研究生英語(yǔ)綜合教程課文及翻譯資料

1.Recently,oneofushadtheopportunitytospeakwithamedicalstudentaboutaresearchrotationthatthestudentwasplanningtodo.ShewouldbeworkingwithDr.Z,whohadgivenhertheprojectofwritingapaperforwhichhehaddesignedtheprotocol,collectedthedata,andcompiledtheresults.Thestudentwastodoaliteraturesearchandwritethefirstdraftofthemanuscript.Forthisshewouldbecomefirstauthoronthefinalpublication.Whenconcernswereraisedabouttheproposedproject,Dr.Zwasshocked."lthoughtIwasdoingherafavor,"hesaidinnocently,"andbesides,Ihatewriting!"2.Dr.Zisperhapsabitnaive.Certainly,mostresearcherswouldknowthatthestudent'sworkwouldnotmeritfirstauthorship.Theywouldknowthat"gift"authorshipisnotanacceptableresearchpractice.However,anearlierexperienceinourworkmakesuswonder.Severalyearsago,inconjunctionwiththegrantfromtheFundfortheImprovementofPottSecondaryEducation(FIPSE),ateamofphilosophersandscientistsatDartmouthCollege2ranaUniversitySeminarseriesforfacultyonthetopic"EthicalIssuesinscientificResearch."Atoneseminar,aseniorresearcher(let'scallhimProfessorR)arguedasimilarpositiontothatofDr.Z.InthiscaseProfessorRknewthat"gift"authorship,authorshipwithoutasignificantresearchcontribution,wasanunacceptableresearchpractice.However,hehadareasontogiveauthorshiptohisstudent.Thestudenthadworkedforseveralyearsonaprojectsuggestedbyhimandtheprojecthadyieldedtopublishabledata.Believingthathehadadutytothestudenttoensureapublication,ProfessorRhadgiventhestudentsomedatathathehimselfhadcollectedandtoldthestudenttowriteitup.Thestudenthadworkedhard,hesaid,albeitonanotherproject,andthestudentwoulddothewriting.Thus,hereasoned,theauthorshipwasnota"gift."3.Thesetwostoriespointupamajorreasonforencouragingcoursesinresearchethics:Goodintentionsdonotnecessarilyresultinethicaldecisions.Bothofthefacultymembersintheabovescenarios"meantwell."Inbothcases,thefacultymemberstrulybelievedthatwhattheyweredoingwasmorallyacceptable.Inthefirstcase,Dr.Z'sindefensibleerrorwasthathewasunawareoftheconventionsofthefield.Inparticular,heseemedblissfullyoblivioustothemeaningoffirstauthorship.Inthesecondcase,ProfessorRwasdongwhathethoughtbestforthestudentwithouttakingintoconsiderationthatmoral.tyisapublicsystemandthathisactionswithregardtoasinglestudenthavepublicconsequencesforthepracticeofscienceasaprofession.4.Well-meaningscientists,suchasthosejustmentioned,can,withthebestofintentions,makeunethicaldecisions.Insomecases,suchdecisionsmayleadindividualstobecomeembroiledincasesofmisconduct.Acourseinresearchethicscanhelpsuchscientiststoappreciatethatitistheirresponsibilitytoknowprofessionalconventionsaswellastounderstandthepublicnatureofmorality.1.最近，我們當(dāng)中的一員有機(jī)會(huì)與一名醫(yī)科學(xué)生談?wù)撍?jì)劃要做的一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室輪轉(zhuǎn)項(xiàng)目。她將與給她布置論文撰寫(xiě)任務(wù)的Dr.Z一起完成該項(xiàng)目。Dr.Z已經(jīng)設(shè)計(jì)好研究工具，并收集數(shù)據(jù)，整理了實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果。該學(xué)生只需做做文獻(xiàn)檢索，然后撰寫(xiě)初稿。這樣，在論文最終出版的時(shí)候，她就可以成為第一作者。然而，當(dāng)該項(xiàng)目受到越來(lái)越多非議時(shí)，Dr.Z震驚之余無(wú)辜地說(shuō)，“我以為我是在幫她，而我也確實(shí)討厭寫(xiě)作”。2.Dr.Z或許有一點(diǎn)天真。當(dāng)然，大多數(shù)研究人員都知道，該學(xué)生所做的工作并不稱(chēng)第一作者這個(gè)頭銜。他們知道，這種“贈(zèng)予”原創(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(yàn)使我們產(chǎn)生疑問(wèn)。若干年前，在高等教育改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一個(gè)由哲學(xué)家和科學(xué)家組成的團(tuán)隊(duì)在達(dá)特茅斯學(xué)院，為全體教員舉辦以“科學(xué)研究中的倫理問(wèn)題”為主題的系列講座。在其中一次研討會(huì)上，一個(gè)資深研究員（讓我們叫他R教授）與Dr.Z持有相似的觀點(diǎn)。在這個(gè)案例中，R教授明知道把原創(chuàng)作者身份“贈(zèng)予”沒(méi)有研究貢獻(xiàn)的人是不符合學(xué)術(shù)道德規(guī)范的。