Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Sep;17(3):447-57. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9217-3. Epub 2010 Jun 10.
Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of "lessons learned." What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct-the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood's research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines.
研究不端行为在文献中已经得到了充分的讨论，但主要是关于定义和规范行为的建议。即使引用了案例研究，它们通常也被用作“经验教训”的存储库。从这场对话中缺失的是，负责任的研究行为的教训首先是如何传授给研究生的，尤其是那些在工程等技术领域的研究生。也很少有人讨论在培养学生的负责任的研究行为方面，或者在研究不端行为的情况下，谁应该承担责任。本文探讨了三个看似不同的不当行为案例——2004 年俄亥俄大学的剽窃丑闻；1913 年著名的罗伯特·密立根的文章，其中他报告的数据选择与他的笔记本不符；以及 1990 年在勒罗伊·胡德博士的研究实验室中发生的伪造丑闻。比较这些案例为我们提供了一种看待研究生（或受训者）与其导师（这种关系被证明对学生最有影响力）之间关系的方法，以及在研究不端行为的情况下，对已建立的研究人员和研究中的人员可能进行不同的处理。本文反思了研究顾问及其学生的权利和责任，并提出了明确这些责任以及研究行为准则中特别模糊的领域的建议。
