科研不端行为及其防范体系的理论与范例研究
|
摘要
在发达国家已经完成由学院科学向后学院科学的转变,并且科技经济一体化趋势日益增强的知识经济时代,随着科技活动逐渐成为所有社会活动的中心,特别是功利目的已成为科学研究的最主要动因,科学家们对于科技资源的争夺日趋激烈,国际国内的重大科研不端行为事件频频发生、日益猖獗,并已成为全球性的热点、焦点、难点与重大课题。因此,运用交叉科学的理论与方法,既从理论上系统地研究关于科研不端行为的概念框架、复杂多样的因果关系、主要理论范式及其转换,又从范例上深入分析、客观评价和充分借鉴美国应对科研不端行为的指导方针、战略决策、制度设计、体制安排、机制与程序运作的成功经验,这对于构建中国科研不端行为综合防范体系、积极应对来自不端行为事件的严峻挑战并切实有效地解决其现存的主要问题,显然都具有极为重要的理论价值与现实意义。
关于科研不端行为的概念界定、基本特征及其类型剖析,构成了反思科研不端行为的概念框架。由微观科学家个体、中观科学共同体等科研组织以及宏观社会环境这三个层面因素相互作用所导致的科研不端行为,既可能对科学社会建制内部的不端行为人自身、合作者、其他同行和专业共同体带来极大的利益与名誉损害,也可能给科学社会建制外部的研究资助机构、社会制度及其文化观念造成物质与精神的损失,甚至因科学纯洁性的损毁而可能导致社会公众的信任丧失。R.K.默顿关于由公有性、普遍性、无私利性、独创性和有条理的怀疑主义(CUDOS)等所构成的学院科学规范结构理论,J.齐曼关于由私有性、局部性、独裁主义、受委托性和专门性(PLACE)等所构成的后学院科学规范结构理论,以及美国国家学院组织专家所提出的科研诚信理论,构成了探究科研不端行为的主要理论范式与分析视角。这些理论范式之间的历史与逻辑相统一的关系表现为：既在历史传承基础上依次发生了相应的范式转换与创新,又在逻辑基础上各自独立、彼此共存与相辅相成。这种理论研究不仅为系统把握科研不端行为描绘了一幅整体性的认识论图景,而且为美国科研不端行为综合防范体系的构建提供了重要的指导思想与逻辑基础。
根据科研不端行为演变的规律性,美国先后实行了由职业伦理到公共政策的单一惩治,以及由公共政策到包括伦理、法律、法规、规章、政策、技术、教育、培训和研究等手段在内的综合防范的两次策略转变。美国防范科研不端行为的制度体系由以下两部分有机构成：一是直接规范科研不端行为的政策法规体系；二是与此密切相关并包括实验人体保护、实验动物福利、数据管理、利益冲突、导师与研究生责任、合作研究、原创作者与出版、同行评议等方面的政策法规体系。此二者既相对独立又相辅相成,共同对科研不端行为起着惩处和防范作用。它们为美国防范科研不端行为层级监管机制的健康、有序和高效运作,既提供了正确的指导方针又提供了坚实的组织基础与强大的制度保障。美国联邦政府科研不端行为的层级监管机制是其整个防范体系的核心。从白宫科技政策办公室(OSTP)到联邦政府各部门和机构、卫生部应对科研不端行为的专门机构——研究诚信办公室(ORI)与各部门监察长办公室(OIG),直至接受联邦资助的大学、医院、研究机构等基层组织及其监管机构,它们既各享其权、各司其职、各负其责,又相互配合、相互补充和协调统一,从而形成了健康、有序和高效运作的应对科研不端行为的层级监管机制。证明某项行为是否构成科研不端,要求该项行为必须同时具备以下三个要素：(1)存在一个对有关科研共同体公认惯例的重大背离或违反；(2)所犯的这种不端行为是故意的、不顾后果的；(3)对该不端行为的举报由一个占优势的证据所证明。认定一项科研不端行为不仅需要遵循举报、举报评估、质询、调查、相关机构的监督与评审以及处罚等行政程序,而且需要遵循上诉、听证与司法裁决等法律程序。这种健康、有序、高效运作的层级监管机制以及及时、公正和秘密查处程序,为充分实现由上述制度所规定的权利和义务提供了重要的保证。并且,所有这些理所当然地使得美国成为全世界范围内防范科研不端行为的国家典范。
正面临科研不端行为严峻挑战的中国,既制定并实施了具有自己特色的科研不端行为防范体系,也取得了一些较为显著的成效。在一个日益开放和激烈竞争的国际社会里,只要中国敢于面对挑战并善于借鉴美国的有益经验,通过进一步完善自己的防范体系,就一定能够实现既减少不端行为事件的发生数量、降低不端行为的各种损害,又普遍提升诚信意识、学术道德与科研伦理水平的长远目标。
During the Knowledge-base economy times when developped countries have finished the turn from the academic science to the post academic science, the trend of integration among S&T and economy is growing enhanced,along with technological activity having been the center of all social ones,especially utilitarian motive has become the most primary power in scientific research.All of these have resulted in scientists'contending against the technological resources with life-and-death, furtherly momentous research misconduct events occurred continually, they becoming more and more rampant, and it has beacome a hotspot, focus,difficulty and great puzzle all over the world. Therefore,with the theory and method of interdisciplinary sciences, both of them will have extraordinary important theoretical values and operation significances:(1)to systematically research the conceptual frame, complex and various causalities,principal paradigms and their perspective transition about research misconduct in theory; (2)to profoundly anlyse,objectively evaluate and fully use for reference with some successful experiences on the guidelines determination, strategy decision-making, institution design, system arrangement, mechanism and procedure operation of the United States in paradigm, for construction of the Chinese prevention and regulation system against research misconduct, positively responding to the serious challenge from the events of research misconduct, real and effective solution of its present principal problems.
It constitutes a conceptual frame to rethink about definition, basic features and types of reearch misconduct.Reseach misconduct resulted from the interaction relationships of factors among microcosmic individual layer,middle-cosmic professional community and technological orgnizations, and macroscopical layer of social circumstance, may bring great harmness either about the intrests and fames for oneselves done misconduct,cooperators,others peers,professional communities and even institution itself within social institution of science,or about material and mental harmness for funding research agencies, social institutions,cultural ideas, and even common publics have not trusted on it because of loss of science purity outside. To explore research misconduct there are three major theoretical paradigms and analytical perspectives which are respectively set up by Robert King Merton about the normative structure of the academic science consisted of Communism, Universality, Disinterestedness, Originality and Scepticism (CUDOS),by John Ziman on the normative structure of the postacademic science consisted of Proprietary, Local, Authoritarian, Commissioned and Expert(PLACE), and by some experts on research integrity through the National Academies'organization.Being a kind of uniform relationship between history and logic among these theories represents either a transitions and innovation based on historical inheritance,or respective dependence,coexistence and supplement one another on a logic basic.All of above may not only describle a whole epistemology view to systematically hold research misconduct,but also provide an important guidelines and logic basic for the United States to construct its integrative system of prevention and regulation against research misconduct.
In according with the law on the evolution of research misconduct,the transition of two kinds of different strategies responsing to research misconduct were successively implemented by the Amerrican government.The first strategy transition was an single punishment mean from professional ethics to public polices, and the second one was from public policy to a systematic prevention and regulation with all kinds of means including professional ethic,laws, codes and regulations. In the United States the system of prevention and regulation against research misconduct mainly include the following two parts:(1)the first one is consist of policies,codes and regulations directly stating against research misconduct;(2)the second one is that include such as policies on subjects protection and annimals wellfare at experiment, data management, conflict of interest, responsibilities of Supervisors and trainees, cooperative research,authorship and publication,peer review close related to research misconduct.The two parts are either severally dependent or mutual supplement each other,and they has some formative and social functions including punishment, education,prevention and so on against research misconduct. They can provide either a right guidelines, or a firm organizational foundation and a powerful institutional ensure for the layer mechanism of oversee and administration against research misconduct to operate at a health, order and effective way in the United States.A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires:(a) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and (b) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;and (c) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The determination against a research misconduct must follow not only the administrative procedure step by step from allegation to allegation assessment, inquiry, investigation, correlative agency's oversight and review and sanctions,etc., but also the legal procedure step by step from appeal to hearing and judicial decision.Along the healthy, order and effective layer mechanism of oversee and administration, with the prompt, fair and confidential procedure on investigating and processing research misconduct, both of them can provide an important ensuring effect for the rights and obligations stated by above systems. Moreover, all of above made the United States become a typical state paradigm dealing with research misconduct all over the world by the nature of things.
Faced with a extraordinary severe challenge from research misconduct events, China herself has not only established and implemented a unique prevention and regulation system dealing with research misconduct,but also gained some more remarkable achievements.Being an increasingly open and drastically competition international society,as long as China dared to be up against such a challenge and was good at learning from those useful experiences of the United States,it would be able to realize the final and long-term goal either of reducing amounts and harms at research misconduct events,or at large promoting integrity consciousness,levels of academic moral and scientific ethic.
关于科研不端行为的概念界定、基本特征及其类型剖析,构成了反思科研不端行为的概念框架。由微观科学家个体、中观科学共同体等科研组织以及宏观社会环境这三个层面因素相互作用所导致的科研不端行为,既可能对科学社会建制内部的不端行为人自身、合作者、其他同行和专业共同体带来极大的利益与名誉损害,也可能给科学社会建制外部的研究资助机构、社会制度及其文化观念造成物质与精神的损失,甚至因科学纯洁性的损毁而可能导致社会公众的信任丧失。R.K.默顿关于由公有性、普遍性、无私利性、独创性和有条理的怀疑主义(CUDOS)等所构成的学院科学规范结构理论,J.齐曼关于由私有性、局部性、独裁主义、受委托性和专门性(PLACE)等所构成的后学院科学规范结构理论,以及美国国家学院组织专家所提出的科研诚信理论,构成了探究科研不端行为的主要理论范式与分析视角。这些理论范式之间的历史与逻辑相统一的关系表现为：既在历史传承基础上依次发生了相应的范式转换与创新,又在逻辑基础上各自独立、彼此共存与相辅相成。这种理论研究不仅为系统把握科研不端行为描绘了一幅整体性的认识论图景,而且为美国科研不端行为综合防范体系的构建提供了重要的指导思想与逻辑基础。
根据科研不端行为演变的规律性,美国先后实行了由职业伦理到公共政策的单一惩治,以及由公共政策到包括伦理、法律、法规、规章、政策、技术、教育、培训和研究等手段在内的综合防范的两次策略转变。美国防范科研不端行为的制度体系由以下两部分有机构成：一是直接规范科研不端行为的政策法规体系；二是与此密切相关并包括实验人体保护、实验动物福利、数据管理、利益冲突、导师与研究生责任、合作研究、原创作者与出版、同行评议等方面的政策法规体系。此二者既相对独立又相辅相成,共同对科研不端行为起着惩处和防范作用。它们为美国防范科研不端行为层级监管机制的健康、有序和高效运作,既提供了正确的指导方针又提供了坚实的组织基础与强大的制度保障。美国联邦政府科研不端行为的层级监管机制是其整个防范体系的核心。从白宫科技政策办公室(OSTP)到联邦政府各部门和机构、卫生部应对科研不端行为的专门机构——研究诚信办公室(ORI)与各部门监察长办公室(OIG),直至接受联邦资助的大学、医院、研究机构等基层组织及其监管机构,它们既各享其权、各司其职、各负其责,又相互配合、相互补充和协调统一,从而形成了健康、有序和高效运作的应对科研不端行为的层级监管机制。证明某项行为是否构成科研不端,要求该项行为必须同时具备以下三个要素：(1)存在一个对有关科研共同体公认惯例的重大背离或违反；(2)所犯的这种不端行为是故意的、不顾后果的；(3)对该不端行为的举报由一个占优势的证据所证明。认定一项科研不端行为不仅需要遵循举报、举报评估、质询、调查、相关机构的监督与评审以及处罚等行政程序,而且需要遵循上诉、听证与司法裁决等法律程序。这种健康、有序、高效运作的层级监管机制以及及时、公正和秘密查处程序,为充分实现由上述制度所规定的权利和义务提供了重要的保证。并且,所有这些理所当然地使得美国成为全世界范围内防范科研不端行为的国家典范。
正面临科研不端行为严峻挑战的中国,既制定并实施了具有自己特色的科研不端行为防范体系,也取得了一些较为显著的成效。在一个日益开放和激烈竞争的国际社会里,只要中国敢于面对挑战并善于借鉴美国的有益经验,通过进一步完善自己的防范体系,就一定能够实现既减少不端行为事件的发生数量、降低不端行为的各种损害,又普遍提升诚信意识、学术道德与科研伦理水平的长远目标。
During the Knowledge-base economy times when developped countries have finished the turn from the academic science to the post academic science, the trend of integration among S&T and economy is growing enhanced,along with technological activity having been the center of all social ones,especially utilitarian motive has become the most primary power in scientific research.All of these have resulted in scientists'contending against the technological resources with life-and-death, furtherly momentous research misconduct events occurred continually, they becoming more and more rampant, and it has beacome a hotspot, focus,difficulty and great puzzle all over the world. Therefore,with the theory and method of interdisciplinary sciences, both of them will have extraordinary important theoretical values and operation significances:(1)to systematically research the conceptual frame, complex and various causalities,principal paradigms and their perspective transition about research misconduct in theory; (2)to profoundly anlyse,objectively evaluate and fully use for reference with some successful experiences on the guidelines determination, strategy decision-making, institution design, system arrangement, mechanism and procedure operation of the United States in paradigm, for construction of the Chinese prevention and regulation system against research misconduct, positively responding to the serious challenge from the events of research misconduct, real and effective solution of its present principal problems.
It constitutes a conceptual frame to rethink about definition, basic features and types of reearch misconduct.Reseach misconduct resulted from the interaction relationships of factors among microcosmic individual layer,middle-cosmic professional community and technological orgnizations, and macroscopical layer of social circumstance, may bring great harmness either about the intrests and fames for oneselves done misconduct,cooperators,others peers,professional communities and even institution itself within social institution of science,or about material and mental harmness for funding research agencies, social institutions,cultural ideas, and even common publics have not trusted on it because of loss of science purity outside. To explore research misconduct there are three major theoretical paradigms and analytical perspectives which are respectively set up by Robert King Merton about the normative structure of the academic science consisted of Communism, Universality, Disinterestedness, Originality and Scepticism (CUDOS),by John Ziman on the normative structure of the postacademic science consisted of Proprietary, Local, Authoritarian, Commissioned and Expert(PLACE), and by some experts on research integrity through the National Academies'organization.Being a kind of uniform relationship between history and logic among these theories represents either a transitions and innovation based on historical inheritance,or respective dependence,coexistence and supplement one another on a logic basic.All of above may not only describle a whole epistemology view to systematically hold research misconduct,but also provide an important guidelines and logic basic for the United States to construct its integrative system of prevention and regulation against research misconduct.
In according with the law on the evolution of research misconduct,the transition of two kinds of different strategies responsing to research misconduct were successively implemented by the Amerrican government.The first strategy transition was an single punishment mean from professional ethics to public polices, and the second one was from public policy to a systematic prevention and regulation with all kinds of means including professional ethic,laws, codes and regulations. In the United States the system of prevention and regulation against research misconduct mainly include the following two parts:(1)the first one is consist of policies,codes and regulations directly stating against research misconduct;(2)the second one is that include such as policies on subjects protection and annimals wellfare at experiment, data management, conflict of interest, responsibilities of Supervisors and trainees, cooperative research,authorship and publication,peer review close related to research misconduct.The two parts are either severally dependent or mutual supplement each other,and they has some formative and social functions including punishment, education,prevention and so on against research misconduct. They can provide either a right guidelines, or a firm organizational foundation and a powerful institutional ensure for the layer mechanism of oversee and administration against research misconduct to operate at a health, order and effective way in the United States.A finding of research misconduct made under this part requires:(a) there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and (b) the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;and (c) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The determination against a research misconduct must follow not only the administrative procedure step by step from allegation to allegation assessment, inquiry, investigation, correlative agency's oversight and review and sanctions,etc., but also the legal procedure step by step from appeal to hearing and judicial decision.Along the healthy, order and effective layer mechanism of oversee and administration, with the prompt, fair and confidential procedure on investigating and processing research misconduct, both of them can provide an important ensuring effect for the rights and obligations stated by above systems. Moreover, all of above made the United States become a typical state paradigm dealing with research misconduct all over the world by the nature of things.
Faced with a extraordinary severe challenge from research misconduct events, China herself has not only established and implemented a unique prevention and regulation system dealing with research misconduct,but also gained some more remarkable achievements.Being an increasingly open and drastically competition international society,as long as China dared to be up against such a challenge and was good at learning from those useful experiences of the United States,it would be able to realize the final and long-term goal either of reducing amounts and harms at research misconduct events,or at large promoting integrity consciousness,levels of academic moral and scientific ethic.