然而，他卻有理由給他的學(xué)生一個(gè)作者身份。因?yàn)檫@個(gè)學(xué)生已經(jīng)在他所建議的項(xiàng)目上花費(fèi)了幾年的功夫，然而卻沒(méi)能發(fā)表任何研究結(jié)果。他認(rèn)為他有責(zé)任幫助這名學(xué)生發(fā)表論文。于是R教授給了該學(xué)生一些他自己收集的數(shù)據(jù)，讓其撰寫(xiě)一篇論文。R教授說(shuō)這名學(xué)生一直努力的做項(xiàng)目，盡管不是同一項(xiàng)目，而且該生還負(fù)責(zé)論文寫(xiě)作，所以他認(rèn)為原創(chuàng)作者頭銜并不算“贈(zèng)予”。3.這兩個(gè)故事都強(qiáng)調(diào)了推動(dòng)開(kāi)設(shè)科研倫理課程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引導(dǎo)人們做出正確的道德選擇。上述兩個(gè)情節(jié)中的教師本意是好的。這兩個(gè)案例中的教師認(rèn)為他們所做的事情在道德層面上是可以接受的。在第一個(gè)案例中，Dr.Z的解釋之所以站不住腳是因?yàn)樗麤](méi)有意識(shí)到這一領(lǐng)域的公約。而他似乎也遺忘了第一作者的概念。在第二個(gè)案例中，R教授自認(rèn)為他所做的事情都是對(duì)他學(xué)生最有益的，然而卻沒(méi)有考慮道德是一個(gè)公共體系，他對(duì)這一名學(xué)生的做法卻對(duì)科學(xué)研究產(chǎn)生了公共影響。4.例如剛剛提到的那些善意的科學(xué)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(huì)導(dǎo)致個(gè)人卷入到學(xué)術(shù)不端的指控中?？蒲袀惱碚n程可以幫助這樣的科學(xué)家明白，他們有責(zé)任去了解職業(yè)慣例以及公共道德的本質(zhì)。5.Therearescientistsforwhomacourseinresearchethicswillbelessuseful.EfraimRacker,ina1989article,describedastudentinhislabwhowasa"professional"fabricatorofdata.Thisstudentcomposedlabbookswithoutperformingexperiments,addedradioactivematerialtogelstoproducebandswherehewishedthosebandstobe,andliedtohiscolleaguesabouthisactions.Anotherresearcher,EliasAlsabti,describedbyD.J.Miller,wasameticulousplagiarizer.Thisphysician-researcherfabricatedhiscurriculumvitae,copiedacolleague'sgrantforhisownuse,publishedotherpeople'sdataunderhisownname,andco-authoredhispilfereddatawithfictitiouscollaborators.Individualssuchastheseareunlikelytolearnresearchethicsthroughinstructionbecausetheyarenotinterestedinbecomingethicalpractitioners.6.Theethicsofscientificresearchissomewhatuniquewithinprofessionalethicsinthesensethatgoodsciencerequirestheethicalpracticeofscience.Nevertheless,acourseinresearchethicscannotandshouldnothaveasitscentralfocusthequestion,"WhyshouldIbemoral?Thisquestion,whileimportant,isnotspecifictothefieldofscientificresearch.Acourseinresearchethics,asenvisionedbytheDartmouthteam,mustbeacoursethatteachesthetoolsformakingethicaldecisionsrelativetomattersofresearch.Itwillbedesignedforthosescientistswhoarealreadycommittedtobeingethicalresearchers.Suchacourseshouldprovidestudentstheanswerstothequestion,"HowcanImakemoraldecisions?"7Althoughitisthefabricatorsandtheplagiarizerswhomwemostoftenthinkofwhenwethinkofresearchmisconduct,thesearenottheonlypeopleaccusedofmisconduct.Theyareasonottheonlypeoplewhoareguiltyofmisconduct.Manyotherscientistshavehadliveandcareersaffectedbymisconductcases.8Itisundoubtedlyunfairtogeneralizefromafewcasesofmisconducttoanentireprofession.Nevertheless,reportedcasesofmisconductarenotuncommon,andthiscouldreflectafailuretotrainstudentstothehighestethicalstandards.The1993OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)4publicationreportedthe1991-1992caseloadtoinclude29institutionalinquiries,21institutionalinvestigations,andORIinquiriesorinvestigations.The1995ORIpublicationreportedthe1994caseloadas13institutionalinquiries,17institutionalinvestigations,and80RIinquiriesorinvestigations.Ofactionsclosedintheseyears(5in1991-1992;44in1994),someinvolvedfabrication,somefalsification,someplagiarism,andotherssomecombinationoffabrication,falsification,plagiarism,and"othermisconduct."Slightlyfewerthanhalfoftheinvestigatedcasesclosedasofthesereportswerefoundtoinvolvemisconductandresultedinsanctionagainsttheaccusedparty.Theacademicrankoftheaccusedrangedfromtechniciantofullprofessor.Caseswerereportedfromanumberofinstitutions,andtheaccusedpartieswerefundedbyavarietyoffundingsources.5.