杜绝科研工作中的失范行为，捍卫科学殿堂的圣洁性

不规范何以立,不规范难创新,默顿提出普遍性、公有性、无私利性和有条理的怀疑性构成了现代科学规范,科研失范行为一般指科研工作者在从事科研工作中为了实现自己的利益目标而违背科学界和学术界所公认的科学研究道德规范的行为,本文对各种科研示范行为进行分类,从政治、经济、体制等方面深度分析了科研失范的诱发原因,并有针对性的提出若干防范对策,从而捍卫科学殿堂的圣洁性。     

Correction of errors in scientific research

Four ways to reduce scientific errors are by tests of equipment and programs, examination of results, peer review, and replication. This article describes various types of errors that may occur and procedures available for the prevention and correction of both unintentional and intentional errors in experiments that use computer programs to generate the stimuli, record the responses, or analyze the data. We describe a case study of a particular experiment that produced a result that has been found to be erroneous. The case study provides additional evidence of the essential importance of replication for the identification and elimination of scientific error.     

Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and Nulltiple scientific discoveries

The fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip can be taken to be allegorical of not only chance discovery (serendipity) but of other aspects of scientific discovery as well. Just as Horace Walpole coined serendipity, so can the term bahramdipity be derived from the tale and defined as the cruel suppression of a serendipitous discovery. Suppressed, unpublished discoveries are designated nulltiples. Several examples are presented to make the case that bahramdipity is an existent aspect of scientific discovery. Other examples of non-ideal scientific research and discovery are provided in order to contrast and clarify the meaning and use of bahramdipity. Additional allegories of scientific discovery are taken from the tale and a hope for the strengthening of scientific integrity is expressed.     

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.     

Measuring consensus about scientific research norms

In this paper, we empirically explore some manifestations of norms for the conduct of science. We focus on scientific research ethics and report survey results from 606 scientists who received funding in 1993 and 1994 from the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology of the Biology Directorate of the National Science Foundation. We also report results for 91 administrators charged with overseeing research integrity at the scientists' research institutions. Both groups of respondents were presented with a set of scenarios, designed by fractional factorial methods, describing different kinds of scientific conduct that in the eyes of some would likely be unethical. Respondents then were asked to evaluate each of these scenarios for how unethical the behavior might be and what kinds of sanctions might be appropriate. We use the responses to consider the nature of consensus around norms related to the practice of science and in particular, similarities and differences between scientists and science administrators. Implications for policy are also discussed.