新編研究生綜合英語教程TEXT1

1、Text A Text A Why Teach Research EthicsWhy Teach Research EthicsText B Text B The Nature of InquiryThe Nature of InquiryIn addition to a body of knowledge that includes formulas and facts, science is the practice by which we pursue answers to the questions that can be approached scientifically. This

2、 practice is referred to collectively as scientific research, and while the techniques that scientists use to conduct research may differ between disciplines, like biology, chemistry, geology, physics, or any other scientific field, the underlying principles and objectives are similar. Now we are at

3、 a time in which the need to build trust between science and society is becoming ever more important. lt is vital that the conduct of science itself is based on the highest ethical considerations and that misconduct within science itself can be identified and dealt with in an open and transparent ma

4、nner.Text A, Why Teach Research Ethics, examines the role and importance of ethical education on the part of students and faculty. Beginning with two stories about unconscious misconduct, Judy E. Stern and Deni Elliott bring up the urgent need to teach ethics in order to ensure a good practice of sc

5、ience. Such necessity arises from the inadequacy of traditional individual mentoring in helping learn conventions of science. One aspect of research ethics concerns researchers professional spirit in the pursuit of ultimate truth, that is to say, good science must be conducted through rigorous, syst

6、ematic and replicable procedure. In Text B, The Nature of Inquiry, the authors will elaborate on how scientific research distinguishes itself from common-sense knowing, how researchers approach reality differently, and what philosophical assumptions underpin each approach. Background Information Bac

7、kground Information Pre-reading Pre-reading QuestionsQuestions Text Text A Why Teach Research A Why Teach Research Ethics Ethics VocabularyVocabulary Exercises Exercises 1. Information about the authors1. Information about the authors2. Information about research ethics2. Information about research

8、ethics3. Cultural Background Information3. Cultural Background InformationBackground Information Background Information Text Explanation Text Explanation & Translation& TranslationOrganization of Organization of the Textthe TextText A Why Teach Research Text A Why Teach Research EthicsEthics

9、 VocabularyVocabulary1. Core Vocabulary List1. Core Vocabulary List2 2 2. Vocabulary 2. Vocabulary Expanding Expanding the Notion of Theme to Larger the Notion of Theme to Larger Structures Structures than Clausethan ClauseThe Mode The Mode Difference Difference of of Speech Speech & & Writi

10、ng Writing The theme and rhyme according to The theme and rhyme according to Functional Functional linguistlinguistThematic ProgressionThematic ProgressionA A comparison of speech with comparison of speech with writingwritingThe Mode The Mode Difference Difference of of Speech Speech & & Wri

11、tingWriting The The difference between Speech & difference between Speech & writingwritingCore Vocabulary ListCore Vocabulary ListThematic ProgressionThematic ProgressionExpanding the Notion of Theme Expanding the Notion of Theme to Larger Structures to Larger Structures than Clausethan Clau

12、sel. Comprehensionl. ComprehensionII Word StudyII Word StudyIII ClozeIII ClozeV WritingV WritingIV TranslationIV TranslationI ComprehensionI Comprehension 1. Answer Questions1. Answer Questions 2. Paraphrase 2. ParaphraseIV TranslationIV Translation1. English Translation1. English Translation2. Chin

13、ese Translation2. Chinese TranslationJudy E. Stern & Deni Elliott1. Information about the authors1. Information about the authors 2. Information about research ethics 2. Information about research ethics 3 3. Cultural Background Information. Cultural Background InformationJudy E. Stern is a prof

14、essor from Giesel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College. Her professional interests include outcomes of assisted reproductive technology, ethical issues in assisted reproduction, ethical issues in scientific research and reproductive immunology. D. Elliott is an ethicist and ethics scholar, and ha

15、s been active in practical ethics since the 1980s. 1. Information about the authors1. Information about the authors: :Research ethics involves the application of fundamental ethical principles to a variety of topics involving research, including scientific research. These include the design of resea