對(duì)于有些科學(xué)家來(lái)說(shuō)，科研倫理課程可能作用并不大。EfraimRacker在其1989年發(fā)表的文章中描述了一個(gè)他實(shí)驗(yàn)室里“專(zhuān)業(yè)的”數(shù)據(jù)造假者。這名學(xué)生沒(méi)做實(shí)驗(yàn)就拼湊出實(shí)驗(yàn)書(shū)，在凝膠中添加放射性材料來(lái)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EliasAlsabti是一個(gè)細(xì)心的剽竊者。這位醫(yī)師編造個(gè)人履歷，抄襲同事的基金申請(qǐng)書(shū)為己所用，以個(gè)人名義發(fā)表他人數(shù)據(jù)，并虛構(gòu)合作者一起用剽竊的數(shù)據(jù)合寫(xiě)論文。像這樣的人是不會(huì)通過(guò)課程學(xué)習(xí)研究倫理的，因?yàn)樗麄儗?duì)學(xué)術(shù)道德并不感興趣。6.某種程度上講，科學(xué)研究倫理屬于職業(yè)道德的范疇，并且是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的。而一定意義上，好的科學(xué)研究要求符合道德規(guī)范的工作。然而，一門(mén)學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程不能夠也不應(yīng)該把“我為什么應(yīng)該遵守道德？”作為焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。這個(gè)問(wèn)題雖然重要，但并不只是具體針對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)研究領(lǐng)域。正如達(dá)特茅斯團(tuán)隊(duì)預(yù)想的那樣，一門(mén)學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程必須教會(huì)大家如何就科學(xué)研究做出有道德的決策。這將是專(zhuān)門(mén)為那些致力于成為遵守道德規(guī)范的研究人員而設(shè)計(jì)的課程。這樣的一門(mén)課程將會(huì)給學(xué)生提供這個(gè)問(wèn)題的答案，“我怎樣才能做出一個(gè)符合道德的決定？”7.雖然當(dāng)我們思考學(xué)術(shù)不端時(shí)，大多數(shù)時(shí)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(xué)術(shù)不端的人。同樣，他們也不是唯一被認(rèn)定學(xué)術(shù)不端的人。許多科學(xué)家的生活和事業(yè)都曾受到了學(xué)術(shù)不端事件的影響。8.然而，僅憑一些學(xué)術(shù)不端的個(gè)案來(lái)推論整個(gè)行業(yè)無(wú)疑是不公平的。不過(guò)已披露的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的確不在少數(shù)，這也反映了學(xué)生道德培養(yǎng)水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研誠(chéng)信辦公室（ORI）的報(bào)告公布了其在1991年至1992年期間，對(duì)其自身以及29個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的訪談?dòng)涗浐?1個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查結(jié)果。1995年，該研究室的報(bào)告又涵蓋了1994年對(duì)于13個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的訪問(wèn)和對(duì)17個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查，以及8份該研究室的調(diào)查研究。近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的調(diào)查顯示出，學(xué)術(shù)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(duì)于已結(jié)案件的調(diào)查中，僅有不足一半涉及不斷行為被對(duì)方指控受到了制裁。當(dāng)事人的學(xué)術(shù)職稱(chēng)從技術(shù)人員到教授不等。案件多由科研機(jī)構(gòu)自己披露，并且當(dāng)事人均受到各種基金的資助。9Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinliefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichinclude"otherquestionablebehavior"or"othermisconduct."Withinthisconfusionofdefinitionsitisnotalwaysobvioustostudentsorfacultywhereandtowardwhomtheirobligationslie.10Complicatingtheconfusiongeneratedbythewayinwhichwedefineresearchmisconductistheteachingprocessbywhichstudentsroutinelylearnabouttheethicalobligationsoftheirprofession.Traditionallyascientisttrainswithasinglementor.Fromthismentoringrelationshipthegraduatestudentisexpectedtolearnaboutscientificmethod,thebodyofknowledgethatconstitutesthespecificfieldofsciencesheisstudying,andthe"institution"ofscience.Whatislearnedabouttheinstitutionofscienceincludesknowledgeofthemechanicsofobtainingfunding,informationonthewritingofgrantsandpapers,andanunderstandingoftherolesandresponsibilitiesformaintainingandsharingresearchdata.Aspartofherinstructioninalloftheseareas,itisassumedthatshewillalsolearntheethicsofscientificresearch.11InthecaseofthestoryofDr.Zabove,itisclearthatDr.Z'srelationshipwithhismentordidnotresultinhishavinglearnedabasicconventionofthefield.So,itisnotsurprisingthatDr.Zwaspreparedtopasshisunrecognizedconfusiontoastudentwhowasworkingwithhim.Mentoringrelationshipswithinscienceeducationdonotnecessarilyresultinadequatefamiliaritywiththeethicsofresearch.12JudithSwazey5oftheAcadiaInstitutehasstudiedthisissueandpresentssomeverydistressingdataoftheefficacyofmentoringrelationshipsingraduateeducation.Although89%of2,000graduatestudentrespondentsfrom98departmentsofmajorresearchinstitutionssaidthattheyrelatedtoasinglefacultymemberwhowasparticularlysupportiveoftheirwork,lessthan45%ofstudentsfeltthatthisfacultymembergavethem"alot"ofhelptowardteachingthemthedetailsofgoodresearchpractice,and15to20%ofthestudentsfeltthatthehelptheygotinthisareawas"none."9.