Friedman P J
University of California San Diego, USA.
Acad Med. 1996 Jul;71(7):716-23. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199607000-00002.
The author offers advice to faculty, students, and staff who become involved in issues of research misconduct, whether as the accuser or as the accused. After reviewing the different definitions of research misconduct used by various authorities and discussing other kinds and degrees of misconduct, he provides information to those who suspect research misconduct, to help them identify their responsibilities and the risks involved: he makes it clear that an accusation of research fraud or other misconduct has serious consequences for all parties. The author then discusses how to pursue concerns about improper research practices, emphasizing a nonconfrontational approach and the use of proper channels for reporting. He explains the process of a formal review, including characteristic institutional responses; the role of the Office of Research Integrity; and when to seek the advice of an attorney. He argues that education is clearly preferable to denunciation as a way to improve scientists' ethics and practices. The author then gives similarly detailed advice to the accused, including a caution not to take criticism of methods or results as an accusation of fraud. He discusses the significances of the two stages of review of an allegation of misconduct, with practical advice for cooperative participation in any review; use of legal counsel; the importance of avoiding retaliation; information about due process and material evidence; the impact of a formal investigation; peer standards for evaluating misconduct; and the unavoidable discomfort that the accused will experience during the lengthy process. He advises that practicing good science is the first step in avoiding this unpleasant experience.
作者为那些卷入科研不端行为问题的教师、学生和工作人员提供建议，无论他们是作为指控者还是被指控者。在回顾了各权威机构对科研不端行为的不同定义，并讨论了其他类型和程度的不端行为之后，他向那些怀疑存在科研不端行为的人提供信息，以帮助他们认清自己的责任和所涉及的风险：他明确指出，对科研欺诈或其他不端行为的指控会对所有相关方产生严重后果。作者接着讨论了如何处理对不当研究行为的担忧，强调采用非对抗性方法并通过适当渠道进行举报。他解释了正式审查的过程，包括机构的典型回应；科研诚信办公室的作用；以及何时寻求律师的建议。他认为，作为提升科学家道德和行为的一种方式，教育显然优于谴责。作者随后同样详细地向被指控者提供建议，包括提醒不要将对方法或结果的批评视为欺诈指控。他讨论了对不端行为指控进行审查的两个阶段的意义，并给出了在任何审查中进行合作参与的实用建议；使用法律顾问；避免报复的重要性；关于正当程序和实质性证据的信息；正式调查的影响；评估不端行为的同行标准；以及被指控者在漫长过程中不可避免会经历的不适。他建议，践行良好的科学是避免这种不愉快经历的第一步。