16、rch involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism), whistle blowing; regulation of research, etc. Research ethics is most developed as a concept in medical research. The

17、 key agreement here is the 1974 Declaration of Helsinki. The Nuremberg Code is a former agreement, but with many still important notes. Research in the social sciences presents a different set of issues than those in medical research.2. Information about research ethics2. Information about research

18、ethicsSouth Korean Scientist Hwang Woo-Suk was accused of fabricating data Professor of Xian Jiaotong University Li Liansheng was deprived of the National Award for plagiarism.Research ethics involves the application of fundamental ethical principles to a variety of topics on scientific research. Th

19、ese topics include the design and implementation of research involving human experimentation, animal experimentation, various aspects of academic scandal, including scientific misconduct (such as fraud, fabrication of data and plagiarism) whistleblowing, regulation of research, etc. Research ethics

20、is most developed as a concept in medical research. The key agreement here is the 1974 Declaration of Helsinki. The Nuremberg Code is a former agreement, but Nith many still important notes. Research in social sciences presents a different set of issues than those in medical research. The academic r

21、esearch enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Researchers trust that the results reported by others are sound. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists and other researchers to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will endu

22、re only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical research conduct. There are many ethical issues to be taken into serious consideration for research. Sociologists need to be aware of having the responsibility to secure the actual

23、permission and interests of all those involved in the study. They should not misuse any of the information discovered, and there should be a certain moral responsibility maintained towards the participants. There is a duty to protect the rights of people in the study as well as their privacy and sen

24、sitivity. The confidentiality of those involved in the observation must be carried out, keeping their anonymity and privacy secure. As pointed out in the BSA for Sociology, all of these ethics must be honored unless there are other overriding reasons not to do so - for example, any illegal or terror

25、ist activity.Q1: Q1: Has your supervisor introduced you to the research ethics in your field? If yes, how did he or she do so ?Q2: Q2: What do you think is an effective way of preventing unethical behaviors in scientific study?Q3Q3: What is your personal stance on the academic dishonesty like faking

26、 data , stealing ideas, or usurping language without attribution?Q4Q4: In your mind, what are the criteria for a good practice of science?1. Recently, one of us had the opportunity to speak with a medical student about a research rotation that the student was planning to do. She would be working wit

27、h Dr. Z, who had given her the project of writing a paper for which he had designed the protocol, collected the data, and compiled the results. The student was to do a literature search and write the first draft of the manuscript. For this she would become first author on the final publication. When

28、 concerns were raised about the proposed project, Dr. Z was shocked. l thought I was doing her a favor, he said innocently, and besides, I hate writing!1. 1. 最近，我們當中的一員有機會最近，我們當中的一員有機會與一名醫(yī)科學生談論她正計劃要做與一名醫(yī)科學生談論她正計劃要做的一個實驗室輪轉項目。她將與給的一個實驗室輪轉項目。她將與給她布置論文撰寫任務的她布置論文撰寫任務的Dr.ZDr.Z一起完一起完成該項目。成該項目。Dr.ZDr.Z已經(jīng)設計

29、好研究工已經(jīng)設計好研究工具，并收集數(shù)據(jù)，整理了實驗結果。具，并收集數(shù)據(jù)，整理了實驗結果。該學生只需做做文獻檢索，然后撰該學生只需做做文獻檢索，然后撰寫初稿。這樣，在論文最終出版的寫初稿。這樣，在論文最終出版的時候，她就可以成為第一作者。然時候，她就可以成為第一作者。然而，當該項目受到越來越多非議時，而，當該項目受到越來越多非議時， Dr.ZDr.Z震驚之余無辜地說，震驚之余無辜地說，“我以為我以為我是在幫她，而我也確實討厭寫我是在幫她，而我也確實討厭寫作作”。Judy E. Stern & Judy E. Stern & DeniDeni Elliott Elliott2. D

30、r. Z is perhaps a bit naive. Certainly, most researchers would know that the students work would not merit first authorship. They would know that gift authorship is not an acceptable research practice. However, an earlier experience in our work makes us wonder. Several years ago, in conjunction with