學(xué)術(shù)不端并不是能夠簡(jiǎn)單評(píng)價(jià)的問(wèn)題。其中一個(gè)重要問(wèn)題是，在科學(xué)領(lǐng)域里，對(duì)于什么樣的行為有違倫理規(guī)范，應(yīng)當(dāng)受到懲罰，仍然模棱兩可。工程，法律，和醫(yī)學(xué)領(lǐng)域?qū)Φ赖滦袨榈亩x有明確的書(shū)面指導(dǎo)原則。雖然某些特別復(fù)雜的案例會(huì)挑戰(zhàn)這些原則的底線，但多數(shù)原則具有指導(dǎo)意義。科學(xué)研究也并不提供書(shū)面的行為準(zhǔn)則。聯(lián)邦政府和私人機(jī)構(gòu)一直試圖闡明學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的裁定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，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。然而這些行為容易與包含“可疑行為”在內(nèi)的其他不太確定的類(lèi)別相互混淆。這些混淆的定義讓學(xué)生和教職人員也不是很清楚他們到底承擔(dān)哪些責(zé)任和義務(wù)？10.我們對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)不端的定義往往會(huì)帶來(lái)困惑，而學(xué)生們?nèi)粘W(xué)習(xí)職業(yè)道德規(guī)范的過(guò)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(dǎo)師的培訓(xùn)指導(dǎo)。通過(guò)指導(dǎo)，這名研究會(huì)學(xué)到科學(xué)研究方法，構(gòu)成她得學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的知識(shí)體系，和科學(xué)的“制度”。這些“制度”包括獲取經(jīng)費(fèi)的技術(shù)性細(xì)節(jié)，關(guān)于基金申請(qǐng)和論文撰寫(xiě)的知識(shí)，以及在維護(hù)和共享研究數(shù)據(jù)中的角色和職責(zé)的理解。除了以上這些方面，科學(xué)研究倫理也將是她課程學(xué)習(xí)的一部分。11.以Dr.Z的案子為例，很顯然，Dr.Z與他的導(dǎo)師的關(guān)系并沒(méi)有使他學(xué)到了這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的一個(gè)基本公約。所以，隨后Dr.Z把他的困惑傳遞給了他的學(xué)生，也就不足為奇了。因此，科學(xué)教育中的師徒關(guān)系不一定能使學(xué)生充分了解學(xué)術(shù)道德。12.阿卡迪亞學(xué)院的Judith

Swazey對(duì)這一問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了研究，研究數(shù)據(jù)顯示研究生教育中師徒關(guān)系的效果令人失望。在對(duì)98所主要研究機(jī)構(gòu)中抽取的2000名研究生的調(diào)查中，89%的受訪者說(shuō)他們只與一位非常支持他們工作的師長(zhǎng)有聯(lián)系，不到45%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為這為師長(zhǎng)在告訴他們?nèi)绾翁岣哐芯抠|(zhì)量的細(xì)節(jié)方面，給了他們“許多”幫助。15%—20%的學(xué)生覺(jué)得他們?cè)谶@一領(lǐng)域沒(méi)有收獲。Fewerthan45%ofstudentsbelievedthattheygot"alot"ofhelpfulcriticismonaregularbasis.Inthemajorityofcases,studentsfeltthattheirfacultysupportpersondidnotprovidethetypeofmentoringrelationshipthatonewouldhopeforintheethicstrainingofaresearchscientist.13WhenSwazeyaskedstudentstocomparetherolethatadepartmentshouldtakeinpreparingstudentstorecognizeanddealwithethicalissuesintheirfieldtotheroleactuallytakenbythedepartment,herresultswereequallydisturbing.Eighty-twopercentofstudentsfeltthedepartmentshouldtakean"active"or"veryactive"roleinthisprocess,whileonly22%feltthatanactiveorveryactiverolewasactuallytaken.14Theperceptionsoffacultywerenotmuchdifferentfromthoseofthestudents.Ninety-ninepercentof2,000facultymemberssurveyedfeltthat"academicsshouldexercisecollectiveresponsibilityfortheprofessionalconductoftheirgraduatestudents;"only27%ofthesefacultyfeltthattheyfollowedthroughwiththisresponsibility.15Thesedataprovideevidencetoindicatethatindividualmentoringisalessthanadequateteachingmethodforethics.Ifthemajorityofstudentsdonotreceivementoringthatleavesthemwithaclearunderstandingoftheirresponsibilitiesasscientists,thencasesofunintentionalmisconductandquestionablepracticeareinevitable.16TheroleandimportanceofethicseducationhavebeguntoberecognizedbytheNIH.GuidelinesforNIFresearchtraininggrantsnowrequireaminimalnumberofhoursofethicseducatio'1.Ethicsneednotbetaughtwithinasinglegraduatecourse,butitisbeginningtoberecognizedthateducationinthebasicconventionsofthefieldandinthebasicapproachestoethicaldecisionmakingcannolongerbelefttoone-on-onementoringalone.Astheever-dwindlingavailabilityofresearchfundsfuelsthefireofcompetition,therewillbeincreasedpressureonscientiststobendorbreakrules.Researchlaboratories,particularlylargegroupswheresomestudentsrarelyseetheirfacultyadvisers,cannotbeassumedtoteachresearchethics,oreventotrainstudentsinallresearchconventions.17Whetherscientificethicsisapproachedthroughasinglecourseoraseriesofcoursesorseminarsthroughoutthegraduatecurriculum,ithasbecomeobviousthatstudentsneedexposuretoethicsinanumberofcontexts.Researchethicscanandmustbetaughtinaformalizedmanner.Itisourbeliefthatcoursesinresearchethicsthatincorporateasolidphilosophicalframeworkhavethegreatestpotentialforlong-termusefulnesstostudents.(1902words)不足45%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為他們定期的得到了很多有益的批評(píng)教育。但在大多數(shù)情況下，學(xué)生們覺(jué)得他們的師長(zhǎng)并沒(méi)有和他們建立那種他們希望的導(dǎo)師制關(guān)系，一種可以從中學(xué)習(xí)到的一個(gè)科學(xué)家需要具備的學(xué)術(shù)道德的關(guān)系。13.在辨別和應(yīng)對(duì)學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的道德問(wèn)題方面，Swazey讓學(xué)生們比較所在院系應(yīng)起的作用和實(shí)際所起的作用，結(jié)果同樣令人擔(dān)憂。82%的學(xué)生覺(jué)得院系應(yīng)該起到“積極的”或“非常積極的”作用，而只有22%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為所在院系起到了“積極的”和“非常積極的”作用。14.教職人員和學(xué)生們的看法沒(méi)有多大的不同。在接受調(diào)查的2000名教職人員中，有99%的人認(rèn)為“學(xué)者們”應(yīng)該對(duì)研究生的職業(yè)行為負(fù)有集體責(zé)任，而只有27%的教職人員認(rèn)為他們履行了這一職責(zé)。15.這些數(shù)據(jù)提供的證據(jù)表明，單獨(dú)的師生指導(dǎo)并不是最理想的道德教育方法。如果大多數(shù)學(xué)生所接受的指導(dǎo)，不能讓他們清晰地了解科研工作者的職責(zé)所在，那么無(wú)意識(shí)的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為與可疑的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為將在所難免。16.美國(guó)國(guó)立衛(wèi)生研究院首先認(rèn)識(shí)到學(xué)術(shù)道德教育的作用和重要性。美國(guó)國(guó)立衛(wèi)生研究院資助的研究培訓(xùn)指南要求用最短時(shí)間完成學(xué)術(shù)道德教育。學(xué)術(shù)道德不需要以單獨(dú)一門(mén)課程講授，但是人們開(kāi)始認(rèn)識(shí)到，學(xué)科基本慣例和道德決策的基本方法不能再僅僅依賴(lài)一對(duì)一的師生指導(dǎo)。由于科研基金數(shù)量持續(xù)減少，業(yè)內(nèi)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)愈發(fā)激烈，更多的科學(xué)家將迫于壓力而打破規(guī)則。尤其是在大型的研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室，學(xué)生很少能見(jiàn)到他們的指導(dǎo)教師，所以無(wú)法指望實(shí)驗(yàn)室教授學(xué)術(shù)道德，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生科研規(guī)范。17.無(wú)論科研倫理是通過(guò)一個(gè)課程，一系列課程或是穿插在研究生課程中的研討班來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)，學(xué)生顯然需要更多的機(jī)會(huì)接觸學(xué)術(shù)道德。研究倫理需要而且必須以正式的方式教授。我們相信，在堅(jiān)實(shí)的哲學(xué)理論框架指引下，學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程一定會(huì)給廣大學(xué)子帶來(lái)長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的益處。英譯漢Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinthefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichinclude“otherquestionablebehavior”or“othermisconduct.”Withinthisconfusionofdefinitionsitisnotalwaysobvioustostudentsorfacultywhereandtowardwhomtheirobligationslie.漢譯英Researchersshouldtelleveryparticipantaboutallthecharacteristicsanddetailsofthestudy,thoughsuchanactmayaffectthewillingnessofsubjects.Researchersshouldalsotrytoanswerorexplainanyquestionabouttheexperimentfromsubjects.Franknessandsincerityaresupposedtobeessentialtotherelationshipbetweenresearchersandsubjects.Whenresearchershavetohidefromordeceivesubjectsformethodologicalreasons,theyneedtohavesubjectsunderstandthereasonsfordoingsoandtrytorecovertheiroriginalrelationships.Researchersshouldrespectthesubjects’rightsandfreedomtorefuseorterminatetheirparticipationinthestudyatanytime.Thispointisevenmoresalientwhenresearchershavehigherpower-relationshipthansubjects.Asregardsthemoralacceptabilityofexperimentalproceduresandmeasures,theremustbeaclearandfairagreementreachedbyresearchersandsubjectsattheoutsetinordertoclarifyeachother’sresponsibility.Researchershavearesponsibilitytoabidebyandcomplywiththeprovisionsofcommitmentsandobligationsintheagreement.