阻碍更可信研究的四个错误观念。
Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research.
机构信息
Bioethics Program, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, United States.
Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
出版信息
Elife. 2019 Jul 29;8:e45261. doi: 10.7554/eLife.45261.
Abstract
A range of problems currently undermines public trust in biomedical research. We discuss four erroneous beliefs that may prevent the biomedical research community from recognizing the need to focus on deserving this trust, and thus which act as powerful barriers to necessary improvements in the research process.
摘要
当前，一系列问题破坏了公众对生物医学研究的信任。我们讨论了四种可能阻碍生物医学研究界认识到需要专注于赢得这种信任的错误信念，这些信念是研究过程中必要改进的强大障碍。
相似文献
1
Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research.阻碍更可信研究的四个错误观念。
Elife. 2019 Jul 29;8:e45261. doi: 10.7554/eLife.45261.
2
Regaining Trust in Public Health and Biomedical Science following Covid: The Role of Scientists.新冠疫情后恢复公众对公共卫生和生物医学科学的信任：科学家的作用。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2023 Sep;53 Suppl 2:S105-S109. doi: 10.1002/hast.1531.
3
Trustworthy Research Institutions: The Challenging Case of Studying the Genetics of Intelligence.值得信赖的研究机构：研究智力遗传学的棘手案例。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2015 Sep-Oct;45(5 Suppl):S59-65. doi: 10.1002/hast.501.
4
Ensuring that addiction science is deserving of public trust.确保成瘾科学值得公众信任。
Addiction. 2006 Sep;101(9):1223-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01552.x.
5
Public trust and research a decade later: what have we learned since Jesse Gelsinger's death?十年后的公众信任与研究：自杰西·盖辛格去世后我们学到了什么？
Mol Genet Metab. 2009 May;97(1):4-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2009.02.002. Epub 2009 Feb 20.
6
Transforming the culture of biomedical research from compliance to trustworthiness: insights from nonmedical sectors.将生物医学研究文化从合规转变为值得信赖：来自非医学领域的见解。
Acad Med. 2009 Apr;84(4):472-7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a8aa6.
7
Understanding public opinion in debates over biomedical research: looking beyond political partisanship to focus on beliefs about science and society.理解生物医学研究辩论中的公众舆论：超越政治党派之争，关注对科学与社会的信念。
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 18;9(2):e88473. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088473. eCollection 2014.
8
Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science--hitting the notes, but missing the music?公众参与作为恢复公众对科学信任的一种手段——是找准了音调，却没抓住旋律？
Community Genet. 2006;9(3):211-20. doi: 10.1159/000092659.
9
Conflict of interest and the public trust: a dean's view.利益冲突与公众信任：一位院长的观点。
Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2003;114:369-82; discussion 382-4.
10
Trust, patents and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research.信任、专利与公众认知：有争议的生物技术研究的治理
Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Nov;24(11):1352-4. doi: 10.1038/nbt1106-1352.
引用本文的文献
1
Why too much biomedical research is often undeserving of the public's trust.为何太多的生物医学研究往往辜负公众的信任。
Front Genet. 2025 Jun 26;16:1587616. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1587616. eCollection 2025.
2
Strengthening a Weak Link: Transparency of Causal Loop Diagrams, Current State and Recommendation.强化薄弱环节：因果循环图的透明度、现状与建议
Syst Dyn Rev. 2023 Nov;40(4). doi: 10.1002/sdr.1753.
3
Plea for a Simple But Radical Change in Scientific Publication: To Improve Openness, Reliability, and Reproducibility, Let's Deposit and Validate Our Results before Writing Articles.呼吁对科学出版进行简单但彻底的改革：为了提高开放性、可靠性和可重复性，让我们在撰写文章之前先存放和验证我们的结果。
eNeuro. 2022 Sep 15;9(5). doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0318-22.2022. Print 2022 Sep-Oct.
4
A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.纠正错误和欺诈性学术文献的格式综述及相关挑战
J Gen Philos Sci. 2022;53(4):583-599. doi: 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4. Epub 2022 Jun 1.
5
Using the concept of "deserved trust" to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research.利用“应得信任”的概念来加强生物医学研究的价值和诚信。
Account Res. 2021 Oct;28(7):456-469. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1855427. Epub 2020 Dec 26.
6
Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study.通过审核提高临床前学术研究质量：一项可行性研究。
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 15;15(10):e0240719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240719. eCollection 2020.
本文引用的文献
1
Did a change in Nature journals' editorial policy for life sciences research improve reporting?《自然》杂志生命科学研究编辑政策的改变是否改善了报告情况？
BMJ Open Sci. 2019 Feb 26;3(1):e000035. doi: 10.1136/bmjos-2017-000035. eCollection 2019.
2
A manifesto for reproducible science.可重复科学宣言。
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Jan 10;1(1):0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
3
Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations.在学术评审、晋升和终身职位评估中使用期刊影响因子。
Elife. 2019 Jul 31;8:e47338. doi: 10.7554/eLife.47338.
4
Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity.扭转局面：一个基于质量而非数量的大学排行榜。
F1000Res. 2019 Apr 29;8:583. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.18453.2. eCollection 2019.
5
A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus).一项旨在提高对《动物研究：体内实验报告指南》（ARRIVE）依从性的干预措施的随机对照试验（IICARus）。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Jun 12;4:12. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3. eCollection 2019.
6
No Support for Historical Candidate Gene or Candidate Gene-by-Interaction Hypotheses for Major Depression Across Multiple Large Samples.没有证据支持大样本中主要抑郁症的历史候选基因或候选基因-交互作用假说。
Am J Psychiatry. 2019 May 1;176(5):376-387. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070881. Epub 2019 Mar 8.
7
Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.评估科学家以进行招聘、晋升和终身职位。
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 29;16(3):e2004089. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089. eCollection 2018 Mar.
8
An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility.期刊政策对计算可重复性影响的实证分析。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 13;115(11):2584-2589. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708290115. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
9
Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections.提高已发表科学的完整性：撤稿和勘误的扩展分类法。
Eur J Clin Invest. 2018 Apr;48(4). doi: 10.1111/eci.12898. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
10
Post retraction citations in context: a case study.撤稿后引用情况的背景分析：一个案例研究
Scientometrics. 2017;113(1):547-565. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0. Epub 2017 Mar 3.
Zotero 插件