31、 the grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Pott Secondary Education (FIPSE), a team of philosophers and scientists at Dartmouth College 2 ran a University Seminar series for faculty on the topic Ethical Issues in scientific Research. 2. Dr.Z或許有一點天真。當然，大多數(shù)研究人員都知道，該學生所做的工作并不稱第一作者這個頭銜。他們知道，這種“贈予”原

32、創(chuàng)作者頭銜的做法，并不是可以接受的科研行為。然而，早期的工作經(jīng)驗使我們產(chǎn)生疑問。若干年前，在高等教育改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一個由哲學家和科學家組成的團隊在達特茅斯學院，為全體教員舉辦以“科學研究中的倫理問題”為主題的系列講座。At one seminar, a senior researcher (lets call him Professor R) argued a similar position to that of Dr. Z. In this case Professor R knew that gift authorship, authorship without a s

33、ignificant research contribution, was an unacceptable research practice. However, he had a reason to give authorship to his student. 在其中一次研討會上，一個資深研在其中一次研討會上，一個資深研究員（讓我們叫他究員（讓我們叫他R R教授）與教授）與Dr.ZDr.Z持有相似的觀點。在這個案例中，持有相似的觀點。在這個案例中，R R教授明知道把原創(chuàng)作者身份教授明知道把原創(chuàng)作者身份“贈贈予予”沒有研究貢獻的人是不符合學沒有研究貢獻的人是不符合學術道德規(guī)范的。然而，他卻有

34、理由術道德規(guī)范的。然而，他卻有理由給他的學生一個作者身份。給他的學生一個作者身份。The student had worked for several years on a project suggested by him and the project had yielded to publishable data. Believing that he had a duty to the student to ensure a publication, Professor R had given the student some data that he himself had collec

35、ted and told the student to write it up. The student had worked hard, he said, albeit on another project, and the student would do the writing. Thus, he reasoned, the authorship was not a gift.因為這個學生已經(jīng)在他所建因為這個學生已經(jīng)在他所建議的項目上花費了幾年的功議的項目上花費了幾年的功夫，然而卻沒能發(fā)表任何研夫，然而卻沒能發(fā)表任何研究結果。他認為他有責任幫究結果。他認為他有責任幫助這名學生發(fā)表論文。于

36、是助這名學生發(fā)表論文。于是R R教授給了該學生一些他自教授給了該學生一些他自己收集的數(shù)據(jù)，讓其撰寫一己收集的數(shù)據(jù)，讓其撰寫一篇論文。篇論文。R R教授說這名學生教授說這名學生一直努力的做項目，盡管不一直努力的做項目，盡管不是同一項目，而且該生還負是同一項目，而且該生還負責論文寫作，所以他認為原責論文寫作，所以他認為原創(chuàng)作者頭銜并不算創(chuàng)作者頭銜并不算“贈予贈予”。3. These two stories point up a major reason for encouraging courses in research ethics: Good intentions do not necess

37、arily result in ethical decisions. Both of the faculty members in the above scenarios meant well. In both cases, the faculty members truly believed that what they were doing was morally acceptable. In the first case, Dr. Zs indefensible error was that he was unaware of the conventions of the field.

38、3.這兩個故事都強調了推動開設科研倫理課程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引導人們做出正確的道德選擇。上述兩個情節(jié)中的教師本意是好的。這兩個案例中的教師認為他們所做的事情在道德層面上是可以接受的。在第一個案例中，Dr.Z的解釋之所以站不住腳是因為他沒有意識到這一領域的公約。In particular, he seemed blissfully oblivious to the meaning of first authorship. In the second case, Professor R was do ng what he thought best for the student wit

39、hout taking into consideration that moral. ty is a public system and that his actions with regard to a single student have public consequences for the practice of science as a profession.而他似乎也遺忘了第一作者的概念。在第二個案例中，R教授自認為他所做的事情都是對他學生最有益的，然而卻沒有考慮道德是一個公共體系，他對這一名學生的做法卻對科學研究產(chǎn)生了公共影響。4. Well-meaning scientist