學(xué)術(shù)不端并不是能夠簡(jiǎn)單評(píng)價(jià)的問(wèn)題。其中一個(gè)重要問(wèn)題是，在科學(xué)領(lǐng)域里，對(duì)于什么樣的行為有違倫理規(guī)范，應(yīng)當(dāng)受到懲罰，仍然模棱兩可。工程，法律，和醫(yī)學(xué)領(lǐng)域?qū)Φ赖滦袨榈亩x有明確的書(shū)面指導(dǎo)原則。雖然某些特別復(fù)雜的案例會(huì)挑戰(zhàn)這些原則的底線，但多數(shù)原則具有指導(dǎo)意義。科學(xué)研究也并不提供書(shū)面的行為準(zhǔn)則。聯(lián)邦政府和私人機(jī)構(gòu)一直試圖闡明學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的裁定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，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。然而這些行為容易與包含“可疑行為”在內(nèi)的其他不太確定的類(lèi)別相互混淆。這些混淆的定義讓學(xué)生和教職人員也不是很清楚他們到底承擔(dān)哪些責(zé)任和義務(wù)？研究者應(yīng)告訴所有參加研究的被試有關(guān)研究的一切特點(diǎn)和細(xì)節(jié)，盡管這樣做也許會(huì)影響被試參加實(shí)驗(yàn)的意愿，但還是應(yīng)該這樣做。研究者應(yīng)對(duì)被試提出關(guān)于實(shí)驗(yàn)的各種問(wèn)題給予解釋和回答。坦率和誠(chéng)懇應(yīng)當(dāng)是研究者和被試之間關(guān)系的基本點(diǎn)。當(dāng)研究出于方法上的需要不得不向被試隱瞞或欺騙時(shí)，研究者必須設(shè)法讓被試?yán)斫膺@樣做的理由，并力求回復(fù)兩者之間原有的關(guān)系。研究者應(yīng)尊重被試在研究中任何時(shí)候自由提出拒絕參加或終止實(shí)驗(yàn)的要求，特別是當(dāng)研究者的權(quán)力高于被試時(shí)，更需要注意這一點(diǎn)。有關(guān)實(shí)驗(yàn)步驟和措施在道德上的可接受性，應(yīng)該在一開(kāi)始就要在研究者和被試之間達(dá)成明確和公正的一致意見(jiàn)，明確每個(gè)人的責(zé)任。研究者有責(zé)任遵守和履行協(xié)議中規(guī)定的承諾和義務(wù)。UNIT31.MostAmericanswouldhaveadifficulttimetellingyou,specifically,whatthevaluesarethatAmericansliveby.Theyhavenevergiventhemattermuchthought.2.EvenifAmericanshadconsideredthisquestion,theywouldprobably,intheend,decidenottoanswerintermsofadefinitivelistofvalues.ThereasonforthisdecisionisitselfoneveryAmericanvalue—theirbeliefthateveryindividualissouniquethatthesamelistofvaluescouldneverbeappliedtoall,orevenmost,oftheirfellowcitizens.3.AlthoughAmericansmaythinkofthemselvesasbeingmorevariedandunpredictablethantheyactuallyare,itissignificantthattheythinktheyare.Americanstendtothinktheyhavebeenonlyslightlyinfluencedbyfamily,churchorschools.Intheend,eachbelieves,“IpersonallychosewhichvaluesIwanttolivemyownlifeby.”4.Thedifferentbehaviorsofapeopleoraculturemakesenseonlywhenseenthroughthebasicbeliefs,assumptionsandvaluesofthatparticulargroup.Whenyouencounteranaction,orhearastatementintheUnitedStatesthatsurprisesyou,trytoseeitasanexpressionofoneormoreofthevalueslistedhere.5.Beforeproceedingtothelistitself,weshouldalsopointoutthatAmericansseeallofthesevaluesasverypositiveones.Theyarenotaware,forexample,thatthepeopleinmanyThirdWorldcountriesviewsomeofthesevaluesasnegativeorthreatening.Infact,alloftheseAmericanvaluesarejudgedbymanyoftheworld’scitizensasnegativeandundesirable.Therefore,itisnotenoughsimplytofamiliarizeyourselfwiththesevalues.Youmustalso,sofaraspossible,considerthemwithoutthenegativeorderogatoryconnotationthattheymighthaveforyou,basedonyourownexperienceandculturalidentity.PersonalControlovertheEnvironment6.AmericansnolongerbelieveinthepowerofFate,andtheyhavecometolookatpeoplewhodoasbeingbackward,primitive,orhopelesslynaive.Tobecalled“fatalistic”isoneoftheworstcriticismsonecanreceiveintheAmericancontext;toanAmerican,itmeansoneissuperstitiousandlazy,unwillingtotakeanyinitiativeinbringingaboutimprovement.7.IntheUnitedStates,peopleconsideritnormalandrightthatManshouldcontrolNature,ratherthantheotherwayaround.Morespecifically,peoplebelieveeverysingleindividualshouldhavecontroloverwhateverintheenvironmentmightpotentiallyaffecthimorher.