引文
[1](美)阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦, 《爱因斯坦晚年文集》,方在庆等译,北京,北京大学出版社,2008。
[2](法)埃德加·莫兰, 《复杂性思想导论》,陈一壮译,华东师范大学出版社,2008。
[3](法)埃米尔·涂尔干,《社会分工论》,渠东译,北京,生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000。
[4](英)巴里·巴恩斯, 《局外人看科学》,鲁旭东译,北京,东方出版社,2001年。
[5](澳)布里奇斯托克(Bridgestock,M.)等, 《科学技术与社会导论》,刘立等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005。
[6](美)丹尼尔·豪斯曼,《经济学的哲学》,丁建峰译,世纪出版集团上海人民出版社,2007。
[7]邓正来, 《中国学术规范化讨论文选》,北京,法律出版社,2004。
[8](美)第默尔·库兰,《偏好伪装的社会后果》,丁振寰,欧阳武译,长春,长春出版社,2005。
[9](德)费希特,《论学者的使命人的使命》,梁志学、沈真译,北京,商务印书馆,1984。
[10](波兰)弗·兹纳涅茨基, 《知识人的社会角色》,郏斌祥译,南京,译林出版社,2000。
[11]冯坚,王英萍,韩正之, 《科学研究的道德与规范》,上海,上海交通大学出版社,2007。
[12]高兆明, 《伦理学理论与方法》,北京,人民出版社,2005。
[13](英)J.D.贝尔纳,《科学的社会功能》,陈体芳译,北京,商务印书馆,1982。
[14]蒋美仕等,《科学技术与社会引论》,长沙,中南大学出版社,2005。
[15](英)卡尔·皮尔逊, 《科学的规范》,北京,华夏出版社,1999。
[16]库少雄,《人类行为与社会环境》,武汉,华中科技大学出版社,2005。
[17](美)拉瑞·P·纳希, 《道德领域中的教育》,刘春琼,解光夫译,哈尔滨,黑龙江人民出版社,2003。
[18]李侠, 《喧嚣与凝视：透视转型期的科技政策与公共生活》,北京,科学出版社,2007。
[19]刘大椿等,《在真与善之间：科技时代的伦理问题与道德抉择》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,2000。
[20]刘大椿,《科学技术哲学导论》,北京,中国人民大学出版社,2000。
[21]刘大椿,《科学活动论互补方法论》,桂林,广西师范大学出版社,2002。
[22]刘大椿, 《中国人民大学中国人文社会科学发展研究报告2006》,北京,中国人民大学出版社,2006。
[23]刘劲杨, 《哲学视野中的复杂性》,湖南科学技术出版社,2008。
[24](美)罗伯特·马克·弗里德曼, 《权谋：诺贝尔科学奖的幕后》,杨建军译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2005。
[25](美)马克·格兰诺维特, 《镶嵌：社会网与经济行动》,罗家德译,北京,社会科学文献出版社,2007。
[26](德)马克斯·韦伯, 《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,黄晓京,彭强译,成都,四川人民出版社,1986。
[27](美)美国医学科学院,美国三院国家科研委员会, 《科研道德：倡导负责行为》,苗德岁译,北京,北京大学出版社,2007。
[28](美)Nicholas H. Steneck,《科研伦理入门：ORI介绍负责任研究行为》,曹南燕等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005。
[29](美)欧文·拉兹洛, 《系统、结构和经验》,李创同译,上海,上海译文出版社,1997。
[30](美)欧文·拉兹洛, 《系统哲学引论》,钱兆华等译,北京,商务印书馆,1998。
[31](法)皮埃尔·布尔迪厄, 《科学之科学与反观性(法兰西学院专题讲座(2000-2001学年))》,陈圣生等译,桂林,广西师范大学出版社,2006。
[32](英)齐曼, 《真科学：它是什么,它指什么》,曾国屏等译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2002。
[33](法)让·拉特利尔, 《科学和技术对文化的挑战》,吕乃基等译,北京,商务印书馆,1997。
[34](美)R.K.默顿,《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,商务印书馆,2000。
[35](美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003。
[36]沙依仁等, 《社会科学是什么》,北京,世界图书出版公司,2006。
[37](日)山崎茂明, 《科学家的不端行为：捏造·篡改·剽窃》,杨舰等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005。
[38](英)史蒂夫·富勒, 《科学的统治：开放社会的意识形态与未来》,刘纯译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2006。
[39](美)史蒂芬·科尔, 《科学的制造：在自然界与社会之间》,林建成,王毅译,上海,上海人民出版社,2001。
[40](美)唐纳德·肯尼迪, 《学术责任》,阎凤桥等译,北京,新华出版社,2002。
[41](美)威廉姆·布洛德,尼可拉斯·韦德,《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004。
[42]杨玉圣,张保生,《学术规范导论》,北京,高等教育出版社,2004。
[43]赵万里, 《科学的社会建构：科学知识社会学的理论与实践》,天津,天津人民出版社,2002。
[44]曹南燕,“研究诚信的体制化：美国研究诚信办公室及其启示”,《自然辩证法研究》,2006年第10期。
[45]曹南燕,邱仁宗,“促进负责任的研究：记首次世界科研诚信大会”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年5月,第24卷第5期。
[46]曹南燕,“QRP——科学研究中的灰色领域：小恶不止,大祸立至”,《河池学院学报》,2007年6月,第27卷第3期。
[47]曹南燕,“科学研究中利益冲突的本质与控制”, 《清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2007年第1期。
[48]曹南燕, “研究诚信的体制化——美国研究诚信办公室及其启示”《自然辩证法研究》,2006年10月,第22卷第10期。
[49]曹南燕,“加强体制层面的学风建设”, 《社会科学论坛》,2004年第12期。
[50]曹树基, “学术不端行为：概念及惩治”, 《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期。
[51]陈民, “美国关于科研不端行为的定义与争论”, 《世界科技研究与发展》,1996年第5期。
[52]丛亚丽, “从纽伦堡到赫尔辛基”[EB], 《科学时报》http://www.zhuomu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=l 3853
[53]戴国庆,“美国联邦政府科研经费监督管理及其启示”,《科研管理》2006年第1期。
[54]樊洪业,“科研作伪行为及其辨识与防范”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1994年第1期。
[55]方舟子, “如何避免学术不端行为”, 《中国青年报》,2007-02-14。
[56]古继宝等, “中美学术监督典型机构运行体系的对比及经验借鉴”,《中国科技论坛》,2007年第8期。
[57]黄欣荣,“后学院科学及其社会规范——齐曼《真科学》读后”,《科学学研究》,2003年第5期。
[58]蒋美仕等, “从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的政策法规体系”, 《中国科技论坛》,2008年第12期。
[59]蒋美仕等, “美国联邦政府关于科研不端行为的政策演变：从不端行为定义的争议与统一过程审视”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,2008年第6期。
[60]蒋美仕等, “从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”, 《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期。
[61]蒯强, “法国倡导科研诚信和反对学术不端行为的举措”, 《复旦教育论坛》,2007年第5期。
[62]李斌,冯斌,“科学不端行为的成因及对策”, 《科技情报开发与经济》,2007年第10期。
[63]李定, “严治学术腐败 崇尚科技创新”[EB/OL]. 202.38.65.100/ylb/gschool/xwdt/initial/2006113001/ld.ppt
[64]李善峰,“在价值理性与工具理性之间：文化保守主义的历史评判”,《学术界》,1996年第1期。
[65]李韬, “核战争的伦理思考”, 《曲阜师范学院学报(社会科学版)》,2004年第6期。
[66]李真真,“转型中的中国科学：科研不端行为及其诱因分析”, 《科研管理》,2004年第3期。
[67]刘秋华,“科研不端行为的社会学分析”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第1期。
[68]刘轶博等, “学术不端行为研究”, 《广东省社会主义学院学报》,2007年第2期。
[69]任洪波, “美国和丹麦的科研诚信”, 《全球科技经济瞭望》,2007年第3期。
[70]谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE-—论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”,《科学学研究》,2006年第5期。
[71]阎康年, “从J.H.Schon的科学不端行为探访防范对策”, 《物理学史和物理学家》,2004年第11期。
[72]杨文利,“建立联席会议制度六部委掀起科技界诚信‘风暴’”,《中国高新技术产业导报》,2007-04-06。
[73]王丹红, “美国NIH发生严重的学术不端事件”, 《科学时报》,2005-03-24。
[74]王丹红,“黄禹锡事件影响深远科学杂志痛定思痛”,《科学时报》,2007-01-04。
[75]王锋,“科学不端行为及其成因剖析”, 《科学学研究》,2002年第1期。
[76]王蒲生,“美国科研机构的利益冲突政策的缘起、现况与争论”,《科学学研究》,2005年第3期。
[77]王行宇,卢晓蕊, “对学术不端行为的新制度经济学思考”, 《中共济南市委党校学报》,2007年第2期。
[78]王雅芬, “科研不端行为的界定及其防范与治理”, 《研究与发展管理》,2007年第4期。
[79]王艳,“美国学术团体促进科研诚信规范”,《科学对社会的影响》,2006年第2期。
[80]王艳,“美国的科研诚信：联邦政府的作用”,《科学对社会的影响》,2007年第1期。
[81]王艳, “美国的科研诚信：大学的作用”, 《全球科技经济瞭望》2007年第1期。
[82]吴国英, “‘越位’、 ‘缺位’、 ‘错位’与‘弱化’、 ‘强化’‘转化’：关于政府职能转化与依法行政的思考”, 《上海青年管理干部学院学报》,2003年第4期。
[83]吴琴南,“德国加强控制科研不端行为”,《世界科技研究与发展》,1998年第1期。
[84]吴寿乾, “科学研究中的不端行为及其防范”, 《科技管理研究》,2006年第11期。
[85]伍莺莺,许峥嵘,“科研不端行为的界定及其防治”,《法制与社会》,2006年第10期。
[86]杨依山,“‘劣币驱逐良币’另解”, 《中国经济问题》,2004年第1期。
[87]游战洪,刘钝,“论帕格沃什运动的历史经验及其意义”, 《自然科学史研究》,2005年第4期。
[88]游战洪,刘钝,“《罗素-爱因斯坦宣言》的科学社会学解读”,《科学(上海)》,2005年第5期。
[89]张立,王华平, “学术不端行为的模型化研究”, 《科学学研究》,2007年第1期。
[90]张燕, “默顿的学院科学范式述评”, 《白城师范学院学报》,2006年第3期。
[91]郑志瑛, “经济学透镜下的学术腐败”, 《社会科学论坛》,2003年第3期。
[92]钟灿涛, “多层面防治科研不端行为”《科技潮》,2007年第2期。
[93]驻纽约总领事馆教育组, “美国高校的学术自由与学术诚信”, 《中国高等教育》,2003年第18期。
[94]邹承鲁,“开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第6期。
[95]邹承鲁等14名学部委员,“再论科学道德问题”,《教育科学研究》,1992年第3期。
[96]郭晟梅, 《“一稿多投”现象的局部合理性研究》,浙江工业大学硕士学位论文,2007。
[97]韩丽峰, 《科学活动中若干失误问题的研究》,中国科学技术大学科技哲学博士学位论文,2007。
[98]李明, 《科学不端行为的成因及其对策》,华中师范大学科学技术哲学硕士学位论文,2008。
[99]刘培蕾, 《大学生学术诚信缺失的原因及其教育对策研究》,西南大学硕士学位论文,2007。
[100]刘志波, 《危机与应对：研究生学术诚信建设研究》,南京航空航天大学硕士学位论文,2007。
[101]盛华根,《科学活动中越轨行为的界定和分类》,厦门大学科技哲学专业硕士学位论文,2002。
[102]石玮,《试析我国的科学不端行为》,上海交通大学科技哲学硕士学位论文,2007。
[103]宋芝业,《科学规范研究》,山东大学科学技术哲学专业硕士学位论文,2007。
[104]吴善超,《当前我国科研道德建设研究》,清华大学公共管理学专业硕士,2004。
[105]杨进军,《当前我国学术不端行为的成因及对策研究》,西南交通大学硕士学位论文,2003。
[106]俞涛,《论科学不端行为的犯罪化》,湖南师范大学法学硕士学位论文,2005。
[107]于江平,《科学活动中越轨行为的社会学研究》,苏州大学社会学专业硕士学位论文,2003。
[108]朱月晨,《研究生学术诚信问题的博弈分析》,广西师范大学硕士学位论文,2006。
[109]Altman,Ellen & Hernon,Peter,Research Misconduct:Issues,Implications and Strategies,Greenwich,CT:Ablex Publishing Corpration,1997.
[110]Commission on Research Integrity,Integrity and Misconduct in Res earch[R],To the Secretary of Health and Human Services;The House Committe e on Commerce;The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,1995:5. http://www. ori. dhhs.gov/documents/report_commission.pdf
[111]Committee on Science,Engineering,and Public Policy (COSEPUP),On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (1995),Copyright 1995,2000 The National Academy of Sciences
[112]Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002.
[113]Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
[114]Jean Rostand, Error and Deception in Science:Essays on the Biological Aspects of Life, tr. A. J. Pomerantz, Hutchison, London,1960
[115]John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2000.
[116]John Ziman, Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1994.
[117]Martin Bridgstock et al, Science,Technology and Society:An Introduction,Cambridge University Press,1998.
[118]Nicholas H.Steneck, Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. In Investigating Research Integrity:Proceeding of the First ORI Conference on Research Integrity,Edited by Nicholas H.Steneck and Mary D.Scheetz,Washington,DC:Office of Research Integrity,2002.
[119]Nicholas H.Steneck,ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/RCRintro/ HTML Version,September 2006,updated from Revised Printed Editionjune 2004.
[120]Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, National Academy Press,1992.
[121]Robert E.McGINN,Science,Technology and Society,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,1991.
[122]Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E.Markle, James C.Petersen,Trevor Pinch, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies,Published in Cooperation with the Society for Social Studies of Science, SAGE Publications, International Educational and Professional Publisher,Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
[123]The Committee on Science,Engineering and Public Policy,On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research,2nd edition,National Academic Press,1995.
[124]William Broad and Nicholas Wade,Betrayers of the Truth:Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, New York:Simon and Schuster,1982.
[125]A. Cournand, The Code of the Scientist and its Relation to Ethics, Science, 1977.
[126]Alan R. Biggs, The Journal's Role in Scientific Misconduct, Phytopathology news,38(2),2004.
[127]Alan T.Lefor, Scientific misconduct and unethical human experimentation: historic parallels and moral implications, Nutrition,21(2005)
[128]Anne Victoria Neale, Justin Northrup, Rhonda Dailey, Ellen Marks, Judith Abrams, Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(1)2007.
[129]American Association for the Advancement of Science,About AAAS, http://www. aaas. org/aboutaaas/
[130]American Association for the Advancement of Science, Membership, http://www. aaas. org/membership/
[131]Ana Maria Vara,An insider's view on science and society. Re-reading John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006.
[132]Anne Hudson Jones, Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2),2003.
[133]Associated Press,Faked Research Results on Rise? http://www. wired. com/news/medtech/0,1286,68153,00. html
[134]Barbara C. Hansen and Kenneth D. Hansen, Academic and scientific misconduct:Issues for nursing educators, Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(1)1995
[135]Ben R.Martin,Keeping plagiarism at bay-Asalutary tale, Research Policy, 36(2007).
[136]Bentley Glass,The Ethical Basis of Science,Science,1965,150.
[137]Beth A.Fischer,Michael J.Zigmond,Toward a Climate of Scientific Integrity,http://www.plosbiology. org/article/info:doi/l 0.1371/journal. pbio.0040084
[138]C. Manwell and C. M. Ann Baker, Honesty in Science:a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science, Search,1981,12(6).
[139]C.A. Hooker, Essay Review, Science:Legendary, Academic-and Post-Academic? Minerva,Volume 41,Number 1,2003 (11).
[140]Charlotte M. Ferrell, Larry G. Daniel, A frame of reference for understanding behaviors related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students, Research in Higher Education,36(3) 1995.
[141]Chris B. Pascal, The history and future of the office of research integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[142]Chris B.Pascal, Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity for the Bench Scientist(44535E),P.S.E.B.M.,2000,Vol.224.
[143]Christie Aschwanden, Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity,Cell,131(1)2007.
[144]Compiled by Nick Steneck, RCR Education Resource Bibliography, Offered through the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, August 2004, http://www. ori. dhhs. gov/education/documents/bibliography_rcr_2004.pdf
[145]D. E. Chubin, Misconduct in Research:an issue of science policy and practice, Minerva,1985,23 (Summer).
[146]Daryl E. Chubin, Scientific misconduct:The lessons of time, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[147]David E. Wright, Sandra L.Titus and Jered B. Cornelison, Mentoring and Research Misconduct:An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed ORI Cases, Science and Engineering Ethics,14(3),2008.
[148]David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www. physics. ohio-state. edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct. html
[149]Davis M.,The Role of Culture in Research Misconduct, Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance,Volume 10,Number 3,July-September 2003
[150]DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Office of the Secretary,Office of Public Health and Science,Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2007,June 2008.
[151]Derek J.De Solla Price,Ethics of Scientific Publication,Science,1964,144. [180] Dolores J. Lamb, When the Quest for Truth Falters:The Issue of Scientific Misconduct, The Journal of Urology,179(1)2008.
[152]Edward J. Huth, Stealing into print:Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,9(2)1993.
[153]Edward J.Vinski,Academic Dishonesty and Cognitive Dissonance [D],University of New York,2007.
[154]Elizabeth R. Lenz and Shake Ketefian, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research part I:Current approaches in doctoral programs, Journal of Professional Nursing,11 (4) 1995.
[155]Ellen Henderson,Faculty Perceptions of and Responses to Academic Dishonesty:An Analysis from an Ethical Perspective [D],Temple University,2007.
[156]Elysa Koppelman-White,Research Misconduct and the Scientific Process:Continuing Quality Improvement, Accountability in Research,13,2006.
[157]Eugene Russo,Promoting integrity in science,The Scientist,October 14,2002,http://cmbi. bjmu. edu. cn/news/0210/77. htm
[158]Faye G. Abdellah, Scientific misconduct:Myth or reality? Journal of Professional Nursing,6(1)1990.
[159]Forsman B., An Ethical Analysis of the Phenomenon of Misconduct in Research, Acta Oncologica, Volume 38, Number 1,15 February 1999.
[160]FREDERICK GRINNELL, Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct, J Lab Clin Med, February 1997, Volume 129, Number 2.
[161]George A. Diamond, Bird brains:The evolution of scientific misconduct, The American Journal of Cardiology,66(3)1990.
[162]H. Zuckerman, Norms and Deviant Behavior in Science, Sci.,Technol. Human Values,1984,9(1).
[163]Imogen Evans, The medical research council's approach to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[164]Institutional Review Board, http://www. cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha. aspx?CdrID=44679
[165]Iverson, Margotl; Frankel, Mark; Siang, Sanyin, Scientific societies and research integrity:What are they doing and how well are they doing it? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003.
[166]J.E.Dahlberg and C.C.Mahler,The Poehlman case:running away from the truth,Science and Engineering Ethics,Volume 12,Issue 1,2006.
[167]James G.Sheehan,Fraud,conflict of interest,and other enforcement issues in clinical research, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine,Vol.74,Supplement 2,March 2007.
[168]James J. Dooley, Helen M. Kerch, Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists, Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1)2000.
[169]James S. Lubalin and Jennifer L. Matheson, The fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct? Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2) 1999.
[170]Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay, Laurence Schaffar-Esterle, Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[171]Jennifer L.Kisamore,Thomas H.Stone,I.M.Jawahar,Academic Integrity: The Relationship between Individual and Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations,Journal of Business Ethics,75 (4),2007.
[172]John Butterworth,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct, http://www. anesthesia-analgesia. org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1208
[173]John E.Dahlberg and Christian C.Mahler,The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1)2006.
[174]John T. Edsall, Two Aspects of Scientific Responsibility, Science,1981, 212.
[175]John Ziman,"Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms,Science Studies,Vol.9 (1996),No.1.
[176]Judith P. Swazey, Commentary on "the fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?" (J.S. Lubalin and J.L. Matheson), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[177]Kenneth D. Pimple, Commentary on "The history and future of the office of research integrity:Scientific misconduct and beyond" (C. Pascal), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[178]Kenneth D. Pimple, Defining Misconduct in Science:Some Reflections on the American Experience, http://www.indiana.edu/-poynter/tre4-2a.html
[179]Kenneth D.Pimple,Six Domains of Research Ethics:Aheuristic Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research,Science and Engineering Ethics,8(2)2002.
[180]Kenneth E. Freedland and Robert M. Carney, Data Management and Accountability in Behavioral and Biomedical Research, American Psychologist, 47(5)1992.
[181]Kenneth J. Ryan, Commentary on'Developing a federal policy on research misconduct'(S. Francis), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[182]KERANEN, LISA,Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct: Considerations for Sanction Assignment Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance,13(2),2006.
[183]Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention.www. ihpst2005. leeds. ac. uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
[184]Larry G. Daniel, Betty N. Adams, Nathan M. Smith, Academic misconduct among nursing students:A multivariate investigation, Journal of Professional Nursing,10(5) 1994.
[185]Lawrence Rhoades, A Gorski, Scientific misconduct:An international perspective, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[186]Levine, Felicel; Iutcovich, Joyce, Challenges in studying the effects of scientific societies on research integrity, Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2), 2003.
[187]Luca Consoli, Scientific misconduct and science ethics:a case study based approach, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(3)2006.
[188]Lucia D. Wocial, The role of mentors in promoting integrity and preventing scientific misconduct in nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(4)1995.
[189]Magne Nylenna,Sigmund Simonsen, Scientific misconduct:a new approach to prevention,The Lancet,Vol.367, June 10,2006.
[190]Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette, Beyond plagiarism:Ethical misconduct in scientific and technical publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,4(4)1988.
[191]Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris, Sebastian R. Diaz, Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct:Evidence from ORI Case Files, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4)2007.
[192]Mary L. Miers, Current NIH Perspectives on Misconduct in Science, American Psychologist,40(7)1985.
[193]Melissa S.Anderson,Joseph B. Shultz,The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct,Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2)2003
[194]Michael Berry, Ziman, John, Michael, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,www.phy. bris. ac. uk/people/Berry_mv/the_papers/BerryB.pdf
[195]Michael Glick,Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA,Vol.137, http://jada. ada. org April 2006.
[196]Michael L. Callaham, Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication, Annals of Emergency Medicine,41(1),2003.
[197]Michael Strevens,The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science, www. strevens. org/re search/scistruc/Matthew.pdf
[198]Muriel J.Bebeau,Defining Research Integrity and Conceptual Frameworks for Assessment[PPT],American Educational Research Association, Thursday,April 15,2004,
http://aera. net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=80&id=648
[199]Nicholas H.Steneck, Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. In Investigating Research Integrity:Proceeding of the First ORI Conference on Research Integrity,Edited by Nicholas H.Steneck and Mary D.Scheetz, Washington, DC:Office of Research Integrity,2002.
[200]Nicholas H.Steneck,What Do We Know?Two Decades of Research on Research Integrity, World Conference on Research Integrity Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon,Portugal,September 16-19,2007.
[201]Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
[202]Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-History, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
[203]Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-Functional Overviews:Office of the Director, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/director.shtml
[204]Office of Research Integrity,Policies-ORI Mission, http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/ORI Mission.shtml
[205]Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Annual Reports, http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/annual_reports.shtml
[206]Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Newsletters, http://ori. dhhs. gov/publications/newsletters. shtml
[207]Office of Inspector General,OIG Mission, http://www. oig. hhs.gov/organization/OIGmission. html
[208]OSTP, About OSTP:Department Organization, http://www. ostp. gov/cs/about ostp
[209]OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION, http://www. ostp. gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf
[210]P. J. Greene, J. S. Durch, W. Horowitz and V. S. Hooper, Policies for Responding to Allegations of Fraud in Research, Minerva,1985,23(2).
[211]Patricia A. Prescott, Academic misconduct:Considerations for educational administrators, Journal of Professional Nursing,5(5)1989.
[212]Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997.
[213]Peter Gleick, Table 1 Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7,2007,
[214]Pietro Greco,Comment John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006.
[215]Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49,2004.
[216]Ptricia Huston and David Moher,Redundancy,disaggregation and the integrity of medical research, The Lancet,Vol.347,April 13,1996.
[217]Ralph A. Bradshaw, FASEB Letter to Donna Shalala 7.2.96. http://www.faseb.org/opa/hhslet2.html(l of 3)12/21/2005 11:27:16 AM
[218]Raymond Spier, Stephanie J. Bird, Scientific misconduct:Ongoing developments, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[219]Report,Outgoing Administration Pursues Research Ethics Initiatives, Physiologist,44(1)2001.
[220]Richard P.Kusserow, INSPECTOR GENERAL, MISCONDUCTIN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (OAI-07-88-00420; 03/89), Office of Inspector General, Office of Analisis and Inspections, March 1989, www. oig. hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
[221]Richard S.J.Tol,THE MATTHEW EFFECT DEFINED AND TESTED FOR THE 100 MOST PROLIFIC ECONOMISTS,August 7,2007,Working Paper FNU-143,http://www.fnu.zmaw. de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publica... papers/matthewwp.pdf
[222]Richard Smith, Time to face up to research misconduct, British Medical Journal,312(7034),1996.
[223]Robert G. Petersdorf, The Pathogenesis of Fraud in Medical Science, Ann.Internal Med.,1986,104.
[224]Robert J. Kaufman and Jeremy Sugarman,More Attention to the Problem of Research Misconduct, Nutrition,17(1)2001.
[225]Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,Science,159(3810), January 5,1968.
[226]Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,II:Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,ISIS,79,1988.
[227]Ronald F. White,Institutional Review Board Mission Creep:The Common Rule, Social Science,and the Nanny State, The Independent Review, v., XI, n.3, Spring 2007, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright (?) 2007
[228]Rose M. Chop and Mary Cipriano Silva, Scientific fraud:Definitions, policies, and implications for nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing, 7(3)1991.
[229]Rosemary Chalk, Mark S. Frankel, and Sallie B. Chafer, AAAS Professional Ethics Project, AAAS, Washington, DC 1980.
[230]Roy G. Spece, Carol Bernstein,What is scientific misconduct,who has to (dis)prove it,and to what level of certainty? Arizonal Legal Studies,September 2007.