40、s, such as those just mentioned, can, with the best of intentions, make unethical decisions. In some cases, such decisions may lead individuals to become embroiled in cases of misconduct. A course in research ethics can help such scientists to appreciate that it is their responsibility to know profe

41、ssional conventions as well as to understand the public nature of morality.4. 例如剛剛提到的那些善意的科學家，他們的意圖是好的，但卻做出了不道德的決定。一些情況下，這樣的決定可能會導致個人卷入到學術不端的指控中?？蒲袀惱碚n程可以幫助這樣的科學家明白，他們有責任去了解職業(yè)慣例以及公共道德的本質。5.There are scientists for whom a course in research ethics will be less useful. Efraim Racker, in a 1989 article,

42、 described a student in his lab who was a professional fabricator of data. This student composed lab books without performing experiments, added radioactive material to gels to produce bands where he wished those bands to be, and lied to his colleagues about his actions. Another researcher, Elias Al

43、sabti, described by D. J. Miller, was a meticulous plagiarizer. 5. 對于有些科學家來說，科研倫理課程可能作用并不大。Efraim Racker在其1989年發(fā)表的文章中描述了一個他實驗室里“專業(yè)的”數(shù)據(jù)造假者。這名學生沒做實驗就拼湊出實驗書，在凝膠中添加放射性材料來合成他想要的繃帶，并欺瞞他的同事。D. J. Miller描述的另一位研究者Elias Alsabti是一個細心的剽竊者。This physician-researcher fabricated his curriculum vitae, copied a colle

44、agues grant for his own use, published other peoples data under his own name, and co-authored his pilfered data with fictitious collaborators. Individuals such as these are unlikely to learn research ethics through instruction because they are not interested in becoming ethical practitioners.這位醫(yī)師編造個

45、人履歷，抄襲同事的基金申請書為己所用，以個人名義發(fā)表他人數(shù)據(jù)，并虛構合作者一起用剽竊的數(shù)據(jù)合寫論文。像這樣的人是不會通過課程學習研究倫理的，因為他們對學術道德并不感興趣。6. The ethics of scientific research is somewhat unique within professional ethics in the sense that good science requires the ethical practice of science. Nevertheless, a course in research ethics cannot and should

46、 not have as its central focus the question, Why should I be moral? This question, while important, is not specific to the field of scientific research. 6. 某種程度上講，科學研究倫理屬于職業(yè)道德的范疇，并且是獨一無二的。而一定意義上，好的科學研究要求符合道德規(guī)范的工作。然而，一門學術倫理課程不能夠也不應該把 “我為什么應該遵守道德？”作為焦點問題。這個問題雖然重要，但并不只是具體針對學術研究領域。正如達特茅斯團隊預想的那樣，一門學術倫理課程

47、必須教會大家如何就科學研究做出有道德的決策。這將是專門為那些致力于成為遵守道德規(guī)范的研究人員而設計的課程。這樣的一門課程將會給學生提供這個問題的答案，“我怎樣才能做出一個符合道德的決定？”A course in research ethics, as envisioned by the Dartmouth team, must be a course that teaches the tools for making ethical decisions relative to matters of research. It will be designed for those scientis

48、ts who are already committed to being ethical researchers. Such a course should provide students the answers to the question, How can I make moral decisions?7 Although it is the fabricators and the plagiarizers whom we most often think of when we think of research misconduct, these are not the only

49、people accused of misconduct. They are a so not the only people who are guilty of misconduct. Many other scientists have had live and careers affected by misconduct cases.7. 雖然當我們思考學術不端時，大多數(shù)時候我們想到的是數(shù)據(jù)造假者或者剽竊者，但是這些人并不是唯一被指控學術不端的人。同樣，他們也不是唯一被認定學術不端的人。許多科學家的生活和事業(yè)都曾受到了學術不端事件的影響。8 It is undoubtedly unfai

