• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
"I am Primarily Paid for Publishing…": The Narrative Framing of Societal Responsibilities in Academic Life Science Research.“我主要是靠发表论文来获得报酬的……”:学术生命科学研究中社会责任的叙事框架。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1569-1593. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00191-8. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
2
Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study.关系责任:研究人员对当前和渐进式评估标准的看法:焦点小组研究。
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 4;19(9):e0307814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307814. eCollection 2024.
3
Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities关怀文化:组织职责
4
Teaching Responsible Research and Innovation: A Phronetic Perspective.教授负责任的研究与创新:实践哲学的视角。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Apr;25(2):597-615. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0029-1. Epub 2018 Feb 7.
5
Responsible innovation in stem cell research: using responsibility as a strategy.干细胞研究中的责任创新:将责任作为一种策略。
Regen Med. 2023 Mar;18(3):275-284. doi: 10.2217/rme-2022-0187. Epub 2023 Feb 16.
6
The "how" and "whys" of research: life scientists' views of accountability.研究的“方法”和“原因”:生命科学家的问责观。
J Med Ethics. 2009 Dec;35(12):762-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.031781.
7
Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper.发表科学论文应采用的规则。
Ann Ital Chir. 2016;87:1-3.
8
Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies.责任装置:十余年纳米技术负责任研究与创新倡议
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Dec;24(6):1719-1746. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9978-z. Epub 2017 Oct 10.
9
Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2): Protocol for a Horizon 2020 Funded European Multicenter Project to Promote Responsible Research and Innovation.实现负责任生物科学的结构转型(STARBIOS2):一项由“地平线2020”资助的欧洲多中心项目促进负责任研究与创新的方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Mar 7;8(3):e11745. doi: 10.2196/11745.
10
Between Scylla and Charybdis: reconciling competing data management demands in the life sciences.处于两难境地:协调生命科学中相互冲突的数据管理需求。
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 May 17;17(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0112-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Orientation work: caring for the relevance of research to social-environmental problems.定向工作:关注研究与社会环境问题的相关性。
Sci Cult (Lond). 2025 Jul 21:1-24. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2025.2531747.
2
Diving into Relevance: How Deep Sea Researchers Articulate Societal Relevance within their Epistemic Living Spaces.深入探讨相关性:深海研究人员如何在其认知生活空间中阐述社会相关性。
Minerva. 2025;63(2):205-229. doi: 10.1007/s11024-025-09577-z. Epub 2025 Mar 25.
3
Re-invent Yourself! How Demands for Innovativeness Reshape Epistemic Practices.重塑自我!创新需求如何重塑认知实践。
Minerva. 2021;59(4):423-444. doi: 10.1007/s11024-021-09447-4. Epub 2021 Jun 8.

本文引用的文献

1
Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good.跨学科实验:负责任的研究与创新和公共利益。
PLoS Biol. 2018 Mar 26;16(3):e2003921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003921. eCollection 2018 Mar.
2
A Lay Ethics Quest for Technological Futures: About Tradition, Narrative and Decision-Making.对技术未来的普通伦理探索:关于传统、叙事与决策
Nanoethics. 2016;10(3):233-244. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0273-2. Epub 2016 Aug 17.
3
Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists' Work and Lives.生命科学研究中的不可持续增长、过度竞争与生命价值:博士和博士后科学家工作与生活中评价方式的狭隘化
Minerva. 2016;54:175-200. doi: 10.1007/s11024-016-9292-y. Epub 2016 Mar 4.
4
Integration of social science into research is crucial.将社会科学融入研究至关重要。
Nature. 2015 Sep 17;525(7569):291. doi: 10.1038/525291a.
5
Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces.规范责任?间隙空间的重要性。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1159-80. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9602-4. Epub 2014 Oct 26.
6
Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies.构建富有成效的参与:新兴技术的预参与工具。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Dec;17(4):699-714. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9304-0. Epub 2011 Sep 6.

“我主要是靠发表论文来获得报酬的……”:学术生命科学研究中社会责任的叙事框架。

"I am Primarily Paid for Publishing…": The Narrative Framing of Societal Responsibilities in Academic Life Science Research.

机构信息

Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010, Austria.

Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010, Austria.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1569-1593. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00191-8. Epub 2020 Feb 11.

DOI:10.1007/s11948-020-00191-8
PMID:32048141
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7286937/
Abstract

Building on group discussions and interviews with life science researchers in Austria, this paper analyses the narratives that researchers use in describing what they feel responsible for, with a particular focus on how they perceive the societal responsibilities of their research. Our analysis shows that the core narratives used by the life scientists participating in this study continue to be informed by the linear model of innovation. This makes it challenging for more complex innovation models [such as responsible research and innovation (RRI)] to gain ground in how researchers make sense of and conduct their research. Furthermore, the paper shows that the life scientists were not easily able to imagine specific practices that would address broader societal concerns and thus found it hard to integrate the latter into their core responsibilities. Linked to this, researchers saw institutional reward structures (e.g. evaluations, contractual commitments) as strongly focused on scientific excellence ("I am primarily paid for publishing…"). Thus, they saw reward structures as competing with-rather than incentivising-broader notions of societal responsibility. This narrative framing of societal responsibilities is indicative of a structural marginalisation of responsibility practices and explains the claim, made by many researchers in our sample, that they cannot afford to spend time on such practices. The paper thus concludes that the core ideas of RRI stand in tension with predominant narrative and institutional infrastructures that researchers draw on to attribute meaning to their research practices. This suggests that scientific institutions (like universities, professional communities or funding institutions) still have a core role to play in providing new and context-specific narratives as well as new forms of valuing responsibility practices.

摘要

基于与奥地利生命科学研究人员的小组讨论和访谈,本文分析了研究人员在描述自己所负责任时使用的叙述方式,特别关注他们如何看待研究的社会责任。我们的分析表明,参与这项研究的生命科学家所使用的核心叙述仍然受到创新线性模型的影响。这使得更复杂的创新模式(如负责任的研究和创新)难以在研究人员理解和进行研究的方式中立足。此外,本文还表明,生命科学家不容易想象出能够解决更广泛社会问题的具体实践,因此很难将后者纳入其核心责任之中。与此相关的是,研究人员认为制度奖励结构(例如评估、合同承诺)主要侧重于科学卓越性(“我主要是因为发表……而获得报酬”)。因此,他们认为奖励结构与更广泛的社会责任观念竞争,而不是激励后者。这种对社会责任的叙述框架表明,责任实践在结构上处于边缘化地位,这也解释了我们样本中的许多研究人员所声称的,他们没有时间从事此类实践的观点。因此,本文得出结论,负责任的研究和创新的核心思想与研究人员用来为其研究实践赋予意义的主要叙述和制度基础设施之间存在紧张关系。这表明,科学机构(如大学、专业社区或资助机构)在提供新的、特定于情境的叙述以及新的责任实践价值形式方面仍然发挥着核心作用。