[231]Ryan,Kenneth J.,Scientific misconduct in perspective:The need to improve accountability,Chronicle of Higher Education,1996(19).
[232]S.Al-Marzouki et al.,The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Contemporary Clinical Trials,26 (2005).
[233]Sanaa AI-Marzouki,Ian Roberts,Tom Marshall,Stephen Evans,The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Clinical Trials,26(2005).
[234]Shake Ketefian and lizabeth R. Lenz, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research, part II:Strategies, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(5)1995.
[235]Stanley E. Seashore, Plagiarism, credit assignment, and ownership of data, Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, Volume 9, Issue 4, November 1978.
[236]Stephanie J. Bird, Alicia K. Dustira, New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1) 2000.
[237]Stephanie J. Bird, Publicizing scientific misconduct and its consequences, Science and Engineering Ethics,10(3)2004.
[238]Sybil Francis, Developing a federal policy on research misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[239]The Fraud Advisory Panel,Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%2 0(October07).pdf
[240]The National Endowment for the Humanities,NEH Overview, http://www. neh. gov/whoweare/overview. html
[241]Theresa Mitchella and Jude Carroll, Academic and research misconduct in the PhD:Issues for students and supervisors, Nurse Education Today,28(2)2008.
[242]US National Science Foundation,NSF Organizational Chart, www. nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/papp/ex1.pdf
[243]US National Science Foundation,Publications, http://www.nsf.gov/publications/index.jsp?nsf_org=OIG&org=NSF&pub_type=Rep orts&archived=false&ord=pub&page=2
[244]Vagn Lundsgaard Hansen,What is scientific misconduct?Institut for Matematik, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, http://www. biokemi. org/biozoom/2006_4/bz_0406c. htm
[245]Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files. chem. vt. edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx. html
[246]W. J. Broad, Fraud and the Structure of Science, Science,1981,212.
[247]Wager, Elizabeth, Ethical publishing:the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct, Menopause International,13(3),2007.
[248]Ward Pigman and Emmett B. Carmichael, An Ethical Code for Scientists, Science,1950 (June 16).
[249]Washington's Attacks on Science "Pervasive", http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/
www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick_Senate_Commerce_2-7-07.pdf
[250]William Edward Daniell, Science, Integrity, and Investigators' Rights: Current Challenges, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,24(1)1996.
[251]William Gardner, Charles W.Lidz,Kathryn C.Hartwig,Author's reports about research integrity problems in Clinical Trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(2005).
[252]William H.Yates,Academic Integrity in the Internet Age[D],Nova Southeastern University,2007.
[253]William O.Baker,The Moral Un-Neutrality of Science,Sience,1961,133.
[254]42 C.F.R. Part 50. subpart A:August 8,1989.
[255]Executive Order 12881 of November 23,1993 Establishment of the National Science and Technology Council, http://www. ostp. gov/cs/NSTC/executive_order
[256]HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations.
[257]HHS,Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.69,No.74/Friday.April 16,2004/Proposed Rules,
[258]Indiana University, Policy and Procedures on Research Misconduct,By Action of the University Faculty Council:April 24,2007), http://www.indiana.edu/-ufc/docs/policies/ResearchMisconduct.pdf
[259]National Science Foundation, Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research, Federal Register. Vol.52. No.126. Wednesday, July 1,1987, http://www. access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/45cfr689_02. html.
[260]National Science Foundation (1991):Misconduct in science and engineering:Final rule. Federal Register 56(May 14).
[261]NIH, A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH, www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ResEthicsCases/NIH%20Misconduct2.pdf
[262]President Signs PCAST Executive Order, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011001-1.html
[263]Rules and Regulations.Federal Register/Vol.70, No.120/Thursday, June 23,2005/Rules and Regulations.
[264]The National Endowment for the Humanities,Research Misconduct Policy, http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/researchmisconduct.html
[265]The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6, 2000/Notices.
[266]university of maine,policy and procedures on alleged misconduct in research and other scholarly activities, approved:september 17,1999, revised:april 14,2006.
[267]USDA Forest Service Research & Development, Code of Scientific Ethicsjuly 20,2000.
[268]http://en.fi.dk/councils-commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-d ishonesty
[269]http://ori.dhhs.gov/
[270]http://www.aaas.org/
[271]http://www. acriticism. com/
[272]http://www. nationalacademies. org/
[273]http://www. neh. gov/
[274]http://www.nsf.gov/
[275]http://www.nsf.gov/oig/
[276]http://www.ukrio.org.uk/home/
①(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍
② J. E. Dahlberg and C. C. Mahler, The Poehlman case:running away from the truth. Science and Engineering译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第1页。Ethics,12(1)2006:165-169.
①王骏, “科学骗局的‘集体制造’”, 《科学文化评论》,2006年第2期,第53-65页。
①李天舒,“浙大论文造假事件李连达院士负连带贡任”, 《健康报》,2009牛03月09口。
②新华社,“陈进被上海交大解除有关职务国家有关部委决定追缴相应拨款和经费”,《世界科学》,2006年第6期,第38页。
③ Office of Research Integrity,Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2007,June 2008,p.Ⅰ.
①尽管成文的政策、法规和法律,无论是在严格还是宽泛意义上都可以被纳入文献范围,但由于该部分作为主要内容夕一将在正文作重点阐述,且为了简化文献绿述部分的内容,故在此略过。
②美国学者威廉·布洛德、尼古拉斯·韦德(William Broad and Nicholas Wade)享的研究成果显示,尽管早在古希腊时期就存存着剽窃等科研不端行为,但无论是在当时还是现在来看,其数量、发生频率、影响范围和危害后果几乎可以忽略。故本文确定以近代自然科学诞生之时为该类研究孕育期的开端。
③(美)R.K.默顿,《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,北京,商务印书馆,2000年版,第287页。
④同上,215-216页。
①(美)R.K.默顿,《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,北京,商务印书馆,2000年版,279页。
②在担任英国皇家学会会长期间(1703-1727)的1712年,牛顿自己授权成立了一个调查他与德国科学家、哲学家莱布尼茨关于微积分发现优先权争夺的专门委员会,最终因其介入导致调查小组在1713年得出了不利于莱布尼茨的调查结论——牛顿是微积分的第一发明人。参见孙小礼,“莱布尼茨与微积分发明权之争：纪念莱布尼茨诞生360周年”,《自然辩证法研究》,2006年第7期,第93页。
③(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第640页。
④(英)J.D.贝尔纳, 《科学的社会功能》,陈体芳译,北京,商务印书馆,1982年版,第531-532页。
① Fraud advisory panel, Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? p.2. http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%20(October07).pdf
②(美)R.K.默顿,《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364,365-376页。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,419-430页。
② Jean Rostand, Error and Deception in Science:Essays on the Biological Aspects of Life, tr. A. J. Pomerantz, Hutchison, London,1960; Peter B. Medawar, Is the scientific paper fraudulent? yes; it misrepresents scientific thought, Sat. Rev.1964 (Aug.1), p.42-43.
③ Stanley E. Seashore, Plagiarism, credit assignment, and ownership of data, Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, Volume 9, Issue 4, November 1978, p.719-722.
④ Rosemary Chalk, Mark S. Frankel, and Sallie B. Chafer, AAAS Professional Ethics Project, AAAS, Washington, DC 1980
① William Broad and Nicholas Wade,Betrayers of the Truth:Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, New York:Simon and Schuster,1982.
② W. J. Broad, Fraud and the Structure of Science, Science,1981,212, p.137-141.
③ C. Manwell and C. M. Ann Baker, Honesty in Science:a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science, Search,1981,12(6), p.151-159.
④ H. Zuckerman, Norms and Deviant Behavior in Science, Sci.,Technol. Human Values,1984,9(1), p.7-13.
⑤ P. J. Greene, J. S. Durch, W. Horowitz and V. S. Hooper, Policies for Responding to Allegations of Fraud in Research, Minerva,1985,23(2), p.203-215.
⑥ D. E. Chubin, Misconduct in Research:an issue of science policy and practice, Minerva,1985,23 (Summer), p.175-202.
⑦ Robert G. Petersdorf, The Pathogenesis of Fraud in Medical Science, Ann.Internal Med.,1986,104, p.252-254.
① Mary L. Miers, Current NIH Perspectives on Misconduct in Science, American Psychologisi,40(7)1985: 831-835.
② Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette, Beyond plagiarism:Ethical misconduct in scientific and technical publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,4(4)1988:65-73.
① Faye G. Abdellah, Scientific misconduct:Myth or reality? Journal of Professional Nursing,6(1)1990:6,63.
② Rose M. Chop and Mary Cipriano Silva, Scientific fraud:Definitions, policies, and implications for nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing,7(3) 1991:166-171.
③ George A. Diamond, Bird brains:The evolution of scientific misconduct, The American Journal of Cardiology,66(3)1990:372-374.
④ Edward J. Huth, Stealing into print:Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,9(2)1993:78-79.
⑤ Larry G. Daniel, Betty N. Adams, Nathan M. Smith, Academic misconduct among nursing students:A multivariate investigation, Journal of Professional Nursing,10(5)1994:278-288.
⑥ Barbara C. Hansen and Kenneth D. Hansen, Academic and scientific misconduct:Issues for nursing educators, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(1)1995:31-39.
⑦ Kenneth D. Pimple, Defining Misconduct in Science:Some Reflections on the American Experience, http://www. Indiana. edu/-poynter/tre4-2a. html
⑧ Charlotte M. Ferrell, Larry G. Daniel, A frame of reference for understanding behaviors related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students, Research in Higher Education,36(3) 1995:345-375.
① Ryan,Kenneth J.,Scientific misconduct in perspective:The need to improve accountability, Chronicle of Higher Education,1996(19):B1-B2.
② William Edward Daniell, Science, Integrity, and Investigators'Rights:Current Challenges, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,24(1)1996:S152-S162.
③ Patricia A. Prescott, Academic misconduct:Considerations for educational administrators, Journal of Professional Nursing,5(5)1989:283-287.
④ The Committee on Science,Engineering and Public Policy,On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research,2nd edition,National Academic Press,1995, p.27.
⑤ Altman,Ellen & Hernon,Peter,Research Misconduct:Issues,Implications and Strategies,Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corpration,1997, p.206.
⑥ lizabeth R. Lenz and Shake Ketefian, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research part I:Current approaches in doctoral programs, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(4)1995:213-219.
⑦ Lucia D. Wocial, The role of mentors in promoting integrity and preventing scientific misconduct in nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(4)1995:276-280.
⑧ Kenneth E. Freedland and Robert M. Carney, Data Management and Accountability in Behavioral and Biomedical Research, American Psychologist,47(5)1992:640-645.
① Shake Ketefian and lizabeth R. Lenz, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research, part Ⅱ:Strategies, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(5)1995:263-269.
② Ptricia Huston and David Moher,Redundancy,disaggregation and the integrity of medical research,The Lancet,Vol.347,April 13,1996,p.1024-1026.
③ Frederick Grinnell,Truth,fairness,and the definition of scientific research, J Lab Clin Med.,1997,129: 189-192.
④ Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997.
① Richard Smith, Time to face up to research misconduct, British Medical Journal,312(7034):789-790,1996.
② Associated Press,Faked Research Results on Rise? http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68153,00.html
① Chris B. Pascal, The history and future of the office of research integrity:Scientific misconduct and beyond, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:183-198; Daryl E. Chubin, Scientific misconduct:The lessons of time, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:199-202; Kenneth D. Pimple, Commentary on "The history and future of the office of research integrity:Scientific misconduct and beyond" (C. Pascal), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2) 1999:203-204.
② Sybil Francis, Developing a federal policy on research misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999: 261-272; Kenneth J. Ryan, Commentary on'Developing a federal policy on research misconduct'(S. Francis), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:273-274.
③ Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay, Laurence Schaffar-Esterle, Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:41-48; Imogen Evans, The medical research council's approach to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1)2000:91-94.
④ James S. Lubalin and Jennifer L. Matheson, The fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct? Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:229-250; Judith P. Swazey, Commentary on "the fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?" (J.S. Lubalin and J.L. Matheson), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:251-253.
⑤ Stephanie J. Bird, Alicia K. Dustira, New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:123-130.
⑥ Raymond Spier, Stephanie J. Bird, Scientific misconduct:Ongoing developments, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:3-4.
⑦ James J. Dooley, Helen M. Kerch, Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:109-121.
⑧ Report,Outgoing Administration Pursues Research Ethics Initiatives, Physiologist,44(1)2001:37-38.
① Chris B.Pascal, Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity for the Bench Scientist(44535E),P.S.E.B.M., 2000, Vol.224:220-230.
② Robert J. Kaufman and Jeremy Sugarman,More Attention to the Problem of Research Misconduct, Nutrition, 17(1)2001:59-61.
③ Kenneth D.Pimple,Six Domains of Research Ethics:Aheuristic Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research, Science and Engineering Ethics,8(2)2002:191-205.
④ Nicholas H.Steneck, Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. In Investigating Research Integrity:Proceeding of the First ORI Conference on Research Integrity,Edited by Nicholas H.Steneck and Mary D.Scheetz,Washington,DC:Office of Research Integrity,2002,p.1-16.
① Melissa S. Anderson, Joseph B. Shultz, The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2)2003:269-272.
② Lawrence Rhoades, A Gorski, Scientific misconduct:An international perspective, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:5-10.
③ Stephanie J. Bird, Publicizing scientific misconduct and its consequences, Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3)2004:435-436.
④ Alan T.Lefor, Scientific misconduct and unethical human experimentation:historic parallels and moral implications, Nutrition,21(2005):878-882.
⑤ William Gardner, Charles W.Lidz,Kathryn C.Hartwig,Author's reports about research integrity problems in Clinical Trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials,26(2005):244-251.
⑥ Ben R.Martin,Keeping plagiarism at bay-Asalutary tale, Research Policy,36(2007):905-911.
⑦ Anne Victoria Neale, Justin Northrup, Rhonda Dailey, Ellen Marks, Judith Abrams, Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(1)2007:5-24.
⑧ Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris, Sebastian R. Diaz, Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4)2007:395-414.
① Sanaa AI-Marzouki,Ian Roberts,Tom Marshall,Stephen Evans,The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Clinical Trials,26(2005):331-337.
② John E.Dahlberg and Christian C.Mahler,The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1)2006:157-173.
③ James G.Sheehan,Fraud,conflict of interest,and other enforcement issues in clinical research, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine,Vol.74,Supplement 2,March 2007:S63-S67.
④ Theresa Mitchella and Jude Carroll, Academic and research misconduct in the PhD:Issues for students and supervisors, Nurse Education Today,28(2)2008:218-226.
⑤ Dolores J. Lamb, When the Quest for Truth Falters:The Issue of Scientific Misconduct, The Journal of Urology,179(1)2008:11-12.
① the Fraud Advisory Panel,Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? p.3. http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%20(October07).pdf
② Elysa Koppelman-White,Research Misconduct and the Scientific Process:Continuing Quality Improvement, Accountability in Research,13:225-246,2006.
③ Magne Nylenna,Sigmund Simonsen,Scientific misconduct:a new approach to prevention,The Lancet,Vol.367, June 10,2006,p.1882-1884.
④ Luca Consoli, Scientific misconduct and science ethics:a case study based approach, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(3)2006:533-541.
① Edward J.Vinski,Academic Dishonesty and Cognitive Dissonance [D],University of New York,2007.
② Ellen Henderson,Faculty Perceptions of and Responses to Academic Dishonesty:An Analysis from an Ethical Perspective [D],Temple University,2007.
③ William H.Yates,Academic Integrity in the Internet Age[D],Nova Southeastern University,2007.
① Christie Aschwanden, Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity.Cell,131(1)2007:9-11.
②曹南燕,邱仁宗,“促进负责任的研究：记首次世界科研诚信大会”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年5月,第24卷第5期,第108-111页。
③ Roy G. Spece, Carol Bernstein,What is scientific misconduct,who has to (dis)prove it,and to what level of certainty? Arizonal Legal Studies,September 2007,Discussion Paper No.07-21.
①杨玉圣,张保生, 《学术规范导论》,北京,高等教育出版社,2004年版。
②刘大椿等, 《在真与善之间：科技时代的伦理问题与道德抉择》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,2000年版,第126,136页。
③邓正来, 《中国学术规范化讨论文选》,北京,法律出版社,2004年版。
④李侠, 《喧嚣与凝视：透视转型期的科技政策与公共生活》,北京,科学出版社,2007年版。
⑤(澳)布里奇斯托克(Bridgestock,M.)等,《科学技术与社会导论》,刘立等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版,第102-105页。
①(美)罗伯特·马克·弗里德曼, 《权谋：诺贝尔科学奖的幕后》,杨建军译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2005年版。
②(美)唐纳德·肯尼迪, 《学术责任》,阎凤桥等译,北京,新华出版社,2002年版。
③(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版。
④(日)山崎茂明,《科学家的不端行为：捏造·篡改·剽窃》,杨舰等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版。
⑤(美)]Nicholas H.Steneck,《科研伦理入门：ORI介绍负责任研究行为》,曹南燕等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版。
⑥(美)美国医学科学院,美国三院国家科研委员会, 《科研道德：倡导负责行为》,苗德岁译,北京,北京大学出版社,2007年版。
⑦(法)皮埃尔·布尔迪厄, 《科学之科学与反观性(法兰西学院专题讲座(2000-2001学年))》,陈圣生等译,桂林,广西师范大学出版社,2006年版,封底评语。
①邹承鲁,“开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”,《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第6期,第4-5页。
②邹承鲁等14名学部委员,“再论科学道德问题”,《教育科学研究》,1992年第3期,第11-13页：邹承鲁等14名学部委员, “再论科学道德问题”, 《四川动物》,2003年第3期,第131-132页。
③金振蓉,冯永锋, “邹承鲁：真诚透明的科学人生”, 《光明日报》,2006年11月24日。
④樊洪业,“科研作伪行为及其辨识与防范”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1994年第1期,第25-33页。
①阎康年,“从J.H.Schon的科学不端行为探访防范对策”, 《物理》,2004年第2期,第852-57页。
①韩丽峰, 《科学活动中若干失误问题的研究》,中国科学技术大学科技哲学博士论文,2007年,第18页。
①韩丽峰, 《科学活动中若干失误问题的研究》,中国科学技术大学科技哲学博士论文,2007年,57-65页。
②俞涛, 《论科学不端行为的犯罪化》,湖南师范大学法学硕士学位论文,2005年；石玮, 《试析我国的科学不端行为》,上海交通大学科技哲学硕士学位论文,2007年。
③杨进军, 《当前我国学术不端行为的成因及对策研究》,西南交通大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
④郭晟梅, 《“一稿多投”现象的局部合理性研究》,浙江工业大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
①杨文利,“建立联席会议制度六部委掀起科技界诚信‘风暴’”,《中国高新技术产业导报》,2007年04月06日。
① FREDERICK GRINNELL, Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct, J Lab Clin Med,129(2) 1997:189.
② Ibid,p.189-192.
①FREDERICK GRINNELL,Truth,fairness,and the definition of scientific misconduct,J Lab Clin Med, 129(2) 1997:189.
②Ibid,p.190.
③Ibid.
④Ibid,p.191.
⑤Ibid,p.192.
① FREDERICK GRINNELL, Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct, J Lab Clin Med,129(2) 1997:192.
② Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):213-234.
③ Ibid,p.215.
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):215.
② Ibid.
③ Ibid.
④ Ibid.
⑤(美)唐纳德·肯尼迪, 《学术责任》,阎凤桥等译,北京,新华出版社,2002年版,第262-294页。
⑥(日)山崎茂明, 《科学家的不端行为：捏造·篡改·剽窃》,杨舰等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版,第64-68页。
①2002年5月25日中国科学院学部科学道德建设委员会翻译的非正式出版物(内部资料)——《〈国外科学道德规约〉参考文献》,其中就以“科学领域中不正当行为”、“科学中不正当行为”、“不正当科学行为”、“科学不诚实行为”等概念对应英文“research misconduct"或'sicientific misconduct"或'sicientific dishonesty "
②伍莺莺,许峥嵘,“科研不端行为的界定及其防治”, 《法制与社会》,2006年第10期,第103-104页。
③钟灿涛,“多层面防治科研不端行为”, 《科技潮》,2007年第2期,第16页。
④吴寿乾,“科学研究中的不端行为及其防范”, 《科技管理研究》,2006年第11期,第29页。
①王行宇,卢晓蕊,“对学术不端行为的新制度经济学思考”,《中共济南市委党校学报》,2007年第2期,第26页。
②曹树基,“学术不端行为：概念及惩治”, 《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期,第36页。
③刘轶博,张磊,雷二庆, “学术不端行为研究”, 《广东省社会主义学院学报》,2007年第2期,第71页。
④张立,王华平,“学术不端行为的模型化研究”, 《科学学研究》,2007年第1期,第32-37页。
①蒋美仕等, “美国联邦政府关于科研不端行为的政策演变：从不端行为定义的争议与统一过程审视”,《自然辩证法通讯》,2008年第6期,第55-59页。
② 42 C.F.R. Part 50. subpart A:August 8,1989.
③ National Science Foundation (1991):Misconduct in science and engineering:Final rule. Federal Register 56(May 14):22286-22290.
① Kenneth D. Pimple, Defining Misconduct in Science:Some Reflections on the American Experience, http://www.indiana.edu/-poynter/tre4-2a.html
② Ibid.
① Kenneth J. Ryan, Report of Commission on Research Integrity:Integrity and Misconduct in Research. November 3,1995, p.2, 1,U.S.Department of Health and Human Service,Pulic Health Service. http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/report commission.pdf.
