Binder Renée, Friedli Amy, Fuentes-Afflick Elena
R. Binder is associate dean, Office of Academic Affairs, and professor of psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. A. Friedli is executive director, Office of Academic Affairs, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. E. Fuentes-Afflick is vice dean, Office of Academic Affairs, and professor of pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Acad Med. 2016 Feb;91(2):175-9. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000956.
Faculty members are expected to abide by codes of conduct that are delineated in institutional policies and to behave ethically when engaging in scientific pursuits. As federal funds for research decrease, faculty members face increasing pressure to sustain their research activities, and many have developed new collaborations and pursued new entrepreneurial opportunities. As research collaborations increase, however, there may be competition to get credit as the first person to develop ideas, make new discoveries, and/or publish new findings. This increasingly competitive academic environment may contribute to intentional or unintentional faculty misconduct. The authors, who work in the Dean's Office at a large U.S. medical school (University of California, San Francisco), investigate one to two cases of alleged misconduct each month. These investigations, which are stressful and unpleasant, may culminate in serious disciplinary action for the faculty member. Further, these allegations sometimes result in lengthy and acrimonious civil litigation. This Perspective provides three examples of academic misconduct: violations of institutional conflict-of-interest policies, disputes about intellectual property, and authorship conflicts.The authors also describe prevention and mitigation strategies that their medical school employs, which may be helpful to other institutions. Prevention strategies include training campus leaders, using attestations to reduce violations of institutional policies, encouraging open discussion and written agreements about individuals' roles and responsibilities, and defining expectations regarding authorship and intellectual property at the outset. Mitigation strategies include using mediation by third parties who do not have a vested academic, personal, or financial interest in the outcome.
教职员工应遵守机构政策中所规定的行为准则,并在从事科学研究时秉持道德规范。随着联邦研究资金的减少,教职员工面临着维持其研究活动的越来越大的压力,许多人已经开展了新的合作并寻求新的创业机会。然而,随着研究合作的增加,在成为提出想法、做出新发现和/或发表新成果的第一人以获得认可方面可能会存在竞争。这种竞争日益激烈的学术环境可能会导致教职员工有意或无意的不当行为。本文作者在美国一所大型医学院(加利福尼亚大学旧金山分校)的院长办公室工作,每月调查一到两起涉嫌不当行为的案件。这些调查既紧张又令人不快,可能最终会对教职员工采取严厉的纪律处分。此外,这些指控有时会导致冗长而激烈的民事诉讼。本观点提供了学术不当行为的三个例子:违反机构利益冲突政策、关于知识产权的争议以及署名冲突。作者还描述了他们所在医学院采用的预防和缓解策略,这些策略可能对其他机构有所帮助。预防策略包括培训校园领导、使用声明以减少违反机构政策的行为、鼓励就个人的角色和责任进行公开讨论并达成书面协议,以及从一开始就明确关于署名和知识产权的期望。缓解策略包括由对结果没有既得学术、个人或经济利益的第三方进行调解。