大多數(shù)美國(guó)人在談起其賴(lài)以生存的價(jià)值觀時(shí)會(huì)感到力不從心。他們從未仔細(xì)考慮過(guò)價(jià)值觀這個(gè)問(wèn)題。2.即使美國(guó)人考慮過(guò)這個(gè)問(wèn)題，他們最終也不可能決定以一張明確的價(jià)值觀清單來(lái)回答。做出這樣的一個(gè)決定，本身就是一個(gè)非常美國(guó)式的價(jià)值觀——他們相信每個(gè)個(gè)體都是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的，相同的價(jià)值觀永遠(yuǎn)也不可能適用于所有的美國(guó)公民，甚至不能適用于大多數(shù)公民。3.盡管美國(guó)人可能認(rèn)為他們自己比實(shí)際看上去更加變幻莫測(cè)，但重要的是他們的確認(rèn)為自己變幻莫測(cè)。美國(guó)人普遍認(rèn)為他們受家庭、教會(huì)或?qū)W校影響很輕微。最終，每個(gè)人都認(rèn)為“我個(gè)人會(huì)根據(jù)自己生活方式選擇我的價(jià)值觀”。4.一個(gè)民族的不同行為方式或者一種文化之所以有意義，是因?yàn)槿藗兺ㄟ^(guò)該民族的基本信仰、看法和價(jià)值觀念來(lái)看待它們。在美國(guó)，如果某一個(gè)行為或某一句話使你感到吃驚，那么你可以將其與下面羅列的價(jià)值觀對(duì)號(hào)入座。5.在探討這個(gè)清單之前,有必要指出美國(guó)人認(rèn)為這些價(jià)值觀是充滿正能量的。他們沒(méi)有意識(shí)到許多第三世界國(guó)家的人們可能認(rèn)為其中一些價(jià)值觀是消極或者可怕的。事實(shí)上,許多外國(guó)人認(rèn)為美國(guó)人的這些價(jià)值觀是消極和不受歡迎的。因此，僅僅熟悉這些價(jià)值觀是不夠的，還必須盡可能做到不因自身經(jīng)歷和文化身份而對(duì)這些價(jià)值觀有負(fù)面和貶損的看法。對(duì)環(huán)境的自我把握

6.美國(guó)人不再相信命運(yùn)的力量，那些相信此道的人被認(rèn)為是落后、原始和極其幼稚的。在美國(guó)語(yǔ)境下，“宿命論者”是對(duì)一個(gè)人最糟糕的評(píng)價(jià)之一；對(duì)美國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)，這一評(píng)價(jià)意味著這個(gè)人迷信、懶惰且不思進(jìn)取。7.在美國(guó),人們認(rèn)為人定勝天,而非受制于自然的觀點(diǎn)既正常又正確。更確切地說(shuō)，人們相信每個(gè)人都應(yīng)該控制周?chē)h(huán)境中任何可能影響到自己的因素。Theproblemsofone’slifearenotseenashavingresultedfrombadluckasmuchashavingcomefromone’slazinessinpursuingabetterlife.Furthermore,itisconsiderednormalthatanyoneshouldlookoutforhisorherownself-interestsfirstandforemost.TimeandItsControl8.Timeis,fortheaverageAmerican,ofutmostimportance.Totheforeignvisitor,Americansseemtobemoreconcernedwithgettingthingsaccomplishedontime(accordingtoapredeterminedschedule)thantheyarewithdevelopingdeepinterpersonalrelations.Schedules,fortheAmerican,aremeanttobeplannedandthenfollowedinthesmallestdetail.9.ItmayseemtoyouthatmostAmericansarecompletelycontrolledbythelittlemachinestheywearontheirwrists,cuttingtheirdiscussionsoffabruptlytomakeittotheirnextappointmentontime.10.Americans’languageisfilledwithreferencestotime,givingaclearindicationofhowmuchitisvalued.Timeissomethingtobe“on,”tobe“kept,”“filled,”“saved,”“used,”“spent,”“wasted,”“l(fā)ost,”“gained,”“planned,”“given,”“madethemostof,”even“killed.”11.Theinternationalvisitorsoonlearnsthatitisconsideredveryrudetobelate—evenby10minutes—foranappointmentintheUnitedStates.(Wheneveritisabsolutelyimpossibletobeontime,youshouldphoneaheadandtellthepersonyouhavebeenunavoidablydetainedandwillbeahalfhour—orwhatever—late.)Equality12.Equalityis,forAmericans,oneoftheirmostcherishedvalues.ThisconceptissoimportantforAmericansthattheyhaveevengivenitareligiousbasis.Theysayallpeoplehavebeen“createdequal.”MostAmericansbelievethatGodviewsallhumansalikewithoutregardtointelligence,physicalconditionoreconomicstatus.Inseculartermsthisbeliefistranslatedintotheassertionthatallpeoplehaveanequalopportunitytosucceedinlife.Americansdifferinopinionabouthowtomakethisidealintoareality.Yetvirtuallyallagreethatequalityisanimportantcivicandsocialgoal.13.TheequalityconceptoftenmakesAmericansseemstrangetoforeignvisitors.Seven-eighthsoftheworldfeelsquitedifferently.Tothem,rankandstatusandauthorityareseenasmuchmoredesirableconsiderations—eveniftheypersonallyhappentofindthemselvesnearthebottomofthesocialorder.Classandauthorityseemtogivepeopleinthoseothersocietiesasenseofsecurityandcertainty.PeopleoutsidetheUnitedStatesconsideritreassuringtoknow,frombirth,whotheyareandwheretheyfitintothecomplexsystemcalled“society.”一個(gè)人在追求美好生活的過(guò)程中出現(xiàn)挫折人們不認(rèn)為是因?yàn)檫\(yùn)氣差，而是由自己的懶惰所導(dǎo)致。而且，人們認(rèn)為如果一個(gè)人把追尋個(gè)人利益放在第一位是很正常的。把握時(shí)間