② Ibid,p.15.
③ Ibid,p.15-17.
① Ralph A. Bradshaw, FASEB Letter to Donna Shalala 7.2.96. http://www.faseb.org/opa/hhslet2.html(1 of 3)12/21/200511:27:16AM
① USDA Forest Service Research & Development, Code of Scientific Ethics,July 20,2000, p.9-10.
② The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76260.
① The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices,p.76262-76263.
① Indiana University, Policy and Procedures on Research Misconduct,By Action of the University Faculty Council:April 24,2007),p.3.http://www.indiana.edu/-ufc/docs/policies/ResearchMisconduct.pdf
① Vagn Lundsgaard Hansen,What is scientific misconduct?Institut for Matematik, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet,http://www.biokemi.org/biozoom/2006_4/bz_0406c.htm
① Magne Nylenna, Sigmund Simonsen,Scientific misconduct:a new approach to prevention,The lancet,Vol 367 June 10,2006,p.1883.
① Robert G. Petersdorf, The Pathogenesis of Fraud in Medical Science, Ann. Internal Med.,104(1986): 252-254.
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
② Vincent N. Hamner,MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
①王丹红, “黄禹锡事件影响深远科学杂志痛定思痛”, 《科学时报》,2007年01月04日。
②蒋美仕等,“从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期,第42-45页。
① Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-History, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
②曹树基, “学术不端行为：概念及惩治”, 《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期,第36贝。
③同上。
① Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):216.
② Ibid,p.220-226.
① Washington's Attacks on Science "Pervasive", http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/
② Dr. Peter Gleick, Table 1 Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7,2007. www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick_Senate_Commerce_2-7-07.pdf
① Dr. Peter Gleick, Table 1 Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7,2007. www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick Senate Commerce 2-7-07.pdf
② S.Al-Marzouki et al., The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Contemporary Clinical Trials,26 (2005):335-336.
①吴善超, 《当前我国科研道德建设研究》,2004年清华大学公共管理学专业硕士学位论文,第4页。
②于江平, 《科学活动中越轨行为的社会学研究》,2003年苏州大学硕士学位论文,第54页。
①伍莺莺,许峥嵘,“科研不端行为的界定及其防治”, 《法制与社会》,2006年第10期,第103-104页。
②钟灿涛,“多层面防治科研不端行为”,《科技潮》,2007年第2期,第16页。
③吴寿乾, “科学研究中的不端行为及其防范”, 《科技管理研究》,第2006年第11期,第29页。
①王锋,“科学不端行为及其成因剖析”, 《科学学研究》,2002年第1期,第11-14页。
②王雅芬,“科研不端行为的界定及其防范与治理”,《研究与发展管理》,2007年第4期,第133-134页。
①王行宇,卢晓蕊,“对学术不端行为的新制度经济学思考”,《中共济南市委党校学报》,2007年第2期,第26页。
②曹树基,“学术不端行为：概念及惩治”,《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期,第36页。
③刘轶博,张磊,雷二庆, “学术不端行为研究”, 《广东省社会主义学院学报》,2007年第2期,第71页。
① Michael Glick,Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA, Vol.137,p.428. http://jada.ada.org April 2006.
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
② Ibid.
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
② Ibid.
③ Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):216.
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):224.
② Ibid.
① Jennifer L. Kisamore, Thomas H. Stone, I. M. Jawahar, Academic Integrity:The Relationship between Individual and Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations,Journal of Business Ethics,75(4)2007: 381-394.
② Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris, Sebastian R. Diaz,Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4):395-414,2007.
①王锋, “科学不端行为及其成因剖析”, 《科学学研究》,2002年第1期,第14-16页。
②李真真,“转型中的中国科学：科研不端行为及其诱因分析”,《科研管理》,2004年第3期,第140-143页。
③王雅芬,“科研不端行为的界定及其防范与治理”,《研究与发展管理》,2007年第4期,第134-135页。
①李斌,冯斌,“科学不端行为的成因及对策”,《科技情报开发与经济》,2007年第10期,第170-171页。
②李定,“严治学术腐败崇尚科技创新”[EB].202.38.65.100/ylb/gschool/xwdt/initial/2006113001/ld.ppt
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):219.
① Michael Glick, Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA, Vol.137,p.430. http://jada.ada.org April 2006.
① Michael Glick, Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA, Vol.137,p.430. http://jada.ada.org April 2006.
② KERANEN, LISA, Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct:Considerations for Sanction Assignment, Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance,13(2)2006:179-205.
①尽管E.T.波尔曼(Eric T. Poehlman)通过伪造数据仅获得了54.2万美元的老年学研究经费,但通过其它15份包含其伪造数据的联邦经费申请书,美国国家卫生研究院(NIH)和美国农业部共给出了290万美元的研究经费。
② J. E. Dahlberg and C. C. Mahler, The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1)2006:173.
③ Ibid.
① the Fraud Advisory Panel, Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? p.3, http://www.fraudadvisorvpanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%20(October07).pdf
② Ibid,p.7.
①方舟子,“如何避免学术不端行为”,《中国青年报》,2007年02月14日。
②李定,“严治学术腐败崇尚科技创新”[EB/OL].202.38.65.100/ylb/gschool/xwdt/initial/2006113001/ld.Dpt
③杨依山, “‘劣币驱逐良币’另解”, 《中国经济问题》2004年第1期,第71-72页。
①百度百科.劣币驱逐良币[EB/OL]. http://baike. baidu. com/view/469869. htm最近更新：2009-06-09。
② Michael Strevens,The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science, www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Matthew.pdf
③ Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,Science,159(3810):56-63, January 5,1968.
④ Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,II:Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,ISIS,79:606-623,1988.
① Richard S.J.Tol, THE MATTHEW EFFECT DEFINED AND TESTED FOR THE 100 MOST PROLIFIC ECONOMISTS, August 7,2007, Working Paper FNU-143, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publica... papers/matthewwp.pdf
①孙自法, “路甬祥：当前中国科技界不端行为比较突出”[EB/OL]。 http://www. chinanews. com.cn/gn/news/2008/12-03/1472847.shtml
①王蒲生,周颖,“美国科研机构的利益冲突政策的缘起、现况与争论”, 《科学学研究》,2005年第3期,第372页。
②同上,第373页。
①刘大椿, 《中国人民大学中国人文社会科学发展研究报告2006》,北京,中国人民大学出版社,2006年版,第61-62页。
②李善峰, “在价值理性与工具理性之间：文化保守主义的历史评判”, 《学术界》,1996年第1期,第33页。
①吴国英,“‘越位’、 ‘缺位’、 ‘错位’与‘弱化’、‘强化’、 ‘转化’：关于政府职能转化与依法行政的思考”, 《上海青年管理干部学院学报》,2003年第4期,第42-43页。
①郑志瑛, “经济学透镜下的学术腐败”, 《社会科学论坛》,2003年第3期,第56页。
②同上,56-57页。
①沙依仁等, 《社会科学是什么》,北京,世界图书出版公司,2006年版,第54页。
① Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
②为了简便起见,以下将“默顿之学院科学规范结构”或“默顿的科学规范结构”简称为“默顿结构”而将“默顿之学院科学规范结构理论”或“默顿的科学规范结构理论”简称为“默顿范式”。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364页。
① Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www ethx.html
② Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.6.
③ Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.6-7.
② John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000,p.57-82.
③ Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files. chem. vt. edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www ethx. html
④这四个规范后来各以《科学与民主的结构》、《科学的规范结构》为题,分别被收录入默顿的《社会理论与社会结构》以及《科学社会学》第十三章。参见(美)R.K.默顿,《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第361页。
① Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society: Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
② Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D]. Utah State University,1997,p.2.
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D]. Utah State University,1997,p.1.
② Ibid,p.7.
①于江平, 《科学活动中越轨行为的社会学研究》,2003年苏州大学硕士学位论文,第54页。
②吴善超, 《当前我国科研道德建设研究》,2004年清华大学硕士学位论文,第4页。
③ Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.9.
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.9.
② Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society: Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31-32. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D],Utah State University,1997,p.9-10.
② John Ziman,"Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.1, p.68-69.
③ John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2000,p.33-46；同时参见(英)J.齐曼,《真科学：它是什么,它指什么》,曾国屏等译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2002年版,第43-58页。
①黄欣荣,“后学院科学及其社会规范：齐曼《真科学》读后”, 《科学学研究》,2003年第5期,第556-557页。
②谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE:论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”, 《科学学研究》,2006年第5期,第659页。
① Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.32. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
② Ibid,p.33.
③根据笔者的理解,此中的“科学共同体公认的惯例”即默顿的学院科学规范结构CUDOS.
④张燕,“默顿的学院科学范式述评”, 《白城师范学院学报》,2006年第3期,第37-39页。
①宋芝业, 《科学规范研究》,2007年山东大学硕士学位论文,第16-23页。
②同上,16-19页。
①宋芝业, 《科学规范研究》,2007年山东大学硕士学位论文,第19-22页。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第440页。
②(美)R.K.默顿, 《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,北京,商务印书馆,2000年版,第286页。
③同上,287页。
④宋芝业, 《科学规范研究》,2007年山东大学硕士学位论文,第24-25页。
⑤ Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
① John Ziman,Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000,p.73.
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention, p.9-16. www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.9-12. www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze Alsop Hazzard.pdf
② John Ziman,Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000,p.37.
③ Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention, p.13. www. ihpst2005.leeds. ac. uk/papers/Bencze_A lsop_Hazzard.pdf
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.14, www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
② Ibid,p.14-15.
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.16-17, www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.17-18. www. ihpst2005. leeds. ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
② Ibid,p.18-19.
③ John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.1, p.67-80.
① John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is,and What It Means,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000, p.77.
② John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9(1996), No. 1,p.71.
③ Ibid.
① John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.1,p.73.
② Ibid.
③ Ibid,p.74.
① John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.l, p.75-76.
② John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is,and What It Means,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000, p.76-77.
③ Ibid,p.77.
① John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is,and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000. p.78.
③ Ibid,p.81.
② Ibid,p.78-79.
①谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE-——论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”, 《科学学研究》,2006年第5期,第660页。
①谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE——论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”, 《科学学研究》,2006年第5期,660-661页。
② Michael Berry, Ziman, John, Michael, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,p.3, www.phy. bris. ac.uk/people/Berry_mv/the_papers/BerryB.pdf
① Pietro Greco,Comment John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006, p.2-2,jcom.sissa.it/archive/05/04/Jcom0504(2006)C01/Jcom0504(2006)C01.pdf
② Ibid.
③ J. Ziman, Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1994.
① Ana Maria Vara,An insider's view on science and society. Re-reading John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006,p.8.
①Ana Maria Vara,An insider's view on science and society.Re-reading John Ziman,Journal of Science Communication,JCOM 5(4),December 2006,p.9.
②Ibid.
③C.A.Hooker,Essay Review, Science:Legendary,Academic and Post-Academic? Minerva,Volume 41,Number l,2003(11),p.71-81.www.newcastle.edu.au／centre／casrg/publications／ZimanReviewWP5.pdf
① C.A. Hooker, Essay Review, Science:Legendary, Academic-and Post-Academic? Minerva, Volume 41, Number 1,2003 (11), p.81.www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/casrg/publications/ZimanReviewWP5.pdf
② Ibid.
③ Ibid.
①黄欣荣, “后学院科学及其社会规范——齐曼《真科学》读后”, 《科学学研究》,2003年第5期,第556-560页。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364页。
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research ,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992,p.Ⅸ.
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992.
②由美国国家学院三院“科学、工程与公共政策委员会”(COSEPUP)编辑的《怎样当一名科学家》,不仅分别于1989、1995和2009年出了第一至第三个英文版,而且还有两个中译本(何传启译,1996年科学出版社；刘华杰译,2004年北京理工大学出版社)
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992,p. X.
② Ibid,p.3.
③ Ibid,p.4.
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992,p.12.
② Ibid,p.13,145-146.
③ Muriel J.Bebeau,Defining Research Integrity and Conceptual Frameworks for Assessment[PPT],American Educational Research Association,Thursday,April 15,2004,p.3. http://aera.net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=80&id=648
① Commission on Research Integrity,Integrity and Misconduct in Research[R],To the Secretary of Health and Human Services;The House Committee on Commerce;The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,1995:5.http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/documents/report_commission.pdf
② Ibid.
①虽然苗德岁先生将此译成《科研道德：倡导负责行为》并由北京大学于2007年1月出版,但为了体现作者所掌握文献及其所理解理论体系的完整性、历史连续性、理论范式与目前语境之间的对应性以及易理解和接受性,故作者此处自作主张地把“Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct"直接译成《科研诚信：营造一种促进负责任行为的环境》。
② Committee on Science,Engineering,and Public Policy (COSEPUP),On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (1995),Copyright 1995,2000 The National Academy of Sciences,p. V. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=R5
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.1.
② Ibid,p.20.
③ Ibid,p.18-19.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.2.
② Muriel J.Bebeau,Defining Research Integrity and Conceptual Frameworks for Assessment[PPT],American Educational Research Association, Thursday, April 15,2004, p.9. http://aera.net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=80&id=648
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.3.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.132.
② Ibid,p.34.
③ Ibid,p.34-35.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.35.
② Ibid,p.7,51.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.8,64.
② John Butterworth,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1208
③ Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.4.
① Eugene Russo,Promoting integrity in science, TheScientist, October14,2002.
② The Quality Assurance Journal, March 2004.http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=10430#reviews http://cmbi. bjmu. edu. cn/news/0210/77.htm
④ Nicholas H.Steneck,ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research,
③ Beth A.Fischer,Michael J.Zigmond,Toward a Climate of Scientific Integrity, http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040084 http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/RCRintro/ HTML Version,September 2006,updated from Revised Printed Edition,June 2004
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992.
① Christie Aschwanden,Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity,Cell,131(1)2007:9-11.
① Nicholas H. Steneck,What Do We Know?Two Decades of Research on Research Integrity, World Conference on Research Integrity Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal, September 16-19.2007.
②(美)威廉·布洛德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第118页。
①(美)威廉·布洛德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第118页。
② Davis M., The Role of Culture in Research Misconduct, Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance, Volume 10, Number 3, July-September 2003, p.189-201.
③刘秋华,“科研不端行为的社会学分析”, 《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第1期,第70-74页。
① Forsman B., An Ethical Analysis of the Phenomenon of Misconduct in Research, Acta Oncologica,38(1) 1999:107-110.
①蒋美仕等, “从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”, 《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期,第42-45页。
①(美)R.K.默顿,《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364,365-376页。
②同上,363-364页。
①丛亚丽,“从纽伦堡到赫尔辛基”, 《科学时报》,http://www.zhuomu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid= 13853
②李韬,“核战争的伦理思考”, 《曲阜师范学院学报(社科版)》,2004年第6期,第15-17页。
③游战洪,刘钝, “《罗素-爱因斯坦宣言》的科学社会学解读”, 《科学(上海)》,2005年第05期,
④游战洪,刘钝,“论帕格沃什运动的历史经验及其意义”, 《自然科学史研究》,2005年第4期,第第24-27页。
⑤威廉·布洛德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,345-363页。上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第46-47页。
① Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
②(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第1页。
③ Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
① Nicholas Steneck, Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, US Office of Research Integrity, Revised edition 2004,p.19.
② Ibid,p.53.
① The Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-History[EB].http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
② National Science Foundation, Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research, Federal Register. Vol.52. No. 126. Wednesday, July 1,1987, p.24468. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/45cfr689_02.html
①蒋美仕等,“从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的政策法规体系”,《中国科技论坛》,2008年第12期,第134-138页。
① Nicholas Steneck, Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, US Office of Research Integrity, Revised edition 2004, p.19.
② Richard P. Kusserow, INSPECTOR GENERAL, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (OAI-07-88-00420; 03/89), Office of Inspector General, Office of Analisis and Inspections, March 1989,p.i. www. oig. hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
③ Compiled by Nick Steneck, RCR Education Resource Bibliography, Offered through the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, August 2004, p.17-21. http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/education/documents/bibliography_rcr_2004.pdf
①蒋美仕等,“从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期,第44页。
① The Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-History[EB].http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
② National Science Foundation, Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research, Federal Register. Vol.52. No. 126. Wednesday, July 1,1987, p.24468. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 02/45cfr689 02.html
③ The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76260-76264.
①根据AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) 、 AAU (Association of American Universities)、 COGR (Council on Governmental Relations)、 NASULGC (National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges)这4个联盟或协会主席针对卫生部关于研究不端行为政策修订草案征求意见而于2004年6月15日回复给ORI主任的信函,可以了解AAMC有126所质量合格的医学院校、400多所医院和卫生保健系统：AAU由62(美国60,加拿大2)所公立和私立研究型综合性大学组成：COGR由150所精深研究型大学、附属医院和研究机构组成；NASULGC由位于各州、美国领地和哥伦比亚特区的州立和授地大学组成(http://www. aau. edu/research/PHS6.15.04.pdf)。
② HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28370.
③ HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28370-28399.
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,Responsible Science, Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.1992.
② Kenneth J. Ryan, Report of Commission on Research Integrity:Integrity and Misconduct in Research, November 3,1995. U.S.Department of Health and Human Service. Pulic Health Service. http://ori. dhhs.gov/documents/report commission.pdf.
③ HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations,p.28377.
① Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol.70, No.120/Thursday, June 23,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.36325-36328.
① Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
① Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
①(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第1页。
① Roy G. Spece, Carol Bernstein,What is scientific misconduct,who has to (dis)prove it,and to what level of certainty? Arizonal Legal Studies,September 2007,Discussion Paper No.07,p21.
①以下将把这种包括独特策略、制度、机制和程序的科研不端行为综合防范体系简称为“美国模式”。
②如前所述,迄今为止美国国会所颁布的涉及科研不端行为的法案主要有《1966年动物福利法案》、《1974年国家研究法案》、《1985年健康研究扩展法案》、1976和1978年《监察长法案》等。其中,只有有关临床试验中的动物与人体保护、利益冲突、同行评审、数据管理等预防不端行为的具体法律规定,目前暂无规制科研不端行为的专门或单行法案。
③如前所述,1981年3月31日至4月1日,众议院科学技术委员会监督小组就当时日趋严重的科学欺诈事件举行了首次听证会。
① John E. Dahlberg and Christian C. Mahler, The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12 (2006):169王丹红,“美国NIH发生严重的学术不端事件”, 《科学时报》,2005年03月24日。
① OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION,http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf
① OSTP,About OSTP:Department Organization,http://www.ostp.gov/cs/about_ostp
① Executive Order 12881 of November 23,1993 Establishment of the National Science and Technology Council, http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc/executive order
② OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION,http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf
① President Signs PCAST Executive Order, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011001-l.html
① OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION,http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf 16,2004/Proposed Rules,p.20778.
② HHS,Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.69,No.74/Friday,April
① HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28370-28399.
① US National Science Foundation,NSF Organizational Chart,www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/papp/exl.pdf
① The National Endowment for the Humanities,NEH Overview,http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/overview.html
② The National Endowment for the Humanities,Research Misconduct Policy, http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/researchmisconduct.html
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research process,National Academy Press,1992,ppX.
① MLA Style:"American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)." Encyclop(?)dia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago:Encyclop(?)dia Britannica,2008. APA Style:American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2008). Encyclop(?)dia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago:Encyclop(?)dia Britannica.
② American Association for the Advancement of Science,About AAAS,http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/
① American Association for the Advancement of Science, Membership,http://www.aaas.org/membership/
② Ward Pigman and Emmett B. Carmichael, An Ethical Code for Scientists, Science,1950 (June 16), p.643-647.
③ William O. Baker, The Moral Un-Neutrality of Science, Science,1961,133,p.261-263.
④ Derek J. De Solla Price, Ethics of Scientific Publication, Science,1964,144,p.655-657.
⑤ Bentley Glass, The Ethical Basis of Science, Science,1965,150,p.1254-1261.
⑥ Robert K. Merton, The Matthew Effect in Science, Science,1968,159, p.53-63.
⑦ A. Cournand, The Code of the Scientist and its Relation to Ethics, Science,1977,198, p.699-705.
⑧ W. J. Broad, Fraud and the Structure of Science, Science,1981,212, p.137-141.
⑨ John T. Edsall, Two Aspects of Scientific Responsibility, Science,1981,212, p.11-14.
① Department of Health and Human Services,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule, Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28388.
① Office of Research Integrity,Policies-ORI Mission,http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/ORI Mission.shtml
② Office of Reasearch Integrity,About ORI, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/index.shtml
① Department of Health and Human Services,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule, Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28392-28393.
① Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-Functional Overviews:Office of the Director, http://ori. dhhs. gov/about/director. shtml
① Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-Functional Overviews:Division of Investigative Oversight, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/dio.shtml
① Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-Functional Overviews:Division of Investigative Oversight, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/dio.shtml
② Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-Functional Overviews:Research Oversight Legal Team, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/ogc.shtml
③ Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Annual Reports, http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/annual_reports.shtml
① DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Office of the Secretary,Office of Public Health and Science,Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2007,June 2008.
① Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Newsletters,http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
① Office of Inspector General,OIG Mission,http://www. oig.hhs.gov/organization/OIGmission.html
② Office of Inspector General,OIG Organization Chart,http://www.oig.hhs.gov/organization.asp
① US National Science Foundation,Publications,http://www.nsf.gov/publications/index.jsp?nsf_org=OIG&org =NSF&pub type=Reports&archived=false&ord=pub&page=2
② The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Federal RegisterNol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76263.
① David E. Wright, Sandra L. Titus and Jered B. Cornelison, Mentoring and Research Misconduct:An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed OR] Cases, Science and Engineering Ethics,14(3),2008:323-336.
