operations and alternative media since this research was conducted. In the present study, reprints were requested from 473 corresponding authors from 10 American Psychological Association journals. The compliance rate was 84% and reprints took, on average, 32 days to arrive. There was no difference in the rate or in the speed of response due to the requestor's status as an academic or applied psychologist. Although functional, the traditional reprint request method was slow, uncertain, and costly. It is suggested that a demand still exists for reprints, but that electronic reprints should replace the traditional paper format.     

Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

The purpose of this article is to encourage and help inform active discussion of authorship policies among members of scientific societies. The article explains the history and rationale of the influential criteria for authorship developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, examines questions about those criteria that emerge from authorship policies adopted by several U.S. medical schools, and summarizes the arguments for replacing authorship with the contributor-guarantor model. Finally, it concludes with a plea for scientific societies to play a prominent role in the ongoing debates about authorship and the alternatives as part of their efforts to encourage ethical conduct among their members. Whether or not scientific societies develop authorship policies of their own, they should undertake vigorous educational efforts to keep their new members adequately informed about the importance of authorship practices in ethical scientific research and publication.     

Scientific Productivity and Idea Acceptance in Nobel Laureates

We investigated how new ideas become accepted for Nobel laureates in science. Archival data were collected for 204 Nobel laureates from 1980 to 2009 in physics, chemistry, and medicine or physiology. Acceptance was evaluated for Nobel laureates by Prize area and three key publications in the Nobel laureates' publishing careers: (a) first publication concerning their Nobel idea (FN), (b) highest cited publication concerning their Nobel idea (HN), and (c) last publication concerning their Nobel idea (LN). Acceptance was defined primarily in terms of academic prestige for the journal articles (journal impact factors, article citation counts, Eigenfactor scores [journal impact and journal citations] and journal‐cited half‐life ratings). We found that acceptance for these publications mostly followed LN < FN < HN for all measures and Prize areas—except for physics on impact factor only, which followed FN < LN < HN, as hypothesized. In sum, recent ideas are least accepted rather than original ideas even for established and eminent Nobel laureates.