50、r to generalize from a few cases of misconduct to an entire profession. Nevertheless, reported cases of misconduct are not uncommon, and this could reflect a failure to train students to the highest ethical standards. The 1993 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 4 publication reported the 1991-1992ca

51、seload to include 29 institutional inquiries, 21 institutional investigations, and ORI inquiries or investigations. The 1995 ORI publication reported the 1994 caseload as 13 institutional inquiries, 17 institutional investigations, and 8 0RI inquiries or investigations. 8.然而，僅憑一些學術不端的個案來推論整個行業(yè)無疑是不公平

52、的。不過已披露的學術不端行為的確不在少數(shù)，這也反映了學生道德培養(yǎng)水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研誠信辦公室（ORI）的報告公布了其在1991年至1992年期間，對其自身以及29個機構的訪談記錄和21個機構的調查結果。1995年，該研究室的報告又涵蓋了1994年對于13個機構的訪問和對17個機構的調查，以及8份該研究室的調查研究。近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的調查顯示出，學術行為中主要涉及偽造、篡改、剽竊等，甚至多種不端行為的并存的情況。對于已結案件的調查中，僅有不足一半的涉及不斷行為，而且對被告方也實施了相應的制裁。當事人的學術職稱從技術人員到教授不等。案件多由科研機

53、構自己披露，并且當事人均受到各種基金的資助。Of actions closed in these years (5 in 1991-1992; 44 in 1994), some involved fabrication, some falsification, some plagiarism, and others some combination of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other misconduct. Slightly fewer than half of the investigated cases closed

54、as of these reports were found to involve misconduct and resulted in sanction against the accused party. The academic rank of the accused ranged from technician to full professor. Cases were reported from a number of institutions, and the accused parties were funded by a variety of funding sources.9

55、 Cases of misconduct are not simple matters to evaluate. One source of concern is confusion within lie field of science about just what constitutes a punishable infringement of ethic al standards. In the fields of engineering, law, and medicine, clear written guidelines exist for defining ethical co

56、nduct. Although some particularly difficult cases may test the limits of these guidelines, most do not. In scientific research, a written code of conduct is not available. 9. 學術不端并不是能夠簡單評價的問題。其中一個重要問題是，在科學領域里，對于什么樣的行為有違倫理規(guī)范，應當受到懲罰，仍然模棱兩可。工程，法律，和醫(yī)學領域對道德行為的定義有明確的書面指導原則。雖然某些特別復雜的案例會挑戰(zhàn)這些原則的底線，但多數(shù)原則具有指導意

57、義。科學研究也并不提供書面的行為準則。The federal government and individual institutions have been struggling to clarify the standards under which misconduct can be adjudicated. The central definitions that delineate misconduct in science include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, these are confused

58、by other less clear categories of misconduct, which include other questionable behavior or other misconduct. Within this confusion of definitions it is not always obvious to students or faculty where and toward whom their obligations lie.聯(lián)邦政府和私人機構一直試圖闡明學術不端行為的裁定標準，比如一些描述科研不端行為的核心定義，包括編造，篡改和等等。然而這些行為

59、容易與包含“可疑行為”在內(nèi)的其他不太確定的類別相互混淆。這些混淆的定義讓學生和教職人員也不是很清楚他們到底承擔哪些責任和義務？10 Complicating the confusion generated by the way in which we define research misconduct is the teaching process by which students routinely learn about the ethical obligations of their profession. Traditionally a scientist trains with

60、a single mentor. From this mentoring relationship the graduate student is expected to learn about scientific method, the body of knowledge that constitutes the specific field of science she is studying, and the institution of science. 10.我們對學術不端的定義往往會帶來困惑，而學生們?nèi)粘W習職業(yè)道德規(guī)范的過程則更加劇了人們的困惑。傳統(tǒng)而言，一位科研工作者要接受導師的培訓指導。通過指導，這名研究會學到科學研究方法，構成她得學科領域的知識體系，