Klein D F
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Acad Med. 1993 Sep;68(9 Suppl):S56-9. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199309000-00035.
The author argues that the somewhat Orwellian Office of Research Integrity needs careful scrutiny as to whether it should exist at all or whether its purported social benefits could be better achieved by other mechanisms. First, social issues specifically related to scientific misconduct need to be clarified so as to consider alternative regulatory measures. Constructive social policy requires balanced judgments that keep all goals in view and strives to promote science and to deal effectively with what may go awry (for example, falsification and fabrication, and plagiarism). Second, the regulation of scientific misconduct raises important questions, such as whether universities are able to police themselves. But is government regulation the best answer? The author suggests that a freestanding, nonprofit investigative foundation be formed and staffed by experts in investigations of scientific fraud as well as legal experts aware of investigative and due-process issues. Such a structure would remove the government from regulation (a boon) and relieve the university of the conflicts inherent in a duty to investigate and judge allegations. By the same token, the scientific community, including professional societies, would be at the center of the policing efforts of the foundation.
作者认为,有点像奥威尔式的科研诚信办公室需要仔细审查其是否有存在的必要,或者其宣称的社会效益是否能通过其他机制更好地实现。首先,需要厘清与科研不端行为具体相关的社会问题,以便考虑其他监管措施。建设性的社会政策需要综合考量所有目标并做出平衡的判断,既要努力促进科学发展,又要有效应对可能出现的问题(例如,伪造、编造和抄袭)。其次,对科研不端行为的监管引发了一些重要问题,比如大学是否有能力自我监督。但政府监管是最佳答案吗?作者建议成立一个独立的非营利性调查基金会,配备科学欺诈调查专家以及熟悉调查和正当程序问题的法律专家。这样的架构将使政府摆脱监管职责(这是件好事),并使大学免于承担调查和评判指控所固有的冲突。同样,科学界,包括专业协会,将处于该基金会监管工作的核心位置。