① UNIVERSITY OF MAINE,POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH AND OTHER SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES, APPROVED:September 17,1999, Revised:April 14,2006,p.2-3.
② Institutional Review Board, http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=44679
① Dr. Alan Moses,机构审查委员会/伦理委员会(2),GCP Lecture 4, Version:FINAL, Date:02/11/2004. hstelearning.mit.edu/gcp/eng/modules/module04/chin-transcripts/mod04_seg2_chin.pdf
② Ronald F. White,Institutional Review Board Mission Creep:The Common Rule, Social Science,and the Nanny State, The Independent Review, v., XI, n.3, Spring 2007, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright (?) 2007, pp.562.
① Iverson, Margot; Franke, Mark; Siang, Sanyin, Scientific societies and research integrity:What are they doing and how well are they doing it? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003:141-158.
② Anne Hudson Jones, Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003:243-256.
① Levine, Felice; Iutcovich, Joyce, Challenges in studying the effects of scientific societies on research integrity, Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003:257-268.
② Michael L. Callaham, Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41(1),2003:82-89.
① Alan R. Biggs, The Journal's Role in Scientific Misconduct, Phytopathology news,38(2):17-19,2004. International,13(3),2007:98-102.
② Wager, Elizabeth, Ethical publishing:the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct, Menopause
① The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76262.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28386.
② U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28393.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28390.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28390-28391.
② U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28392.
① Ibid,p.28394.
② NIH, A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH,p.4,www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ResEthicsCases/NIH%20Misconduct2.pdf
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28399.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28400.
① Ibid,p.28393.
① NIH,A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH,p.1,May 2001-prepared by the NIH Committee on Scientific Conduct and Ethics, wwwl.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ethic-conduct/smpolicy.htm
*本节所罗列的发生在中国的科研不端行为事件,虽有确凿而公开的文献来源,但因各自看法或观点不同,大多仍存争议,且有些尚无定论。现姑且引之并暂时存疑,待发表时再作评论。
①石希生,“邹承鲁与30年前的两起学术腐败事件”,《南方周末》,2006年08月24日,D29版。
②同上。
①石希生,“邹承鲁与30年前的两起学术腐败事件”,《南方周末》,2006年08月24日,D29版。
②同上。
①巴尔的摩(D.Baltimore)是逆转录酶的发现者、1975年诺贝尔生理学和医学奖得主。吉尔伯特(W Gilbert)
②邹承鲁, “开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第06期,第5是DNA测序方法的建立者之一、1980年诺贝尔化学奖获得者。页。
③樊洪业, “科研作伪及其辨识与防范”,《自然辩证法通讯》,1994年第1期,第28页。
①百度百科(baike.baidu),“申小龙的连环抄袭案”[EB/OL]。http://baike.baidu.com/view/1103469.htm最近更新：2008-05-04。
②耿明志,“近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第28页。
①耿明志, “近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第26-28页。
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室,“关于朱少醒抄袭他人论文的通报”,《中国科学基金》,2003年第06期,第349页。
③韩晓蓉, “复旦大学学术造假事件调查中曾遇阻力”[EB/OL]. http://news.163.com/07/1225/07/40HRP7580001124J_2.html
①耿明志, “近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第26-28页。报(国科金监函[2005]16号)”,2005-07-05。
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会,“关于第三军医大学苏炳银申请国家自然科学基金弄虚作假的通http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/iiandu991013/20050818 04.html
③国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会,“关于中国水利水电科学研究院李贵宝申请国家自然科学基金项目弄虚作假的通报(国科金监函[2005]24号)”,2005-07-05。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20050818_03.html
④国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会, “关于崔建伟抄袭和剽窃他人论文的通报(国科金监函[2005125号)”2005-07-05。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20050818_03.html
⑤国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2005年第1期,2005-08-17。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20050818_01.html
①鲁本录, “中国科技体制改革研究”, 《淮南师范学院学报》2008年第4期,第14-15页。
②耿明志,“近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第26-28页。
①国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2006年第1期,2006-03-01。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20060302 01.html第2期,2006-09-15。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20061120 01.html
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2006年
③韩晓蓉, “复旦大学学术造假事件调查中曾遇阻力”[EB/OL]。http://news.163.com/07/1225/07/40HRP7580001124J.html
①国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会,“关于中国民航大学张连顺抄袭他人成果的处理决定(国科金监决定[2007]1号)”,2007-05-25。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20070619_03.html
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会, “关于武汉大学艾勇抄袭他人论文的处理决定(国科金监决定[2007]2号)”,2007-05-25。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20070619_02.html
③国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2007年第1期,2007-06-18。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20070619_01.html
①雷宇,叶铁桥,孙海华,“利益之争还是学术道德之争：六教授举报长江学者造假事件调查”[EB/OL], http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2009-07/24/content 2771431.htm
②新快报记者王华平,李咏祁,实习生王佳柯,“广州体育学院院长所著博士论文被指抄袭”[EB/OL], http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2009-07-06/023718159522.shtml
③晨报记者杨育才,实习生刘康亮,“湖北最年轻市长被指抄论文组织部称应老师负责”[EB/OL], http://news.sohu. com/s2009/n264739337shtml/
①郭久辉, “郑州大学严肃处理贾士秋学术不端行为”[EB/OL], http://news.xinhuanet. com/society/2009-07/06/content_11663228. htm
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会, “关于贺海波、吴理茂学术不端行为的处理决定(国科金监决定[2009] 16号)", 2009-04-20. http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20090420_01.html
①李汉林, 《科学社会学》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,1987年版,第36-37页。
②科技部,教育部,中国科学院,中国工程院,中国科协,“关于科技工作者行为准则的若干意见”,《科技与法律》,1999年第04期,第3-4页。
①中国科学院, 《关于科学理念的宣言》, 《关于加强科研行为规范建设的意见》。http://www. acriticism. com/article. asp?Newsid=8681&type=1006
①科技部, “科技部等六部门建立科研诚信建设联席会议制度并召开第一次会议”[EB/OL], http://www. most.gov. cn/tpxw/200703/t20070329_42449. htm
①张瑾, “陈进汉芯造假被撤销全国优秀科技工作者称号”[EB/OL], http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/2006-07-16/03181039386.shtml
②邹承鲁,“开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”,《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第06期,第4-5页。
③邹承鲁等14名学部委员,“再论科学道德问题”, 《教育科学研究》,1992年第03期,第11-13页。
④金振蓉,冯永锋,“邹承鲁：真诚透明的科学人生”, 《光明日报》,2006年11月24日。
[2](法)埃德加·莫兰, 《复杂性思想导论》,陈一壮译,华东师范大学出版社,2008。
[3](法)埃米尔·涂尔干,《社会分工论》,渠东译,北京,生活·读书·新知三联书店,2000。
[4](英)巴里·巴恩斯, 《局外人看科学》,鲁旭东译,北京,东方出版社,2001年。
[5](澳)布里奇斯托克(Bridgestock,M.)等, 《科学技术与社会导论》,刘立等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005。
[6](美)丹尼尔·豪斯曼,《经济学的哲学》,丁建峰译,世纪出版集团上海人民出版社,2007。
[7]邓正来, 《中国学术规范化讨论文选》,北京,法律出版社,2004。
[8](美)第默尔·库兰,《偏好伪装的社会后果》,丁振寰,欧阳武译,长春,长春出版社,2005。
[9](德)费希特,《论学者的使命人的使命》,梁志学、沈真译,北京,商务印书馆,1984。
[10](波兰)弗·兹纳涅茨基, 《知识人的社会角色》,郏斌祥译,南京,译林出版社,2000。
[11]冯坚,王英萍,韩正之, 《科学研究的道德与规范》,上海,上海交通大学出版社,2007。
[12]高兆明, 《伦理学理论与方法》,北京,人民出版社,2005。
[13](英)J.D.贝尔纳,《科学的社会功能》,陈体芳译,北京,商务印书馆,1982。
[14]蒋美仕等,《科学技术与社会引论》,长沙,中南大学出版社,2005。
[15](英)卡尔·皮尔逊, 《科学的规范》,北京,华夏出版社,1999。
[16]库少雄,《人类行为与社会环境》,武汉,华中科技大学出版社,2005。
[17](美)拉瑞·P·纳希, 《道德领域中的教育》,刘春琼,解光夫译,哈尔滨,黑龙江人民出版社,2003。
[18]李侠, 《喧嚣与凝视：透视转型期的科技政策与公共生活》,北京,科学出版社,2007。
[19]刘大椿等,《在真与善之间：科技时代的伦理问题与道德抉择》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,2000。
[20]刘大椿,《科学技术哲学导论》,北京,中国人民大学出版社,2000。
[21]刘大椿,《科学活动论互补方法论》,桂林,广西师范大学出版社,2002。
[22]刘大椿, 《中国人民大学中国人文社会科学发展研究报告2006》,北京,中国人民大学出版社,2006。
[23]刘劲杨, 《哲学视野中的复杂性》,湖南科学技术出版社,2008。
[24](美)罗伯特·马克·弗里德曼, 《权谋：诺贝尔科学奖的幕后》,杨建军译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2005。
[25](美)马克·格兰诺维特, 《镶嵌：社会网与经济行动》,罗家德译,北京,社会科学文献出版社,2007。
[26](德)马克斯·韦伯, 《新教伦理与资本主义精神》,黄晓京,彭强译,成都,四川人民出版社,1986。
[27](美)美国医学科学院,美国三院国家科研委员会, 《科研道德：倡导负责行为》,苗德岁译,北京,北京大学出版社,2007。
[28](美)Nicholas H. Steneck,《科研伦理入门：ORI介绍负责任研究行为》,曹南燕等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005。
[29](美)欧文·拉兹洛, 《系统、结构和经验》,李创同译,上海,上海译文出版社,1997。
[30](美)欧文·拉兹洛, 《系统哲学引论》,钱兆华等译,北京,商务印书馆,1998。
[31](法)皮埃尔·布尔迪厄, 《科学之科学与反观性(法兰西学院专题讲座(2000-2001学年))》,陈圣生等译,桂林,广西师范大学出版社,2006。
[32](英)齐曼, 《真科学：它是什么,它指什么》,曾国屏等译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2002。
[33](法)让·拉特利尔, 《科学和技术对文化的挑战》,吕乃基等译,北京,商务印书馆,1997。
[34](美)R.K.默顿,《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,商务印书馆,2000。
[35](美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003。
[36]沙依仁等, 《社会科学是什么》,北京,世界图书出版公司,2006。
[37](日)山崎茂明, 《科学家的不端行为：捏造·篡改·剽窃》,杨舰等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005。
[38](英)史蒂夫·富勒, 《科学的统治：开放社会的意识形态与未来》,刘纯译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2006。
[39](美)史蒂芬·科尔, 《科学的制造：在自然界与社会之间》,林建成,王毅译,上海,上海人民出版社,2001。
[40](美)唐纳德·肯尼迪, 《学术责任》,阎凤桥等译,北京,新华出版社,2002。
[41](美)威廉姆·布洛德,尼可拉斯·韦德,《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004。
[42]杨玉圣,张保生,《学术规范导论》,北京,高等教育出版社,2004。
[43]赵万里, 《科学的社会建构：科学知识社会学的理论与实践》,天津,天津人民出版社,2002。
[44]曹南燕,“研究诚信的体制化：美国研究诚信办公室及其启示”,《自然辩证法研究》,2006年第10期。
[45]曹南燕,邱仁宗,“促进负责任的研究：记首次世界科研诚信大会”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年5月,第24卷第5期。
[46]曹南燕,“QRP——科学研究中的灰色领域：小恶不止,大祸立至”,《河池学院学报》,2007年6月,第27卷第3期。
[47]曹南燕,“科学研究中利益冲突的本质与控制”, 《清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2007年第1期。
[48]曹南燕, “研究诚信的体制化——美国研究诚信办公室及其启示”《自然辩证法研究》,2006年10月,第22卷第10期。
[49]曹南燕,“加强体制层面的学风建设”, 《社会科学论坛》,2004年第12期。
[50]曹树基, “学术不端行为：概念及惩治”, 《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期。
[51]陈民, “美国关于科研不端行为的定义与争论”, 《世界科技研究与发展》,1996年第5期。
[52]丛亚丽, “从纽伦堡到赫尔辛基”[EB], 《科学时报》http://www.zhuomu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=l 3853
[53]戴国庆,“美国联邦政府科研经费监督管理及其启示”,《科研管理》2006年第1期。
[54]樊洪业,“科研作伪行为及其辨识与防范”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1994年第1期。
[55]方舟子, “如何避免学术不端行为”, 《中国青年报》,2007-02-14。
[56]古继宝等, “中美学术监督典型机构运行体系的对比及经验借鉴”,《中国科技论坛》,2007年第8期。
[57]黄欣荣,“后学院科学及其社会规范——齐曼《真科学》读后”,《科学学研究》,2003年第5期。
[58]蒋美仕等, “从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的政策法规体系”, 《中国科技论坛》,2008年第12期。
[59]蒋美仕等, “美国联邦政府关于科研不端行为的政策演变：从不端行为定义的争议与统一过程审视”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,2008年第6期。
[60]蒋美仕等, “从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”, 《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期。
[61]蒯强, “法国倡导科研诚信和反对学术不端行为的举措”, 《复旦教育论坛》,2007年第5期。
[62]李斌,冯斌,“科学不端行为的成因及对策”, 《科技情报开发与经济》,2007年第10期。
[63]李定, “严治学术腐败 崇尚科技创新”[EB/OL]. 202.38.65.100/ylb/gschool/xwdt/initial/2006113001/ld.ppt
[64]李善峰,“在价值理性与工具理性之间：文化保守主义的历史评判”,《学术界》,1996年第1期。
[65]李韬, “核战争的伦理思考”, 《曲阜师范学院学报(社会科学版)》,2004年第6期。
[66]李真真,“转型中的中国科学：科研不端行为及其诱因分析”, 《科研管理》,2004年第3期。
[67]刘秋华,“科研不端行为的社会学分析”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第1期。
[68]刘轶博等, “学术不端行为研究”, 《广东省社会主义学院学报》,2007年第2期。
[69]任洪波, “美国和丹麦的科研诚信”, 《全球科技经济瞭望》,2007年第3期。
[70]谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE-—论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”,《科学学研究》,2006年第5期。
[71]阎康年, “从J.H.Schon的科学不端行为探访防范对策”, 《物理学史和物理学家》,2004年第11期。
[72]杨文利,“建立联席会议制度六部委掀起科技界诚信‘风暴’”,《中国高新技术产业导报》,2007-04-06。
[73]王丹红, “美国NIH发生严重的学术不端事件”, 《科学时报》,2005-03-24。
[74]王丹红,“黄禹锡事件影响深远科学杂志痛定思痛”,《科学时报》,2007-01-04。
[75]王锋,“科学不端行为及其成因剖析”, 《科学学研究》,2002年第1期。
[76]王蒲生,“美国科研机构的利益冲突政策的缘起、现况与争论”,《科学学研究》,2005年第3期。
[77]王行宇,卢晓蕊, “对学术不端行为的新制度经济学思考”, 《中共济南市委党校学报》,2007年第2期。
[78]王雅芬, “科研不端行为的界定及其防范与治理”, 《研究与发展管理》,2007年第4期。
[79]王艳,“美国学术团体促进科研诚信规范”,《科学对社会的影响》,2006年第2期。
[80]王艳,“美国的科研诚信：联邦政府的作用”,《科学对社会的影响》,2007年第1期。
[81]王艳, “美国的科研诚信：大学的作用”, 《全球科技经济瞭望》2007年第1期。
[82]吴国英, “‘越位’、 ‘缺位’、 ‘错位’与‘弱化’、 ‘强化’‘转化’：关于政府职能转化与依法行政的思考”, 《上海青年管理干部学院学报》,2003年第4期。
[83]吴琴南,“德国加强控制科研不端行为”,《世界科技研究与发展》,1998年第1期。
[84]吴寿乾, “科学研究中的不端行为及其防范”, 《科技管理研究》,2006年第11期。
[85]伍莺莺,许峥嵘,“科研不端行为的界定及其防治”,《法制与社会》,2006年第10期。
[86]杨依山,“‘劣币驱逐良币’另解”, 《中国经济问题》,2004年第1期。
[87]游战洪,刘钝,“论帕格沃什运动的历史经验及其意义”, 《自然科学史研究》,2005年第4期。
[88]游战洪,刘钝,“《罗素-爱因斯坦宣言》的科学社会学解读”,《科学(上海)》,2005年第5期。
[89]张立,王华平, “学术不端行为的模型化研究”, 《科学学研究》,2007年第1期。
[90]张燕, “默顿的学院科学范式述评”, 《白城师范学院学报》,2006年第3期。
[91]郑志瑛, “经济学透镜下的学术腐败”, 《社会科学论坛》,2003年第3期。
[92]钟灿涛, “多层面防治科研不端行为”《科技潮》,2007年第2期。
[93]驻纽约总领事馆教育组, “美国高校的学术自由与学术诚信”, 《中国高等教育》,2003年第18期。
[94]邹承鲁,“开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第6期。
[95]邹承鲁等14名学部委员,“再论科学道德问题”,《教育科学研究》,1992年第3期。
[96]郭晟梅, 《“一稿多投”现象的局部合理性研究》,浙江工业大学硕士学位论文,2007。
[97]韩丽峰, 《科学活动中若干失误问题的研究》,中国科学技术大学科技哲学博士学位论文,2007。
[98]李明, 《科学不端行为的成因及其对策》,华中师范大学科学技术哲学硕士学位论文,2008。
[99]刘培蕾, 《大学生学术诚信缺失的原因及其教育对策研究》,西南大学硕士学位论文,2007。
[100]刘志波, 《危机与应对：研究生学术诚信建设研究》,南京航空航天大学硕士学位论文,2007。
[101]盛华根,《科学活动中越轨行为的界定和分类》,厦门大学科技哲学专业硕士学位论文,2002。
[102]石玮,《试析我国的科学不端行为》,上海交通大学科技哲学硕士学位论文,2007。
[103]宋芝业,《科学规范研究》,山东大学科学技术哲学专业硕士学位论文,2007。
[104]吴善超,《当前我国科研道德建设研究》,清华大学公共管理学专业硕士,2004。
[105]杨进军,《当前我国学术不端行为的成因及对策研究》,西南交通大学硕士学位论文,2003。
[106]俞涛,《论科学不端行为的犯罪化》,湖南师范大学法学硕士学位论文,2005。
[107]于江平,《科学活动中越轨行为的社会学研究》,苏州大学社会学专业硕士学位论文,2003。
[108]朱月晨,《研究生学术诚信问题的博弈分析》,广西师范大学硕士学位论文,2006。
[109]Altman,Ellen & Hernon,Peter,Research Misconduct:Issues,Implications and Strategies,Greenwich,CT:Ablex Publishing Corpration,1997.
[110]Commission on Research Integrity,Integrity and Misconduct in Res earch[R],To the Secretary of Health and Human Services;The House Committe e on Commerce;The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,1995:5. http://www. ori. dhhs.gov/documents/report_commission.pdf
[111]Committee on Science,Engineering,and Public Policy (COSEPUP),On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (1995),Copyright 1995,2000 The National Academy of Sciences
[112]Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002.
[113]Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
[114]Jean Rostand, Error and Deception in Science:Essays on the Biological Aspects of Life, tr. A. J. Pomerantz, Hutchison, London,1960
[115]John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2000.
[116]John Ziman, Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1994.
[117]Martin Bridgstock et al, Science,Technology and Society:An Introduction,Cambridge University Press,1998.
[118]Nicholas H.Steneck, Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. In Investigating Research Integrity:Proceeding of the First ORI Conference on Research Integrity,Edited by Nicholas H.Steneck and Mary D.Scheetz,Washington,DC:Office of Research Integrity,2002.
[119]Nicholas H.Steneck,ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/RCRintro/ HTML Version,September 2006,updated from Revised Printed Editionjune 2004.
[120]Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, National Academy Press,1992.
[121]Robert E.McGINN,Science,Technology and Society,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,1991.
[122]Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E.Markle, James C.Petersen,Trevor Pinch, Handbook of Science and Technology Studies,Published in Cooperation with the Society for Social Studies of Science, SAGE Publications, International Educational and Professional Publisher,Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
[123]The Committee on Science,Engineering and Public Policy,On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research,2nd edition,National Academic Press,1995.
[124]William Broad and Nicholas Wade,Betrayers of the Truth:Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, New York:Simon and Schuster,1982.
[125]A. Cournand, The Code of the Scientist and its Relation to Ethics, Science, 1977.
[126]Alan R. Biggs, The Journal's Role in Scientific Misconduct, Phytopathology news,38(2),2004.
[127]Alan T.Lefor, Scientific misconduct and unethical human experimentation: historic parallels and moral implications, Nutrition,21(2005)
[128]Anne Victoria Neale, Justin Northrup, Rhonda Dailey, Ellen Marks, Judith Abrams, Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(1)2007.
[129]American Association for the Advancement of Science,About AAAS, http://www. aaas. org/aboutaaas/
[130]American Association for the Advancement of Science, Membership, http://www. aaas. org/membership/
[131]Ana Maria Vara,An insider's view on science and society. Re-reading John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006.
[132]Anne Hudson Jones, Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2),2003.
[133]Associated Press,Faked Research Results on Rise? http://www. wired. com/news/medtech/0,1286,68153,00. html
[134]Barbara C. Hansen and Kenneth D. Hansen, Academic and scientific misconduct:Issues for nursing educators, Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(1)1995
[135]Ben R.Martin,Keeping plagiarism at bay-Asalutary tale, Research Policy, 36(2007).
[136]Bentley Glass,The Ethical Basis of Science,Science,1965,150.
