Korenman S G, Berk R, Wenger N S, Lew V
Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles 90095-7041, USA.
JAMA. 1998 Jan 7;279(1):41-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.1.41.
The professional integrity of scientists is important to society as a whole and particularly to disciplines such as medicine that depend heavily on scientific advances for their progress.
To characterize the professional norms of active scientists and compare them with those of individuals with institutional responsibility for the conduct of research.
A mailed survey consisting of 12 scenarios in 4 domains of research ethics. Respondents were asked whether an act was unethical and, if so, the degree to which they considered it unethical and to select responses and punishments for the act.
A total of 924 National Science Foundation research grantees in 1993 or 1994 in molecular or cellular biology and 140 representatives from the researchers' institutions to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity.
Percentage of respondents considering an act unethical and the mean malfeasance rating on a scale of 1 to 10.
A total of 606 research grantees and 91 institutional representatives responded to the survey (response rate of 69% of those who could be contacted). Respondents reported a hierarchy of unethical research behaviors. The mean malfeasance rating was unrelated to the characteristics of the investigator performing the hypothetical act or to its consequences. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism received malfeasance ratings higher than 8.6, and virtually all thought they were unethical. Deliberately misleading statements about a paper or failure to give proper attribution received ratings between 7 and 8. Sloppiness, oversights, conflicts of interest, and failure to share were less serious still, receiving malfeasance ratings between 5 and 6. Institutional representatives proposed more and different interventions and punishments than the scientists.
Surveyed scientists and institutional representatives had strong and similar norms of professional behavior, but differed in their approaches to an unethical act.
科学家的职业操守对整个社会至关重要，对于像医学这样严重依赖科学进步来推动发展的学科而言尤为重要。
描述活跃科学家的职业规范，并将其与对研究行为负有机构责任的人员的规范进行比较。
一项邮寄调查，包含4个研究伦理领域的12个情景。受访者被问及某一行为是否不道德，如果是，他们认为该行为不道德的程度，并为该行为选择应对措施和惩罚方式。
1993年或1994年获得美国国家科学基金会资助的924名分子或细胞生物学领域的研究人员，以及140名来自这些研究人员所在机构、向美国卫生与公众服务部研究诚信办公室汇报的代表。
认为某一行为不道德的受访者百分比，以及在1至10分制量表上的不当行为平均评分。
共有606名研究受资助者和91名机构代表回复了调查（回复率为可联系对象的69%）。受访者报告了不道德研究行为的等级体系。不当行为平均评分与实施假设行为的研究人员的特征或行为后果无关。伪造、篡改和抄袭的不当行为评分高于8.6，几乎所有人都认为这些行为不道德。对论文故意作出误导性陈述或未给予适当归属的行为评分在7至8分之间。草率、疏忽、利益冲突和不分享行为的严重程度更低，不当行为评分在5至6分之间。机构代表提出的干预措施和惩罚方式比科学家更多且不同。
接受调查的科学家和机构代表有着强烈且相似的职业行为规范，但在对待不道德行为的方式上存在差异。
