Redman Barbara K, Caplan Arthur L
Wayne State University, College of Nursing, USA.
J Law Med Ethics. 2005 Summer;33(2):345-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2005.tb00498.x.
Improvement in policy for the management of scientific misconduct has been slow. While assurance of due process at the ORI level is now in place, similar protections at the institutional level and institutional responsibility for further oversight and a workplace where the responsible conduct of research can be practiced have not yet been addressed. In contrast, policy regarding human subject protection has evolved rapidly to reflect firmer norms, with decisive priority given to subject protection over scientific or social needs. Perhaps because scientific misconduct policy has the potential to harm the careers of individual scientists and harms to individual subjects are thought to be indirect, the scientific community has been successful in blocking every move toward testing more rigorous regulation. The mantras that scientists can discipline their own, and the price of competitive science is some level of scientific misconduct are not persuasive. The standards by which science is judged should not be an exception to those governing others who deal with the public's money and have a duty to the public interest.
科学不端行为管理政策的改进一直很缓慢。虽然目前在研究诚信办公室层面已经有了正当程序的保障，但机构层面的类似保护以及机构对进一步监督的责任，以及一个能够践行负责任研究行为的工作场所，这些问题尚未得到解决。相比之下，关于人类受试者保护的政策已经迅速演变，以反映更严格的规范，在科学或社会需求之上，果断地将受试者保护置于优先地位。也许是因为科学不端行为政策有可能损害个别科学家的职业生涯，而对个体受试者的伤害被认为是间接的，科学界成功地阻止了每一项朝着更严格监管测试迈进的举措。科学家可以自律，以及竞争性科学的代价是一定程度的科学不端行为，这些说法缺乏说服力。评判科学的标准不应成为那些处理公众资金并对公众利益负有责任的人所适用标准的例外。