[137]Beth A.Fischer,Michael J.Zigmond,Toward a Climate of Scientific Integrity,http://www.plosbiology. org/article/info:doi/l 0.1371/journal. pbio.0040084
[138]C. Manwell and C. M. Ann Baker, Honesty in Science:a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science, Search,1981,12(6).
[139]C.A. Hooker, Essay Review, Science:Legendary, Academic-and Post-Academic? Minerva,Volume 41,Number 1,2003 (11).
[140]Charlotte M. Ferrell, Larry G. Daniel, A frame of reference for understanding behaviors related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students, Research in Higher Education,36(3) 1995.
[141]Chris B. Pascal, The history and future of the office of research integrity: Scientific misconduct and beyond, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[142]Chris B.Pascal, Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity for the Bench Scientist(44535E),P.S.E.B.M.,2000,Vol.224.
[143]Christie Aschwanden, Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity,Cell,131(1)2007.
[144]Compiled by Nick Steneck, RCR Education Resource Bibliography, Offered through the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, August 2004, http://www. ori. dhhs. gov/education/documents/bibliography_rcr_2004.pdf
[145]D. E. Chubin, Misconduct in Research:an issue of science policy and practice, Minerva,1985,23 (Summer).
[146]Daryl E. Chubin, Scientific misconduct:The lessons of time, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[147]David E. Wright, Sandra L.Titus and Jered B. Cornelison, Mentoring and Research Misconduct:An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed ORI Cases, Science and Engineering Ethics,14(3),2008.
[148]David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www. physics. ohio-state. edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct. html
[149]Davis M.,The Role of Culture in Research Misconduct, Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance,Volume 10,Number 3,July-September 2003
[150]DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Office of the Secretary,Office of Public Health and Science,Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2007,June 2008.
[151]Derek J.De Solla Price,Ethics of Scientific Publication,Science,1964,144. [180] Dolores J. Lamb, When the Quest for Truth Falters:The Issue of Scientific Misconduct, The Journal of Urology,179(1)2008.
[152]Edward J. Huth, Stealing into print:Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,9(2)1993.
[153]Edward J.Vinski,Academic Dishonesty and Cognitive Dissonance [D],University of New York,2007.
[154]Elizabeth R. Lenz and Shake Ketefian, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research part I:Current approaches in doctoral programs, Journal of Professional Nursing,11 (4) 1995.
[155]Ellen Henderson,Faculty Perceptions of and Responses to Academic Dishonesty:An Analysis from an Ethical Perspective [D],Temple University,2007.
[156]Elysa Koppelman-White,Research Misconduct and the Scientific Process:Continuing Quality Improvement, Accountability in Research,13,2006.
[157]Eugene Russo,Promoting integrity in science,The Scientist,October 14,2002,http://cmbi. bjmu. edu. cn/news/0210/77. htm
[158]Faye G. Abdellah, Scientific misconduct:Myth or reality? Journal of Professional Nursing,6(1)1990.
[159]Forsman B., An Ethical Analysis of the Phenomenon of Misconduct in Research, Acta Oncologica, Volume 38, Number 1,15 February 1999.
[160]FREDERICK GRINNELL, Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct, J Lab Clin Med, February 1997, Volume 129, Number 2.
[161]George A. Diamond, Bird brains:The evolution of scientific misconduct, The American Journal of Cardiology,66(3)1990.
[162]H. Zuckerman, Norms and Deviant Behavior in Science, Sci.,Technol. Human Values,1984,9(1).
[163]Imogen Evans, The medical research council's approach to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[164]Institutional Review Board, http://www. cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha. aspx?CdrID=44679
[165]Iverson, Margotl; Frankel, Mark; Siang, Sanyin, Scientific societies and research integrity:What are they doing and how well are they doing it? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003.
[166]J.E.Dahlberg and C.C.Mahler,The Poehlman case:running away from the truth,Science and Engineering Ethics,Volume 12,Issue 1,2006.
[167]James G.Sheehan,Fraud,conflict of interest,and other enforcement issues in clinical research, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine,Vol.74,Supplement 2,March 2007.
[168]James J. Dooley, Helen M. Kerch, Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists, Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1)2000.
[169]James S. Lubalin and Jennifer L. Matheson, The fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct? Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2) 1999.
[170]Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay, Laurence Schaffar-Esterle, Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[171]Jennifer L.Kisamore,Thomas H.Stone,I.M.Jawahar,Academic Integrity: The Relationship between Individual and Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations,Journal of Business Ethics,75 (4),2007.
[172]John Butterworth,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct, http://www. anesthesia-analgesia. org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1208
[173]John E.Dahlberg and Christian C.Mahler,The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1)2006.
[174]John T. Edsall, Two Aspects of Scientific Responsibility, Science,1981, 212.
[175]John Ziman,"Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms,Science Studies,Vol.9 (1996),No.1.
[176]Judith P. Swazey, Commentary on "the fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?" (J.S. Lubalin and J.L. Matheson), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[177]Kenneth D. Pimple, Commentary on "The history and future of the office of research integrity:Scientific misconduct and beyond" (C. Pascal), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[178]Kenneth D. Pimple, Defining Misconduct in Science:Some Reflections on the American Experience, http://www.indiana.edu/-poynter/tre4-2a.html
[179]Kenneth D.Pimple,Six Domains of Research Ethics:Aheuristic Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research,Science and Engineering Ethics,8(2)2002.
[180]Kenneth E. Freedland and Robert M. Carney, Data Management and Accountability in Behavioral and Biomedical Research, American Psychologist, 47(5)1992.
[181]Kenneth J. Ryan, Commentary on'Developing a federal policy on research misconduct'(S. Francis), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[182]KERANEN, LISA,Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct: Considerations for Sanction Assignment Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance,13(2),2006.
[183]Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention.www. ihpst2005. leeds. ac. uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
[184]Larry G. Daniel, Betty N. Adams, Nathan M. Smith, Academic misconduct among nursing students:A multivariate investigation, Journal of Professional Nursing,10(5) 1994.
[185]Lawrence Rhoades, A Gorski, Scientific misconduct:An international perspective, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[186]Levine, Felicel; Iutcovich, Joyce, Challenges in studying the effects of scientific societies on research integrity, Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2), 2003.
[187]Luca Consoli, Scientific misconduct and science ethics:a case study based approach, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(3)2006.
[188]Lucia D. Wocial, The role of mentors in promoting integrity and preventing scientific misconduct in nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(4)1995.
[189]Magne Nylenna,Sigmund Simonsen, Scientific misconduct:a new approach to prevention,The Lancet,Vol.367, June 10,2006.
[190]Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette, Beyond plagiarism:Ethical misconduct in scientific and technical publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,4(4)1988.
[191]Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris, Sebastian R. Diaz, Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct:Evidence from ORI Case Files, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4)2007.
[192]Mary L. Miers, Current NIH Perspectives on Misconduct in Science, American Psychologist,40(7)1985.
[193]Melissa S.Anderson,Joseph B. Shultz,The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct,Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2)2003
[194]Michael Berry, Ziman, John, Michael, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,www.phy. bris. ac. uk/people/Berry_mv/the_papers/BerryB.pdf
[195]Michael Glick,Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA,Vol.137, http://jada. ada. org April 2006.
[196]Michael L. Callaham, Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication, Annals of Emergency Medicine,41(1),2003.
[197]Michael Strevens,The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science, www. strevens. org/re search/scistruc/Matthew.pdf
[198]Muriel J.Bebeau,Defining Research Integrity and Conceptual Frameworks for Assessment[PPT],American Educational Research Association, Thursday,April 15,2004,
http://aera. net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=80&id=648
[199]Nicholas H.Steneck, Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. In Investigating Research Integrity:Proceeding of the First ORI Conference on Research Integrity,Edited by Nicholas H.Steneck and Mary D.Scheetz, Washington, DC:Office of Research Integrity,2002.
[200]Nicholas H.Steneck,What Do We Know?Two Decades of Research on Research Integrity, World Conference on Research Integrity Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon,Portugal,September 16-19,2007.
[201]Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
[202]Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-History, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
[203]Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-Functional Overviews:Office of the Director, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/director.shtml
[204]Office of Research Integrity,Policies-ORI Mission, http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/ORI Mission.shtml
[205]Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Annual Reports, http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/annual_reports.shtml
[206]Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Newsletters, http://ori. dhhs. gov/publications/newsletters. shtml
[207]Office of Inspector General,OIG Mission, http://www. oig. hhs.gov/organization/OIGmission. html
[208]OSTP, About OSTP:Department Organization, http://www. ostp. gov/cs/about ostp
[209]OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION, http://www. ostp. gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf
[210]P. J. Greene, J. S. Durch, W. Horowitz and V. S. Hooper, Policies for Responding to Allegations of Fraud in Research, Minerva,1985,23(2).
[211]Patricia A. Prescott, Academic misconduct:Considerations for educational administrators, Journal of Professional Nursing,5(5)1989.
[212]Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997.
[213]Peter Gleick, Table 1 Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7,2007,
[214]Pietro Greco,Comment John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006.
[215]Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49,2004.
[216]Ptricia Huston and David Moher,Redundancy,disaggregation and the integrity of medical research, The Lancet,Vol.347,April 13,1996.
[217]Ralph A. Bradshaw, FASEB Letter to Donna Shalala 7.2.96. http://www.faseb.org/opa/hhslet2.html(l of 3)12/21/2005 11:27:16 AM
[218]Raymond Spier, Stephanie J. Bird, Scientific misconduct:Ongoing developments, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000.
[219]Report,Outgoing Administration Pursues Research Ethics Initiatives, Physiologist,44(1)2001.
[220]Richard P.Kusserow, INSPECTOR GENERAL, MISCONDUCTIN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (OAI-07-88-00420; 03/89), Office of Inspector General, Office of Analisis and Inspections, March 1989, www. oig. hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
[221]Richard S.J.Tol,THE MATTHEW EFFECT DEFINED AND TESTED FOR THE 100 MOST PROLIFIC ECONOMISTS,August 7,2007,Working Paper FNU-143,http://www.fnu.zmaw. de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publica... papers/matthewwp.pdf
[222]Richard Smith, Time to face up to research misconduct, British Medical Journal,312(7034),1996.
[223]Robert G. Petersdorf, The Pathogenesis of Fraud in Medical Science, Ann.Internal Med.,1986,104.
[224]Robert J. Kaufman and Jeremy Sugarman,More Attention to the Problem of Research Misconduct, Nutrition,17(1)2001.
[225]Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,Science,159(3810), January 5,1968.
[226]Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,II:Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,ISIS,79,1988.
[227]Ronald F. White,Institutional Review Board Mission Creep:The Common Rule, Social Science,and the Nanny State, The Independent Review, v., XI, n.3, Spring 2007, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright (?) 2007
[228]Rose M. Chop and Mary Cipriano Silva, Scientific fraud:Definitions, policies, and implications for nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing, 7(3)1991.
[229]Rosemary Chalk, Mark S. Frankel, and Sallie B. Chafer, AAAS Professional Ethics Project, AAAS, Washington, DC 1980.
[230]Roy G. Spece, Carol Bernstein,What is scientific misconduct,who has to (dis)prove it,and to what level of certainty? Arizonal Legal Studies,September 2007.
[231]Ryan,Kenneth J.,Scientific misconduct in perspective:The need to improve accountability,Chronicle of Higher Education,1996(19).
[232]S.Al-Marzouki et al.,The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Contemporary Clinical Trials,26 (2005).
[233]Sanaa AI-Marzouki,Ian Roberts,Tom Marshall,Stephen Evans,The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Clinical Trials,26(2005).
[234]Shake Ketefian and lizabeth R. Lenz, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research, part II:Strategies, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(5)1995.
[235]Stanley E. Seashore, Plagiarism, credit assignment, and ownership of data, Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, Volume 9, Issue 4, November 1978.
[236]Stephanie J. Bird, Alicia K. Dustira, New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1) 2000.
[237]Stephanie J. Bird, Publicizing scientific misconduct and its consequences, Science and Engineering Ethics,10(3)2004.
[238]Sybil Francis, Developing a federal policy on research misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999.
[239]The Fraud Advisory Panel,Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%2 0(October07).pdf
[240]The National Endowment for the Humanities,NEH Overview, http://www. neh. gov/whoweare/overview. html
[241]Theresa Mitchella and Jude Carroll, Academic and research misconduct in the PhD:Issues for students and supervisors, Nurse Education Today,28(2)2008.
[242]US National Science Foundation,NSF Organizational Chart, www. nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/papp/ex1.pdf
[243]US National Science Foundation,Publications, http://www.nsf.gov/publications/index.jsp?nsf_org=OIG&org=NSF&pub_type=Rep orts&archived=false&ord=pub&page=2
[244]Vagn Lundsgaard Hansen,What is scientific misconduct?Institut for Matematik, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, http://www. biokemi. org/biozoom/2006_4/bz_0406c. htm
[245]Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files. chem. vt. edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx. html
[246]W. J. Broad, Fraud and the Structure of Science, Science,1981,212.
[247]Wager, Elizabeth, Ethical publishing:the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct, Menopause International,13(3),2007.
[248]Ward Pigman and Emmett B. Carmichael, An Ethical Code for Scientists, Science,1950 (June 16).
[249]Washington's Attacks on Science "Pervasive", http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/
www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick_Senate_Commerce_2-7-07.pdf
[250]William Edward Daniell, Science, Integrity, and Investigators' Rights: Current Challenges, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,24(1)1996.
[251]William Gardner, Charles W.Lidz,Kathryn C.Hartwig,Author's reports about research integrity problems in Clinical Trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(2005).
[252]William H.Yates,Academic Integrity in the Internet Age[D],Nova Southeastern University,2007.
[253]William O.Baker,The Moral Un-Neutrality of Science,Sience,1961,133.
[254]42 C.F.R. Part 50. subpart A:August 8,1989.
[255]Executive Order 12881 of November 23,1993 Establishment of the National Science and Technology Council, http://www. ostp. gov/cs/NSTC/executive_order
[256]HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations.
[257]HHS,Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.69,No.74/Friday.April 16,2004/Proposed Rules,
[258]Indiana University, Policy and Procedures on Research Misconduct,By Action of the University Faculty Council:April 24,2007), http://www.indiana.edu/-ufc/docs/policies/ResearchMisconduct.pdf
[259]National Science Foundation, Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research, Federal Register. Vol.52. No.126. Wednesday, July 1,1987, http://www. access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/45cfr689_02. html.
[260]National Science Foundation (1991):Misconduct in science and engineering:Final rule. Federal Register 56(May 14).
[261]NIH, A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH, www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ResEthicsCases/NIH%20Misconduct2.pdf
[262]President Signs PCAST Executive Order, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011001-1.html
[263]Rules and Regulations.Federal Register/Vol.70, No.120/Thursday, June 23,2005/Rules and Regulations.
[264]The National Endowment for the Humanities,Research Misconduct Policy, http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/researchmisconduct.html
[265]The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6, 2000/Notices.
[266]university of maine,policy and procedures on alleged misconduct in research and other scholarly activities, approved:september 17,1999, revised:april 14,2006.
[267]USDA Forest Service Research & Development, Code of Scientific Ethicsjuly 20,2000.
[268]http://en.fi.dk/councils-commissions/the-danish-committees-on-scientific-d ishonesty
[269]http://ori.dhhs.gov/
[270]http://www.aaas.org/
[271]http://www. acriticism. com/
[272]http://www. nationalacademies. org/
[273]http://www. neh. gov/
[274]http://www.nsf.gov/
[275]http://www.nsf.gov/oig/
[276]http://www.ukrio.org.uk/home/
①(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍
② J. E. Dahlberg and C. C. Mahler, The Poehlman case:running away from the truth. Science and Engineering译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第1页。Ethics,12(1)2006:165-169.
①王骏, “科学骗局的‘集体制造’”, 《科学文化评论》,2006年第2期,第53-65页。
①李天舒,“浙大论文造假事件李连达院士负连带贡任”, 《健康报》,2009牛03月09口。
②新华社,“陈进被上海交大解除有关职务国家有关部委决定追缴相应拨款和经费”,《世界科学》,2006年第6期,第38页。
③ Office of Research Integrity,Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2007,June 2008,p.Ⅰ.
①尽管成文的政策、法规和法律,无论是在严格还是宽泛意义上都可以被纳入文献范围,但由于该部分作为主要内容夕一将在正文作重点阐述,且为了简化文献绿述部分的内容,故在此略过。
②美国学者威廉·布洛德、尼古拉斯·韦德(William Broad and Nicholas Wade)享的研究成果显示,尽管早在古希腊时期就存存着剽窃等科研不端行为,但无论是在当时还是现在来看,其数量、发生频率、影响范围和危害后果几乎可以忽略。故本文确定以近代自然科学诞生之时为该类研究孕育期的开端。
③(美)R.K.默顿,《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,北京,商务印书馆,2000年版,第287页。
④同上,215-216页。
①(美)R.K.默顿,《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,北京,商务印书馆,2000年版,279页。
②在担任英国皇家学会会长期间(1703-1727)的1712年,牛顿自己授权成立了一个调查他与德国科学家、哲学家莱布尼茨关于微积分发现优先权争夺的专门委员会,最终因其介入导致调查小组在1713年得出了不利于莱布尼茨的调查结论——牛顿是微积分的第一发明人。参见孙小礼,“莱布尼茨与微积分发明权之争：纪念莱布尼茨诞生360周年”,《自然辩证法研究》,2006年第7期,第93页。
③(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第640页。
④(英)J.D.贝尔纳, 《科学的社会功能》,陈体芳译,北京,商务印书馆,1982年版,第531-532页。
① Fraud advisory panel, Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? p.2. http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%20(October07).pdf
②(美)R.K.默顿,《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364,365-376页。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,419-430页。
② Jean Rostand, Error and Deception in Science:Essays on the Biological Aspects of Life, tr. A. J. Pomerantz, Hutchison, London,1960; Peter B. Medawar, Is the scientific paper fraudulent? yes; it misrepresents scientific thought, Sat. Rev.1964 (Aug.1), p.42-43.
③ Stanley E. Seashore, Plagiarism, credit assignment, and ownership of data, Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, Volume 9, Issue 4, November 1978, p.719-722.
④ Rosemary Chalk, Mark S. Frankel, and Sallie B. Chafer, AAAS Professional Ethics Project, AAAS, Washington, DC 1980
① William Broad and Nicholas Wade,Betrayers of the Truth:Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, New York:Simon and Schuster,1982.
② W. J. Broad, Fraud and the Structure of Science, Science,1981,212, p.137-141.
③ C. Manwell and C. M. Ann Baker, Honesty in Science:a partial test of a sociobiological model of the social structure of science, Search,1981,12(6), p.151-159.
④ H. Zuckerman, Norms and Deviant Behavior in Science, Sci.,Technol. Human Values,1984,9(1), p.7-13.
⑤ P. J. Greene, J. S. Durch, W. Horowitz and V. S. Hooper, Policies for Responding to Allegations of Fraud in Research, Minerva,1985,23(2), p.203-215.
⑥ D. E. Chubin, Misconduct in Research:an issue of science policy and practice, Minerva,1985,23 (Summer), p.175-202.
⑦ Robert G. Petersdorf, The Pathogenesis of Fraud in Medical Science, Ann.Internal Med.,1986,104, p.252-254.
① Mary L. Miers, Current NIH Perspectives on Misconduct in Science, American Psychologisi,40(7)1985: 831-835.
② Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette, Beyond plagiarism:Ethical misconduct in scientific and technical publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,4(4)1988:65-73.
① Faye G. Abdellah, Scientific misconduct:Myth or reality? Journal of Professional Nursing,6(1)1990:6,63.
② Rose M. Chop and Mary Cipriano Silva, Scientific fraud:Definitions, policies, and implications for nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing,7(3) 1991:166-171.
③ George A. Diamond, Bird brains:The evolution of scientific misconduct, The American Journal of Cardiology,66(3)1990:372-374.
④ Edward J. Huth, Stealing into print:Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing, Publishing Research Quarterly,9(2)1993:78-79.
⑤ Larry G. Daniel, Betty N. Adams, Nathan M. Smith, Academic misconduct among nursing students:A multivariate investigation, Journal of Professional Nursing,10(5)1994:278-288.
⑥ Barbara C. Hansen and Kenneth D. Hansen, Academic and scientific misconduct:Issues for nursing educators, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(1)1995:31-39.
⑦ Kenneth D. Pimple, Defining Misconduct in Science:Some Reflections on the American Experience, http://www. Indiana. edu/-poynter/tre4-2a. html
⑧ Charlotte M. Ferrell, Larry G. Daniel, A frame of reference for understanding behaviors related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students, Research in Higher Education,36(3) 1995:345-375.
① Ryan,Kenneth J.,Scientific misconduct in perspective:The need to improve accountability, Chronicle of Higher Education,1996(19):B1-B2.
② William Edward Daniell, Science, Integrity, and Investigators'Rights:Current Challenges, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,24(1)1996:S152-S162.
③ Patricia A. Prescott, Academic misconduct:Considerations for educational administrators, Journal of Professional Nursing,5(5)1989:283-287.
④ The Committee on Science,Engineering and Public Policy,On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research,2nd edition,National Academic Press,1995, p.27.
⑤ Altman,Ellen & Hernon,Peter,Research Misconduct:Issues,Implications and Strategies,Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corpration,1997, p.206.
⑥ lizabeth R. Lenz and Shake Ketefian, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research part I:Current approaches in doctoral programs, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(4)1995:213-219.
⑦ Lucia D. Wocial, The role of mentors in promoting integrity and preventing scientific misconduct in nursing research, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(4)1995:276-280.
