Spece R G, Marchalonis J
James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA.
Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2003 Jun;49(4):565-77.
This article discusses the nature and purposes behind the three standards of proof commonly used in the United States. It summarizes the analytical constructs or standards of review courts commonly use to determine the constitutional validity of standards of proof (as well as other procedural protections) in physician disciplinary proceedings. It applies these constructs to the context of scientific misconduct and an illustrative case, and shows that sound policy and morals as well as procedural due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and some state constitutions require the use of the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in scientific misconduct proceedings. That standard is necessary to protect scientists from misuse of scientific misconduct charges and proceedings, entailing, as they do, vast discretion in bureaucratic officials as well as staggering costs. The imminent rule making proceedings at the federal level will provide a special opportunity to right a wrong that long has been long visited upon academic scientists throughout the United States.
本文讨论了美国常用的三种证明标准背后的性质和目的。它总结了审查法院通常用于确定医师纪律处分程序中证明标准（以及其他程序保护）的宪法有效性的分析结构或标准。它将这些结构应用于科学不端行为的背景和一个说明性案例，并表明健全的政策和道德以及美国和一些州宪法中的程序性正当程序和平等保护条款要求在科学不端行为程序中使用清晰且有说服力的证据证明标准。该标准对于保护科学家免受科学不端行为指控和程序的滥用是必要的，因为这些指控和程序赋予官僚官员极大的自由裁量权，同时成本也高得惊人。联邦层面即将进行的规则制定程序将提供一个特别的机会来纠正长期以来一直困扰美国学术科学家的错误。
