Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1235-1253. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
Research integrity and misconduct have recently risen to public attention as policy issues. Concern has arisen about divergence between this policy discourse and the language and concerns of scientists. This interview study, carried out in Denmark with a cohort of highly internationalised natural scientists, explores how researchers talk about integrity and good science. It finds, first, that these scientists were largely unaware of the Danish Code of Conduct for Responsible Conduct of Research and indifferent towards the value of such codes; second, that they presented an image of good science as nuanced and thereby as difficult to manage through abstracted, principle-based codes; and third, that they repeatedly pointed to systemic issues both as triggering misconduct and as ethical problems in and of themselves. Research integrity is framed as a part of wider moves to 'responsibilise' science; understood in these terms, resistance to codes of conduct and the representation of integrity as a problem of science as a whole can be seen as a rejection of a neoliberal individualisation of responsibility.
研究诚信和不当行为最近作为政策问题引起了公众的关注。人们对政策话语与科学家的语言和关注点之间的分歧表示担忧。本项在丹麦进行的、针对一群高度国际化的自然科学家的访谈研究,探讨了研究人员如何谈论诚信和良好科学。研究结果表明,首先,这些科学家对《丹麦负责任研究行为规范》知之甚少,也不关心此类规范的价值;其次,他们将良好科学描绘为复杂的,因此很难通过抽象的、基于原则的规范来管理;第三,他们反复指出系统问题既是不当行为的触发因素,也是自身的伦理问题。研究诚信被视为更广泛的“使科学负责任”运动的一部分;从这个角度来看,可以将对行为规范的抵制以及将诚信视为整个科学问题的表现,视为对新自由主义将责任个人化的拒绝。