8.對(duì)普通美國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)，時(shí)間至關(guān)重要。在外國(guó)人看來(lái)，美國(guó)人似乎更關(guān)注按時(shí)（根據(jù)預(yù)定的日程表）完成任務(wù)而不是發(fā)展深層人際關(guān)系。美國(guó)人認(rèn)為，哪怕最小的細(xì)節(jié)也必須在日程安排中列出來(lái)并付諸實(shí)施。

9.你或許會(huì)覺(jué)得美國(guó)人完全被戴在手腕上的那個(gè)小玩意所控制著，為了能準(zhǔn)時(shí)赴下一個(gè)約會(huì)，他們會(huì)突然打斷談話。10.美國(guó)人的語(yǔ)言中充斥著時(shí)間的指示詞，這也暗示出人們對(duì)于時(shí)間的重視程度。時(shí)間可以遵守、填補(bǔ)、節(jié)省、利用、度過(guò)，浪費(fèi)、失去、贏得、計(jì)劃、給予，充分利用，甚至可以消磨。11.外國(guó)人很快就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，在美國(guó)與人約會(huì)，即使遲到十分鐘就會(huì)被認(rèn)為是很不禮貌的行為。如果實(shí)在無(wú)法準(zhǔn)時(shí)到達(dá)，應(yīng)事先打個(gè)電話告訴不得不久等你的人你將遲到半小時(shí)或怎樣。平等

12.平等是美國(guó)人最珍視的價(jià)值理念之一，美國(guó)人也因此而賦予這一理念以宗教基礎(chǔ)。他們說(shuō)人“生來(lái)平等”。大多數(shù)美國(guó)人相信上帝會(huì)平等地看待每一個(gè)人，而不考慮其智力、體力或經(jīng)濟(jì)方面的差異。通俗地說(shuō)，這種信仰被解釋為一種信念，即每個(gè)人都有平等獲得成功的機(jī)會(huì)。美國(guó)人在如何把這種理想轉(zhuǎn)化為現(xiàn)實(shí)的看法方面存在分歧，然而人們一致認(rèn)為平等是公民和社會(huì)共同追求的重要目標(biāo)。13.這種關(guān)于平等的理念常使外國(guó)人感到美國(guó)人不可思議。十之八九的外國(guó)人并不認(rèn)同這一理念。對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)，等級(jí)、地位和權(quán)威是人們更加向往的東西，即使他們碰巧發(fā)現(xiàn)自己接近社會(huì)次序的底層。等級(jí)和權(quán)威似乎能給那些其他國(guó)家的人一種安全感和確定感。美國(guó)以外的人認(rèn)為一個(gè)人從剛一出生就知道自己是誰(shuí)、屬于被稱(chēng)之為“社會(huì)”的復(fù)雜體系的哪個(gè)階層會(huì)讓人感到寬慰。14.Manyhighly-placedforeignvisitorstotheUnitedStatesareinsultedbythewaytheyaretreatedbyservicepersonnel(suchaswaitersinrestaurants,clerksinstores,taxidrivers,etc.).Americanshaveanaversiontotreatingpeopleofhighpositioninadeferentialmanner,and,converselyoftentreatlowerclasspeopleasiftheywereveryimportant.NewcomerstotheUnitedStatesshouldrealizethatnoinsultorpersonalindignityisintendedbythislackofdeferencetorankorpositioninsociety.Aforeignershouldbepreparedtobeconsidered“justlikeanybodyelse”whileinthecountry.IndividualismandPrivacy15.Americansthinktheyaremoreindividualistintheirthoughtsandactionsthan,infact,theyare.Theyresistbeingthoughtofasrepresentativesofahomogenousgroup,whateverthegroup.Theymay,anddo,joingroups—infactmanygroups—butsomehowbelievethey’rejustalittledifferent,justalittleunique,justalittlespecial,fromothermembersofthesamegroup.Andtheytendtoleavegroupsaseasilyastheyenterthem.16.Privacy,theultimateresultofindividualismisperhapsevenmoredifficultfortheforeignertocomprehend.Theword“privacy”doesnotevenexistinmanylanguages.Ifitdoes,itislikelytohaveastronglynegativeconnotation,suggestinglonelinessorisolationfromthegroup.IntheUnitedStates,privacyisnotonlyseenasaverypositivecondition,butitisalsoviewedasarequirementthatallhumanswouldfindequallynecessary,desirableandsatisfying.ItisnotuncommonforAmericanstosay—andbelieve—suchstatementsas“IfIdon’thaveatleasthalfanhouradaytomyself,Iwillgostarkmad.”Action/WorkOrientation17.“Don’tjuststandthere,”goesatypicalbitofAmericanadvice,“dosomething!”Thisexpressionisnormallyusedinacrisissituation,yet,inasense,itdescribesmostAmerican’sentirewakinglife,whereaction—anyaction—isseentobesuperiortoinaction.18.Americansroutinelyplanandscheduleanextremelyactiveday.Anyrelaxationmustbelimitedintime,pre-planned,andaimedat“recreating”theirabilitytoworkharderandmoreproductivelyoncetherecreationisover.Americansbelieveleisureactivitiesshouldconsumearelativelysmallportionofone’stotallife.Peoplethinkthatitis“sinful”to“wasteone’stime,”“tositarounddoingnothing,”orjustto“daydream.”

19.Sucha“nononsense”attitudetowardlifehascreatedmanypeoplewhohavecometobeknown