⑧ Kenneth E. Freedland and Robert M. Carney, Data Management and Accountability in Behavioral and Biomedical Research, American Psychologist,47(5)1992:640-645.
① Shake Ketefian and lizabeth R. Lenz, Promoting scientific integrity in nursing research, part Ⅱ:Strategies, Journal of Professional Nursing,11(5)1995:263-269.
② Ptricia Huston and David Moher,Redundancy,disaggregation and the integrity of medical research,The Lancet,Vol.347,April 13,1996,p.1024-1026.
③ Frederick Grinnell,Truth,fairness,and the definition of scientific research, J Lab Clin Med.,1997,129: 189-192.
④ Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997.
① Richard Smith, Time to face up to research misconduct, British Medical Journal,312(7034):789-790,1996.
② Associated Press,Faked Research Results on Rise? http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,68153,00.html
① Chris B. Pascal, The history and future of the office of research integrity:Scientific misconduct and beyond, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:183-198; Daryl E. Chubin, Scientific misconduct:The lessons of time, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:199-202; Kenneth D. Pimple, Commentary on "The history and future of the office of research integrity:Scientific misconduct and beyond" (C. Pascal), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2) 1999:203-204.
② Sybil Francis, Developing a federal policy on research misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999: 261-272; Kenneth J. Ryan, Commentary on'Developing a federal policy on research misconduct'(S. Francis), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:273-274.
③ Jean-Philippe Breittmayer, Martine Bungener, Hugues De The, Evelyne Eschwege, Michel Fougereau, Gilles Guedj, Claude Kordon, Olivier Philippe, Maric-Catherine Postel-Vinay, Laurence Schaffar-Esterle, Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:41-48; Imogen Evans, The medical research council's approach to allegations of scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1)2000:91-94.
④ James S. Lubalin and Jennifer L. Matheson, The fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct? Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:229-250; Judith P. Swazey, Commentary on "the fallout:What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?" (J.S. Lubalin and J.L. Matheson), Science and Engineering Ethics,5(2)1999:251-253.
⑤ Stephanie J. Bird, Alicia K. Dustira, New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:123-130.
⑥ Raymond Spier, Stephanie J. Bird, Scientific misconduct:Ongoing developments, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:3-4.
⑦ James J. Dooley, Helen M. Kerch, Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:109-121.
⑧ Report,Outgoing Administration Pursues Research Ethics Initiatives, Physiologist,44(1)2001:37-38.
① Chris B.Pascal, Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity for the Bench Scientist(44535E),P.S.E.B.M., 2000, Vol.224:220-230.
② Robert J. Kaufman and Jeremy Sugarman,More Attention to the Problem of Research Misconduct, Nutrition, 17(1)2001:59-61.
③ Kenneth D.Pimple,Six Domains of Research Ethics:Aheuristic Framework for the Responsible Conduct of Research, Science and Engineering Ethics,8(2)2002:191-205.
④ Nicholas H.Steneck, Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. In Investigating Research Integrity:Proceeding of the First ORI Conference on Research Integrity,Edited by Nicholas H.Steneck and Mary D.Scheetz,Washington,DC:Office of Research Integrity,2002,p.1-16.
① Melissa S. Anderson, Joseph B. Shultz, The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2)2003:269-272.
② Lawrence Rhoades, A Gorski, Scientific misconduct:An international perspective, Science and Engineering Ethics,6(1)2000:5-10.
③ Stephanie J. Bird, Publicizing scientific misconduct and its consequences, Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3)2004:435-436.
④ Alan T.Lefor, Scientific misconduct and unethical human experimentation:historic parallels and moral implications, Nutrition,21(2005):878-882.
⑤ William Gardner, Charles W.Lidz,Kathryn C.Hartwig,Author's reports about research integrity problems in Clinical Trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials,26(2005):244-251.
⑥ Ben R.Martin,Keeping plagiarism at bay-Asalutary tale, Research Policy,36(2007):905-911.
⑦ Anne Victoria Neale, Justin Northrup, Rhonda Dailey, Ellen Marks, Judith Abrams, Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(1)2007:5-24.
⑧ Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris, Sebastian R. Diaz, Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4)2007:395-414.
① Sanaa AI-Marzouki,Ian Roberts,Tom Marshall,Stephen Evans,The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Clinical Trials,26(2005):331-337.
② John E.Dahlberg and Christian C.Mahler,The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1)2006:157-173.
③ James G.Sheehan,Fraud,conflict of interest,and other enforcement issues in clinical research, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine,Vol.74,Supplement 2,March 2007:S63-S67.
④ Theresa Mitchella and Jude Carroll, Academic and research misconduct in the PhD:Issues for students and supervisors, Nurse Education Today,28(2)2008:218-226.
⑤ Dolores J. Lamb, When the Quest for Truth Falters:The Issue of Scientific Misconduct, The Journal of Urology,179(1)2008:11-12.
① the Fraud Advisory Panel,Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? p.3. http://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%20(October07).pdf
② Elysa Koppelman-White,Research Misconduct and the Scientific Process:Continuing Quality Improvement, Accountability in Research,13:225-246,2006.
③ Magne Nylenna,Sigmund Simonsen,Scientific misconduct:a new approach to prevention,The Lancet,Vol.367, June 10,2006,p.1882-1884.
④ Luca Consoli, Scientific misconduct and science ethics:a case study based approach, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(3)2006:533-541.
① Edward J.Vinski,Academic Dishonesty and Cognitive Dissonance [D],University of New York,2007.
② Ellen Henderson,Faculty Perceptions of and Responses to Academic Dishonesty:An Analysis from an Ethical Perspective [D],Temple University,2007.
③ William H.Yates,Academic Integrity in the Internet Age[D],Nova Southeastern University,2007.
① Christie Aschwanden, Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity.Cell,131(1)2007:9-11.
②曹南燕,邱仁宗,“促进负责任的研究：记首次世界科研诚信大会”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年5月,第24卷第5期,第108-111页。
③ Roy G. Spece, Carol Bernstein,What is scientific misconduct,who has to (dis)prove it,and to what level of certainty? Arizonal Legal Studies,September 2007,Discussion Paper No.07-21.
①杨玉圣,张保生, 《学术规范导论》,北京,高等教育出版社,2004年版。
②刘大椿等, 《在真与善之间：科技时代的伦理问题与道德抉择》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,2000年版,第126,136页。
③邓正来, 《中国学术规范化讨论文选》,北京,法律出版社,2004年版。
④李侠, 《喧嚣与凝视：透视转型期的科技政策与公共生活》,北京,科学出版社,2007年版。
⑤(澳)布里奇斯托克(Bridgestock,M.)等,《科学技术与社会导论》,刘立等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版,第102-105页。
①(美)罗伯特·马克·弗里德曼, 《权谋：诺贝尔科学奖的幕后》,杨建军译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2005年版。
②(美)唐纳德·肯尼迪, 《学术责任》,阎凤桥等译,北京,新华出版社,2002年版。
③(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版。
④(日)山崎茂明,《科学家的不端行为：捏造·篡改·剽窃》,杨舰等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版。
⑤(美)]Nicholas H.Steneck,《科研伦理入门：ORI介绍负责任研究行为》,曹南燕等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版。
⑥(美)美国医学科学院,美国三院国家科研委员会, 《科研道德：倡导负责行为》,苗德岁译,北京,北京大学出版社,2007年版。
⑦(法)皮埃尔·布尔迪厄, 《科学之科学与反观性(法兰西学院专题讲座(2000-2001学年))》,陈圣生等译,桂林,广西师范大学出版社,2006年版,封底评语。
①邹承鲁,“开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”,《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第6期,第4-5页。
②邹承鲁等14名学部委员,“再论科学道德问题”,《教育科学研究》,1992年第3期,第11-13页：邹承鲁等14名学部委员, “再论科学道德问题”, 《四川动物》,2003年第3期,第131-132页。
③金振蓉,冯永锋, “邹承鲁：真诚透明的科学人生”, 《光明日报》,2006年11月24日。
④樊洪业,“科研作伪行为及其辨识与防范”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1994年第1期,第25-33页。
①阎康年,“从J.H.Schon的科学不端行为探访防范对策”, 《物理》,2004年第2期,第852-57页。
①韩丽峰, 《科学活动中若干失误问题的研究》,中国科学技术大学科技哲学博士论文,2007年,第18页。
①韩丽峰, 《科学活动中若干失误问题的研究》,中国科学技术大学科技哲学博士论文,2007年,57-65页。
②俞涛, 《论科学不端行为的犯罪化》,湖南师范大学法学硕士学位论文,2005年；石玮, 《试析我国的科学不端行为》,上海交通大学科技哲学硕士学位论文,2007年。
③杨进军, 《当前我国学术不端行为的成因及对策研究》,西南交通大学硕士学位论文,2003年。
④郭晟梅, 《“一稿多投”现象的局部合理性研究》,浙江工业大学硕士学位论文,2007年。
①杨文利,“建立联席会议制度六部委掀起科技界诚信‘风暴’”,《中国高新技术产业导报》,2007年04月06日。
① FREDERICK GRINNELL, Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct, J Lab Clin Med,129(2) 1997:189.
② Ibid,p.189-192.
①FREDERICK GRINNELL,Truth,fairness,and the definition of scientific misconduct,J Lab Clin Med, 129(2) 1997:189.
②Ibid,p.190.
③Ibid.
④Ibid,p.191.
⑤Ibid,p.192.
① FREDERICK GRINNELL, Truth, fairness, and the definition of scientific misconduct, J Lab Clin Med,129(2) 1997:192.
② Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):213-234.
③ Ibid,p.215.
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):215.
② Ibid.
③ Ibid.
④ Ibid.
⑤(美)唐纳德·肯尼迪, 《学术责任》,阎凤桥等译,北京,新华出版社,2002年版,第262-294页。
⑥(日)山崎茂明, 《科学家的不端行为：捏造·篡改·剽窃》,杨舰等译,北京,清华大学出版社,2005年版,第64-68页。
①2002年5月25日中国科学院学部科学道德建设委员会翻译的非正式出版物(内部资料)——《〈国外科学道德规约〉参考文献》,其中就以“科学领域中不正当行为”、“科学中不正当行为”、“不正当科学行为”、“科学不诚实行为”等概念对应英文“research misconduct"或'sicientific misconduct"或'sicientific dishonesty "
②伍莺莺,许峥嵘,“科研不端行为的界定及其防治”, 《法制与社会》,2006年第10期,第103-104页。
③钟灿涛,“多层面防治科研不端行为”, 《科技潮》,2007年第2期,第16页。
④吴寿乾,“科学研究中的不端行为及其防范”, 《科技管理研究》,2006年第11期,第29页。
①王行宇,卢晓蕊,“对学术不端行为的新制度经济学思考”,《中共济南市委党校学报》,2007年第2期,第26页。
②曹树基,“学术不端行为：概念及惩治”, 《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期,第36页。
③刘轶博,张磊,雷二庆, “学术不端行为研究”, 《广东省社会主义学院学报》,2007年第2期,第71页。
④张立,王华平,“学术不端行为的模型化研究”, 《科学学研究》,2007年第1期,第32-37页。
①蒋美仕等, “美国联邦政府关于科研不端行为的政策演变：从不端行为定义的争议与统一过程审视”,《自然辩证法通讯》,2008年第6期,第55-59页。
② 42 C.F.R. Part 50. subpart A:August 8,1989.
③ National Science Foundation (1991):Misconduct in science and engineering:Final rule. Federal Register 56(May 14):22286-22290.
① Kenneth D. Pimple, Defining Misconduct in Science:Some Reflections on the American Experience, http://www.indiana.edu/-poynter/tre4-2a.html
② Ibid.
① Kenneth J. Ryan, Report of Commission on Research Integrity:Integrity and Misconduct in Research. November 3,1995, p.2, 1,U.S.Department of Health and Human Service,Pulic Health Service. http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/report commission.pdf.
② Ibid,p.15.
③ Ibid,p.15-17.
① Ralph A. Bradshaw, FASEB Letter to Donna Shalala 7.2.96. http://www.faseb.org/opa/hhslet2.html(1 of 3)12/21/200511:27:16AM
① USDA Forest Service Research & Development, Code of Scientific Ethics,July 20,2000, p.9-10.
② The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76260.
① The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices,p.76262-76263.
① Indiana University, Policy and Procedures on Research Misconduct,By Action of the University Faculty Council:April 24,2007),p.3.http://www.indiana.edu/-ufc/docs/policies/ResearchMisconduct.pdf
① Vagn Lundsgaard Hansen,What is scientific misconduct?Institut for Matematik, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet,http://www.biokemi.org/biozoom/2006_4/bz_0406c.htm
① Magne Nylenna, Sigmund Simonsen,Scientific misconduct:a new approach to prevention,The lancet,Vol 367 June 10,2006,p.1883.
① Robert G. Petersdorf, The Pathogenesis of Fraud in Medical Science, Ann. Internal Med.,104(1986): 252-254.
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
② Vincent N. Hamner,MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
①王丹红, “黄禹锡事件影响深远科学杂志痛定思痛”, 《科学时报》,2007年01月04日。
②蒋美仕等,“从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期,第42-45页。
① Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-History, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
②曹树基, “学术不端行为：概念及惩治”, 《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期,第36贝。
③同上。
① Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):216.
② Ibid,p.220-226.
① Washington's Attacks on Science "Pervasive", http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/
② Dr. Peter Gleick, Table 1 Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7,2007. www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick_Senate_Commerce_2-7-07.pdf
① Dr. Peter Gleick, Table 1 Categories of Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7,2007. www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/Gleick Senate Commerce 2-7-07.pdf
② S.Al-Marzouki et al., The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials:A Delphi survey, Contemporary Clinical Trials,26 (2005):335-336.
①吴善超, 《当前我国科研道德建设研究》,2004年清华大学公共管理学专业硕士学位论文,第4页。
②于江平, 《科学活动中越轨行为的社会学研究》,2003年苏州大学硕士学位论文,第54页。
①伍莺莺,许峥嵘,“科研不端行为的界定及其防治”, 《法制与社会》,2006年第10期,第103-104页。
②钟灿涛,“多层面防治科研不端行为”,《科技潮》,2007年第2期,第16页。
③吴寿乾, “科学研究中的不端行为及其防范”, 《科技管理研究》,第2006年第11期,第29页。
①王锋,“科学不端行为及其成因剖析”, 《科学学研究》,2002年第1期,第11-14页。
②王雅芬,“科研不端行为的界定及其防范与治理”,《研究与发展管理》,2007年第4期,第133-134页。
①王行宇,卢晓蕊,“对学术不端行为的新制度经济学思考”,《中共济南市委党校学报》,2007年第2期,第26页。
②曹树基,“学术不端行为：概念及惩治”,《社会科学论坛》,2005年第3期,第36页。
③刘轶博,张磊,雷二庆, “学术不端行为研究”, 《广东省社会主义学院学报》,2007年第2期,第71页。
① Michael Glick,Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA, Vol.137,p.428. http://jada.ada.org April 2006.
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
② Ibid.
① David Goodstein, CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE, http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/-wilkins/onepage/conduct.html
② Ibid.
③ Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):216.
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):224.
② Ibid.
① Jennifer L. Kisamore, Thomas H. Stone, I. M. Jawahar, Academic Integrity:The Relationship between Individual and Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations,Journal of Business Ethics,75(4)2007: 381-394.
② Mark S. Davis, Michelle Riske-Morris, Sebastian R. Diaz,Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files, Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4):395-414,2007.
①王锋, “科学不端行为及其成因剖析”, 《科学学研究》,2002年第1期,第14-16页。
②李真真,“转型中的中国科学：科研不端行为及其诱因分析”,《科研管理》,2004年第3期,第140-143页。
③王雅芬,“科研不端行为的界定及其防范与治理”,《研究与发展管理》,2007年第4期,第134-135页。
①李斌,冯斌,“科学不端行为的成因及对策”,《科技情报开发与经济》,2007年第10期,第170-171页。
②李定,“严治学术腐败崇尚科技创新”[EB].202.38.65.100/ylb/gschool/xwdt/initial/2006113001/ld.ppt
① Pierre Cossette, Research Integrity:An Exploratory Survey of Administrative Science Faculties, Journal of Business Ethics,49(2004):219.
① Michael Glick, Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA, Vol.137,p.430. http://jada.ada.org April 2006.
① Michael Glick, Scientific fraud-real consequences, JADA, Vol.137,p.430. http://jada.ada.org April 2006.
② KERANEN, LISA, Assessing the Seriousness of Research Misconduct:Considerations for Sanction Assignment, Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance,13(2)2006:179-205.
①尽管E.T.波尔曼(Eric T. Poehlman)通过伪造数据仅获得了54.2万美元的老年学研究经费,但通过其它15份包含其伪造数据的联邦经费申请书,美国国家卫生研究院(NIH)和美国农业部共给出了290万美元的研究经费。
② J. E. Dahlberg and C. C. Mahler, The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1)2006:173.
③ Ibid.
① the Fraud Advisory Panel, Fraud in Research:Is it new or just not true? p.3, http://www.fraudadvisorvpanel.org/newsite/PDFs/other/Fraud%20in%20Research%20(October07).pdf
② Ibid,p.7.
①方舟子,“如何避免学术不端行为”,《中国青年报》,2007年02月14日。
②李定,“严治学术腐败崇尚科技创新”[EB/OL].202.38.65.100/ylb/gschool/xwdt/initial/2006113001/ld.Dpt
③杨依山, “‘劣币驱逐良币’另解”, 《中国经济问题》2004年第1期,第71-72页。
①百度百科.劣币驱逐良币[EB/OL]. http://baike. baidu. com/view/469869. htm最近更新：2009-06-09。
② Michael Strevens,The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science, www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Matthew.pdf
③ Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,Science,159(3810):56-63, January 5,1968.
④ Robert K.Mcrton,The Matthew Effect in Science,II:Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,ISIS,79:606-623,1988.
① Richard S.J.Tol, THE MATTHEW EFFECT DEFINED AND TESTED FOR THE 100 MOST PROLIFIC ECONOMISTS, August 7,2007, Working Paper FNU-143, http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publica... papers/matthewwp.pdf
①孙自法, “路甬祥：当前中国科技界不端行为比较突出”[EB/OL]。 http://www. chinanews. com.cn/gn/news/2008/12-03/1472847.shtml
①王蒲生,周颖,“美国科研机构的利益冲突政策的缘起、现况与争论”, 《科学学研究》,2005年第3期,第372页。
②同上,第373页。
①刘大椿, 《中国人民大学中国人文社会科学发展研究报告2006》,北京,中国人民大学出版社,2006年版,第61-62页。
②李善峰, “在价值理性与工具理性之间：文化保守主义的历史评判”, 《学术界》,1996年第1期,第33页。
①吴国英,“‘越位’、 ‘缺位’、 ‘错位’与‘弱化’、‘强化’、 ‘转化’：关于政府职能转化与依法行政的思考”, 《上海青年管理干部学院学报》,2003年第4期,第42-43页。
①郑志瑛, “经济学透镜下的学术腐败”, 《社会科学论坛》,2003年第3期,第56页。
②同上,56-57页。
①沙依仁等, 《社会科学是什么》,北京,世界图书出版公司,2006年版,第54页。
① Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
②为了简便起见,以下将“默顿之学院科学规范结构”或“默顿的科学规范结构”简称为“默顿结构”而将“默顿之学院科学规范结构理论”或“默顿的科学规范结构理论”简称为“默顿范式”。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364页。
① Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www ethx.html
② Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.6.
③ Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.6-7.
② John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000,p.57-82.
③ Vincent N. Hamner, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENCE:DO SCIENTISTS NEED A PROFESSIONAL CODE OF ETHICS? http://www.files. chem. vt. edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www ethx. html
④这四个规范后来各以《科学与民主的结构》、《科学的规范结构》为题,分别被收录入默顿的《社会理论与社会结构》以及《科学社会学》第十三章。参见(美)R.K.默顿,《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第361页。
① Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society: Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
② Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D]. Utah State University,1997,p.2.
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D]. Utah State University,1997,p.1.
② Ibid,p.7.
①于江平, 《科学活动中越轨行为的社会学研究》,2003年苏州大学硕士学位论文,第54页。
②吴善超, 《当前我国科研道德建设研究》,2004年清华大学硕士学位论文,第4页。
③ Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.9.
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D], Utah State University,1997,p.9.
② Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society: Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31-32. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
① Perry Sailor,The relationship between graduate students'education in research ethics and their attitudes toward research misconduct[D],Utah State University,1997,p.9-10.
② John Ziman,"Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.1, p.68-69.
③ John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,2000,p.33-46；同时参见(英)J.齐曼,《真科学：它是什么,它指什么》,曾国屏等译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2002年版,第43-58页。
①黄欣荣,“后学院科学及其社会规范：齐曼《真科学》读后”, 《科学学研究》,2003年第5期,第556-557页。
②谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE:论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”, 《科学学研究》,2006年第5期,第659页。
① Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.32. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
② Ibid,p.33.
③根据笔者的理解,此中的“科学共同体公认的惯例”即默顿的学院科学规范结构CUDOS.
④张燕,“默顿的学院科学范式述评”, 《白城师范学院学报》,2006年第3期,第37-39页。
①宋芝业, 《科学规范研究》,2007年山东大学硕士学位论文,第16-23页。
②同上,16-19页。
①宋芝业, 《科学规范研究》,2007年山东大学硕士学位论文,第19-22页。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第440页。
②(美)R.K.默顿, 《十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会》,范岱年等译,北京,商务印书馆,2000年版,第286页。
③同上,287页。
④宋芝业, 《科学规范研究》,2007年山东大学硕士学位论文,第24-25页。
⑤ Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Science and Society:Building Bridges of Excellence Perceptions on the Interaction between Public Research and Enterprises, This report is published by The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy,2003/6, p.31. www.afsk.au.dk/ftp/ScienceSociety/2003_6.pdf
① John Ziman,Real Science:What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000,p.73.
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention, p.9-16. www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.9-12. www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze Alsop Hazzard.pdf
② John Ziman,Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000,p.37.
③ Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention, p.13. www. ihpst2005.leeds. ac. uk/papers/Bencze_A lsop_Hazzard.pdf
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.14, www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
② Ibid,p.14-15.
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.16-17, www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
① Larry Bencze,Steve Alsop,Kelli Hazzard, Influences of the Profit Motive on the Nature of Science:Ethical and Methodological Compromises Requiring Attention,p.17-18. www. ihpst2005. leeds. ac.uk/papers/Bencze_Alsop_Hazzard.pdf
② Ibid,p.18-19.
③ John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.1, p.67-80.
① John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is,and What It Means,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000, p.77.
② John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9(1996), No. 1,p.71.
③ Ibid.
① John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.1,p.73.
② Ibid.
③ Ibid,p.74.
① John Ziman, "Postacademic Science":Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms, Science Studies, Vol.9 (1996), No.l, p.75-76.
② John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is,and What It Means,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000, p.76-77.
③ Ibid,p.77.
① John Ziman, Real Science:What It Is,and What It Means, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,2000. p.78.
③ Ibid,p.81.
② Ibid,p.78-79.
①谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE-——论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”, 《科学学研究》,2006年第5期,第660页。
①谭文华,“从CUDOS到PLACE——论学院科学向后学院科学的转变”, 《科学学研究》,2006年第5期,660-661页。
② Michael Berry, Ziman, John, Michael, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,p.3, www.phy. bris. ac.uk/people/Berry_mv/the_papers/BerryB.pdf
① Pietro Greco,Comment John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006, p.2-2,jcom.sissa.it/archive/05/04/Jcom0504(2006)C01/Jcom0504(2006)C01.pdf
② Ibid.
③ J. Ziman, Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1994.
① Ana Maria Vara,An insider's view on science and society. Re-reading John Ziman, Journal of Science Communication, JCOM 5 (4), December 2006,p.8.
①Ana Maria Vara,An insider's view on science and society.Re-reading John Ziman,Journal of Science Communication,JCOM 5(4),December 2006,p.9.
②Ibid.
③C.A.Hooker,Essay Review, Science:Legendary,Academic and Post-Academic? Minerva,Volume 41,Number l,2003(11),p.71-81.www.newcastle.edu.au／centre／casrg/publications／ZimanReviewWP5.pdf
① C.A. Hooker, Essay Review, Science:Legendary, Academic-and Post-Academic? Minerva, Volume 41, Number 1,2003 (11), p.81.www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/casrg/publications/ZimanReviewWP5.pdf
② Ibid.
③ Ibid.
①黄欣荣, “后学院科学及其社会规范——齐曼《真科学》读后”, 《科学学研究》,2003年第5期,第556-560页。
①(美)R.K.默顿, 《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364页。
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research ,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992,p.Ⅸ.
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992.
②由美国国家学院三院“科学、工程与公共政策委员会”(COSEPUP)编辑的《怎样当一名科学家》,不仅分别于1989、1995和2009年出了第一至第三个英文版,而且还有两个中译本(何传启译,1996年科学出版社；刘华杰译,2004年北京理工大学出版社)
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992,p. X.
② Ibid,p.3.
③ Ibid,p.4.
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992,p.12.
② Ibid,p.13,145-146.
③ Muriel J.Bebeau,Defining Research Integrity and Conceptual Frameworks for Assessment[PPT],American Educational Research Association,Thursday,April 15,2004,p.3. http://aera.net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=80&id=648
① Commission on Research Integrity,Integrity and Misconduct in Research[R],To the Secretary of Health and Human Services;The House Committee on Commerce;The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources,1995:5.http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/documents/report_commission.pdf
② Ibid.
①虽然苗德岁先生将此译成《科研道德：倡导负责行为》并由北京大学于2007年1月出版,但为了体现作者所掌握文献及其所理解理论体系的完整性、历史连续性、理论范式与目前语境之间的对应性以及易理解和接受性,故作者此处自作主张地把“Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct"直接译成《科研诚信：营造一种促进负责任行为的环境》。
② Committee on Science,Engineering,and Public Policy (COSEPUP),On Being a Scientist:Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (1995),Copyright 1995,2000 The National Academy of Sciences,p. V. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=R5
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.1.
② Ibid,p.20.
③ Ibid,p.18-19.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.2.
② Muriel J.Bebeau,Defining Research Integrity and Conceptual Frameworks for Assessment[PPT],American Educational Research Association, Thursday, April 15,2004, p.9. http://aera.net/divisions/Default.aspx?menu_id=80&id=648
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.3.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.132.
② Ibid,p.34.
③ Ibid,p.34-35.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.35.
② Ibid,p.7,51.
① Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.8,64.
② John Butterworth,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1208
③ Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments,Integrity in Scientific Research:Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct,National Academy Press,2002,p.4.
① Eugene Russo,Promoting integrity in science, TheScientist, October14,2002.
② The Quality Assurance Journal, March 2004.http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=10430#reviews http://cmbi. bjmu. edu. cn/news/0210/77.htm
④ Nicholas H.Steneck,ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research,
③ Beth A.Fischer,Michael J.Zigmond,Toward a Climate of Scientific Integrity, http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040084 http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/RCRintro/ HTML Version,September 2006,updated from Revised Printed Edition,June 2004
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press,1992.
① Christie Aschwanden,Seeking an International Dialogue on Research Integrity,Cell,131(1)2007:9-11.
① Nicholas H. Steneck,What Do We Know?Two Decades of Research on Research Integrity, World Conference on Research Integrity Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal, September 16-19.2007.
②(美)威廉·布洛德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第118页。
①(美)威廉·布洛德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第118页。
② Davis M., The Role of Culture in Research Misconduct, Accountability in Research:Policies and Quality Assurance, Volume 10, Number 3, July-September 2003, p.189-201.
③刘秋华,“科研不端行为的社会学分析”, 《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第1期,第70-74页。
① Forsman B., An Ethical Analysis of the Phenomenon of Misconduct in Research, Acta Oncologica,38(1) 1999:107-110.
①蒋美仕等, “从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”, 《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期,第42-45页。
①(美)R.K.默顿,《科学社会学》,鲁旭东,林聚任译,北京,商务印书馆,2003年版,第363-364,365-376页。
②同上,363-364页。
①丛亚丽,“从纽伦堡到赫尔辛基”, 《科学时报》,http://www.zhuomu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid= 13853
②李韬,“核战争的伦理思考”, 《曲阜师范学院学报(社科版)》,2004年第6期,第15-17页。
③游战洪,刘钝, “《罗素-爱因斯坦宣言》的科学社会学解读”, 《科学(上海)》,2005年第05期,
④游战洪,刘钝,“论帕格沃什运动的历史经验及其意义”, 《自然科学史研究》,2005年第4期,第第24-27页。
⑤威廉·布洛德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,345-363页。上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第46-47页。
① Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
②(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第1页。
③ Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
① Nicholas Steneck, Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, US Office of Research Integrity, Revised edition 2004,p.19.
② Ibid,p.53.
① The Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-History[EB].http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
② National Science Foundation, Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research, Federal Register. Vol.52. No. 126. Wednesday, July 1,1987, p.24468. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/45cfr689_02.html
①蒋美仕等,“从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的政策法规体系”,《中国科技论坛》,2008年第12期,第134-138页。
① Nicholas Steneck, Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, US Office of Research Integrity, Revised edition 2004, p.19.
② Richard P. Kusserow, INSPECTOR GENERAL, MISCONDUCT IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (OAI-07-88-00420; 03/89), Office of Inspector General, Office of Analisis and Inspections, March 1989,p.i. www. oig. hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
③ Compiled by Nick Steneck, RCR Education Resource Bibliography, Offered through the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, August 2004, p.17-21. http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/education/documents/bibliography_rcr_2004.pdf
①蒋美仕等,“从职业伦理到公共政策的制度性转变：美国应对科研不端行为的策略及其意义”,《自然辩证法研究》,2008年第9期,第44页。
① The Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-History[EB].http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/history.shtml
② National Science Foundation, Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research, Federal Register. Vol.52. No. 126. Wednesday, July 1,1987, p.24468. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx 02/45cfr689 02.html
③ The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76260-76264.
①根据AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) 、 AAU (Association of American Universities)、 COGR (Council on Governmental Relations)、 NASULGC (National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges)这4个联盟或协会主席针对卫生部关于研究不端行为政策修订草案征求意见而于2004年6月15日回复给ORI主任的信函,可以了解AAMC有126所质量合格的医学院校、400多所医院和卫生保健系统：AAU由62(美国60,加拿大2)所公立和私立研究型综合性大学组成：COGR由150所精深研究型大学、附属医院和研究机构组成；NASULGC由位于各州、美国领地和哥伦比亚特区的州立和授地大学组成(http://www. aau. edu/research/PHS6.15.04.pdf)。
② HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28370.
③ HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28370-28399.
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,Responsible Science, Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.1992.
② Kenneth J. Ryan, Report of Commission on Research Integrity:Integrity and Misconduct in Research, November 3,1995. U.S.Department of Health and Human Service. Pulic Health Service. http://ori. dhhs.gov/documents/report commission.pdf.
③ HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations,p.28377.
① Rules and Regulations. Federal Register / Vol.70, No.120/Thursday, June 23,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.36325-36328.
① Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
① Office of Analysis and Inspectors, Office of Inspector General, Misconduct in Scientific Research, March 1989, p.1. http://www.oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oai-07-88-00420.pdf
①(美)威廉·布罗德,尼古拉斯·韦德, 《背叛真理的人们：科学殿堂中的弄虚作假》,朱进宁,方玉珍译,上海,上海科技教育出版社,2004年版,第1页。
① Roy G. Spece, Carol Bernstein,What is scientific misconduct,who has to (dis)prove it,and to what level of certainty? Arizonal Legal Studies,September 2007,Discussion Paper No.07,p21.
①以下将把这种包括独特策略、制度、机制和程序的科研不端行为综合防范体系简称为“美国模式”。
②如前所述,迄今为止美国国会所颁布的涉及科研不端行为的法案主要有《1966年动物福利法案》、《1974年国家研究法案》、《1985年健康研究扩展法案》、1976和1978年《监察长法案》等。其中,只有有关临床试验中的动物与人体保护、利益冲突、同行评审、数据管理等预防不端行为的具体法律规定,目前暂无规制科研不端行为的专门或单行法案。
③如前所述,1981年3月31日至4月1日,众议院科学技术委员会监督小组就当时日趋严重的科学欺诈事件举行了首次听证会。
① John E. Dahlberg and Christian C. Mahler, The Poehlman case:running away from the truth, Science and Engineering Ethics,12 (2006):169王丹红,“美国NIH发生严重的学术不端事件”, 《科学时报》,2005年03月24日。
① OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION,http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf
① OSTP,About OSTP:Department Organization,http://www.ostp.gov/cs/about_ostp
① Executive Order 12881 of November 23,1993 Establishment of the National Science and Technology Council, http://www.ostp.gov/cs/nstc/executive order
② OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION,http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf
① President Signs PCAST Executive Order, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011001-l.html
① OSTP,OSTP ORGANIZATION,http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/OSTPOrgChart.pdf 16,2004/Proposed Rules,p.20778.
② HHS,Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct,Federal Register/Vol.69,No.74/Friday,April
① HHS,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.70,No.94/Tuesday,May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28370-28399.
① US National Science Foundation,NSF Organizational Chart,www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/papp/exl.pdf
① The National Endowment for the Humanities,NEH Overview,http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/overview.html
② The National Endowment for the Humanities,Research Misconduct Policy, http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/researchmisconduct.html
① Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research,Responsible Science Volume Ⅰ:Ensuring the Integrity of the Research process,National Academy Press,1992,ppX.
① MLA Style:"American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)." Encyclop(?)dia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago:Encyclop(?)dia Britannica,2008. APA Style:American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2008). Encyclop(?)dia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago:Encyclop(?)dia Britannica.
② American Association for the Advancement of Science,About AAAS,http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/
① American Association for the Advancement of Science, Membership,http://www.aaas.org/membership/
② Ward Pigman and Emmett B. Carmichael, An Ethical Code for Scientists, Science,1950 (June 16), p.643-647.
③ William O. Baker, The Moral Un-Neutrality of Science, Science,1961,133,p.261-263.
④ Derek J. De Solla Price, Ethics of Scientific Publication, Science,1964,144,p.655-657.
⑤ Bentley Glass, The Ethical Basis of Science, Science,1965,150,p.1254-1261.
⑥ Robert K. Merton, The Matthew Effect in Science, Science,1968,159, p.53-63.
⑦ A. Cournand, The Code of the Scientist and its Relation to Ethics, Science,1977,198, p.699-705.
⑧ W. J. Broad, Fraud and the Structure of Science, Science,1981,212, p.137-141.
⑨ John T. Edsall, Two Aspects of Scientific Responsibility, Science,1981,212, p.11-14.
① Department of Health and Human Services,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule, Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28388.
① Office of Research Integrity,Policies-ORI Mission,http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/ORI Mission.shtml
② Office of Reasearch Integrity,About ORI, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/index.shtml
① Department of Health and Human Services,42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule, Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28392-28393.
① Office of Research Integrity,About ORI-Functional Overviews:Office of the Director, http://ori. dhhs. gov/about/director. shtml
① Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-Functional Overviews:Division of Investigative Oversight, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/dio.shtml
① Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-Functional Overviews:Division of Investigative Oversight, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/dio.shtml
② Office of Research Integrity, About ORI-Functional Overviews:Research Oversight Legal Team, http://ori.dhhs.gov/about/ogc.shtml
③ Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Annual Reports, http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/annual_reports.shtml
① DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Office of the Secretary,Office of Public Health and Science,Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2007,June 2008.
① Office of Reasearch Integrity,Publications-Newsletters,http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
① Office of Inspector General,OIG Mission,http://www. oig.hhs.gov/organization/OIGmission.html
② Office of Inspector General,OIG Organization Chart,http://www.oig.hhs.gov/organization.asp
① US National Science Foundation,Publications,http://www.nsf.gov/publications/index.jsp?nsf_org=OIG&org =NSF&pub type=Reports&archived=false&ord=pub&page=2
② The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Federal RegisterNol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76263.
① David E. Wright, Sandra L. Titus and Jered B. Cornelison, Mentoring and Research Misconduct:An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed OR] Cases, Science and Engineering Ethics,14(3),2008:323-336.
① UNIVERSITY OF MAINE,POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN RESEARCH AND OTHER SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES, APPROVED:September 17,1999, Revised:April 14,2006,p.2-3.
② Institutional Review Board, http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=44679
① Dr. Alan Moses,机构审查委员会/伦理委员会(2),GCP Lecture 4, Version:FINAL, Date:02/11/2004. hstelearning.mit.edu/gcp/eng/modules/module04/chin-transcripts/mod04_seg2_chin.pdf
② Ronald F. White,Institutional Review Board Mission Creep:The Common Rule, Social Science,and the Nanny State, The Independent Review, v., XI, n.3, Spring 2007, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright (?) 2007, pp.562.
① Iverson, Margot; Franke, Mark; Siang, Sanyin, Scientific societies and research integrity:What are they doing and how well are they doing it? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003:141-158.
② Anne Hudson Jones, Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003:243-256.
① Levine, Felice; Iutcovich, Joyce, Challenges in studying the effects of scientific societies on research integrity, Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2),2003:257-268.
② Michael L. Callaham, Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 41(1),2003:82-89.
① Alan R. Biggs, The Journal's Role in Scientific Misconduct, Phytopathology news,38(2):17-19,2004. International,13(3),2007:98-102.
② Wager, Elizabeth, Ethical publishing:the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct, Menopause
① The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, Federal Register/Vol.65, No.235/Wednesday, December 6,2000/Notices, p.76262.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28386.
② U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28393.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28390.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28390-28391.
② U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28392.
① Ibid,p.28394.
② NIH, A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH,p.4,www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ResEthicsCases/NIH%20Misconduct2.pdf
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28399.
① U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct(Final Rule), Federal Register / Vol.70, No.94/Tuesday, May 17,2005/Rules and Regulations, p.28400.
① Ibid,p.28393.
① NIH,A Guide to the Handling of Scientific Misconduct Allegations in the Intramural Research Program at the NIH,p.1,May 2001-prepared by the NIH Committee on Scientific Conduct and Ethics, wwwl.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ethic-conduct/smpolicy.htm
*本节所罗列的发生在中国的科研不端行为事件,虽有确凿而公开的文献来源,但因各自看法或观点不同,大多仍存争议,且有些尚无定论。现姑且引之并暂时存疑,待发表时再作评论。
①石希生,“邹承鲁与30年前的两起学术腐败事件”,《南方周末》,2006年08月24日,D29版。
②同上。
①石希生,“邹承鲁与30年前的两起学术腐败事件”,《南方周末》,2006年08月24日,D29版。
②同上。
①巴尔的摩(D.Baltimore)是逆转录酶的发现者、1975年诺贝尔生理学和医学奖得主。吉尔伯特(W Gilbert)
②邹承鲁, “开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”, 《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第06期,第5是DNA测序方法的建立者之一、1980年诺贝尔化学奖获得者。页。
③樊洪业, “科研作伪及其辨识与防范”,《自然辩证法通讯》,1994年第1期,第28页。
①百度百科(baike.baidu),“申小龙的连环抄袭案”[EB/OL]。http://baike.baidu.com/view/1103469.htm最近更新：2008-05-04。
②耿明志,“近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第28页。
①耿明志, “近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第26-28页。
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室,“关于朱少醒抄袭他人论文的通报”,《中国科学基金》,2003年第06期,第349页。
③韩晓蓉, “复旦大学学术造假事件调查中曾遇阻力”[EB/OL]. http://news.163.com/07/1225/07/40HRP7580001124J_2.html
①耿明志, “近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第26-28页。报(国科金监函[2005]16号)”,2005-07-05。
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会,“关于第三军医大学苏炳银申请国家自然科学基金弄虚作假的通http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/iiandu991013/20050818 04.html
③国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会,“关于中国水利水电科学研究院李贵宝申请国家自然科学基金项目弄虚作假的通报(国科金监函[2005]24号)”,2005-07-05。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20050818_03.html
④国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会, “关于崔建伟抄袭和剽窃他人论文的通报(国科金监函[2005125号)”2005-07-05。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20050818_03.html
⑤国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2005年第1期,2005-08-17。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20050818_01.html
①鲁本录, “中国科技体制改革研究”, 《淮南师范学院学报》2008年第4期,第14-15页。
②耿明志,“近年惊暴的学术剽窃大案”, 《中国乡镇企业》,2006年第5期,第26-28页。
①国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2006年第1期,2006-03-01。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20060302 01.html第2期,2006-09-15。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20061120 01.html
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2006年
③韩晓蓉, “复旦大学学术造假事件调查中曾遇阻力”[EB/OL]。http://news.163.com/07/1225/07/40HRP7580001124J.html
①国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会,“关于中国民航大学张连顺抄袭他人成果的处理决定(国科金监决定[2007]1号)”,2007-05-25。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20070619_03.html
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会, “关于武汉大学艾勇抄袭他人论文的处理决定(国科金监决定[2007]2号)”,2007-05-25。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20070619_02.html
③国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会办公室, 《国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会简报》,2007年第1期,2007-06-18。http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20070619_01.html
①雷宇,叶铁桥,孙海华,“利益之争还是学术道德之争：六教授举报长江学者造假事件调查”[EB/OL], http://zqb.cyol.com/content/2009-07/24/content 2771431.htm
②新快报记者王华平,李咏祁,实习生王佳柯,“广州体育学院院长所著博士论文被指抄袭”[EB/OL], http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2009-07-06/023718159522.shtml
③晨报记者杨育才,实习生刘康亮,“湖北最年轻市长被指抄论文组织部称应老师负责”[EB/OL], http://news.sohu. com/s2009/n264739337shtml/
①郭久辉, “郑州大学严肃处理贾士秋学术不端行为”[EB/OL], http://news.xinhuanet. com/society/2009-07/06/content_11663228. htm
②国家自然科学基金委员会监督委员会, “关于贺海波、吴理茂学术不端行为的处理决定(国科金监决定[2009] 16号)", 2009-04-20. http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/00/its/jiandu991013/20090420_01.html
①李汉林, 《科学社会学》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,1987年版,第36-37页。
②科技部,教育部,中国科学院,中国工程院,中国科协,“关于科技工作者行为准则的若干意见”,《科技与法律》,1999年第04期,第3-4页。
①中国科学院, 《关于科学理念的宣言》, 《关于加强科研行为规范建设的意见》。http://www. acriticism. com/article. asp?Newsid=8681&type=1006
①科技部, “科技部等六部门建立科研诚信建设联席会议制度并召开第一次会议”[EB/OL], http://www. most.gov. cn/tpxw/200703/t20070329_42449. htm
①张瑾, “陈进汉芯造假被撤销全国优秀科技工作者称号”[EB/OL], http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/2006-07-16/03181039386.shtml
②邹承鲁,“开展百家争鸣,促进我国科学事业的繁荣”,《自然辩证法通讯》,1980年第06期,第4-5页。
③邹承鲁等14名学部委员,“再论科学道德问题”, 《教育科学研究》,1992年第03期,第11-13页。
④金振蓉,冯永锋,“邹承鲁：真诚透明的科学人生”, 《光明日报》,2006年11月24日。