新编研究生综合英语教程UNIT潘海英.pptx

Unit Unit OneOneResearch and MethodologyResearch and Methodology第1页/共113页Text A Text A Why Teach Research EthicsWhy Teach Research EthicsText B Text B The Nature of InquiryThe Nature of Inquiry第2页/共113页Inadditiontoabodyofknowledgethatincludesformulasandfacts,scienceisthepracticebywhichwepursueanswerstothequestionsthatcanbeapproachedscientifically.Thispracticeisreferredtocollectivelyasscientificresearch,andwhilethetechniquesthatscientistsusetoconductresearchmaydifferbetweendisciplines,likebiology,chemistry,geology,physics,oranyotherscientificfield,theunderlyingprinciplesandobjectivesaresimilar.Nowweareatatimeinwhichtheneedtobuildtrustbetweenscienceandsocietyisbecomingevermoreimportant.Preface第3页/共113页ltisvitalthattheconductofscienceitselfisbasedonthehighestethicalconsiderationsandthatmisconductwithinscienceitselfcanbeidentifiedanddealtwithinanopenandtransparentmanner.TextA,WhyTeachResearchEthics,examinestheroleandimportanceofethicaleducationonthepartofstudentsandfaculty.Beginningwithtwostoriesaboutunconsciousmisconduct,JudyE.SternandDeniElliottbringuptheurgentneedtoteachethicsinordertoensureagoodpracticeofscience.第4页/共113页Suchnecessityarisesfromtheinadequacyoftraditionalindividualmentoringinhelpinglearnconventionsofscience.Oneaspectofresearchethicsconcernsresearchersprofessionalspiritinthepursuitofultimatetruth,thatistosay,goodsciencemustbeconductedthroughrigorous,systematicandreplicableprocedure.InTextB,TheNatureofInquiry,theauthorswillelaborateonhowscientificresearchdistinguishesitselffromcommon-senseknowing,howresearchersapproachrealitydifferently,andwhatphilosophicalassumptionsunderpineachapproach.第5页/共113页 Background Information Pre-reading Questions Text A Why Teach Research Ethics Vocabulary Exercises Text A Why Teach Research Text A Why Teach Research EthicsEthicsContents第6页/共113页1.Information about the authors2.Information about research ethics3.Cultural Background InformationBackground Information 第7页/共113页Text Explanation&TranslationOrganization of the TextText A Why Teach Research Ethics第8页/共113页Vocabulary1.Core Vocabulary List2 2.Vocabulary 第9页/共113页Expanding the Notion of Theme to Larger Structures than ClauseThe Mode Difference of Speech&Writing The theme and rhyme according to Functional linguistThematic Progression第10页/共113页AcomparisonofspeechwithwritingThe Mode Difference of Speech&WritingThe difference between Speech&writing第11页/共113页Core Vocabulary ListThematic ProgressionExpanding the Notion of Theme to Larger Structures than Clause第12页/共113页l.ComprehensionII Word StudyIII ClozeV WritingExercisesIV Translation第13页/共113页I Comprehension 1.Answer Questions 2.Paraphrase第14页/共113页IV Translation1.English Translation2.Chinese Translation第15页/共113页WhyTeachResearchEthicsselectedfrom“The Ethics of Scientific Research”Hanover and London:University Press of NewEngland,Hanover,1997.JudyE.Stern&DeniElliott第16页/共113页1.Information about the authors 2.Information about research ethics BackgroundInformation3.Cultural Background Information第17页/共113页JudyE.SternisaprofessorfromGieselSchoolofMedicineatDartmouthCollege.Herprofessionalinterestsincludeoutcomesofassistedreproductivetechnology,ethicalissuesinassistedreproduction,ethicalissuesinscientificresearchandreproductiveimmunology.D.Elliottisanethicistandethicsscholar,andhasbeenactiveinpracticalethicssincethe1980s.Background1.Information about the authors第18页/共113页:Researchethicsinvolvestheapplicationoffundamentalethicalprinciplestoavarietyof topics involving research,including scientific research.These include the design ofresearchinvolving human experimentation,animal experimentation,variousaspectsofacademicscandal,includingscientificmisconduct(suchasfraud,fabrication of data and plagiarism),whistle blowing;regulation of research,etc.Research ethics is most developed as a concept in medical research.The keyagreementhere is the1974Declaration of Helsinki.TheNuremberg Codeis aformeragreement,but with many still important notes.Research in the social sciencespresentsadifferentsetofissuesthanthoseinmedicalresearch.Background2.Information about research ethics第19页/共113页BackgroundS o u t h K o r e a n S c i e n t i s t H w a n g W o o-S u k w a s a c c u s e d o f f a b r i c a t i n g d a t a P r o f e s s o r o f X i a n J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y L i L i a n s h e n g w a s d e p r i v e d o f t h e N a t i o n a l A w a r d f o r p l a g i a r i s m.第20页/共113页Researchethicsinvolvestheapplicationoffundamentalethicalprinciplestoavarietyoftopicsonscientificresearch.Thesetopicsincludethedesignandimplementationofresearchinvolvinghumanexperimentation,animalexperimentation,variousaspectsofacademicscandal,includingscientificmisconduct(suchasfraud,fabricationofdataandplagiarism)whistleblowing,regulationofresearch,etc.Researchethicsismostdevelopedasaconceptinmedicalresearch.Thekeyagreementhereisthe1974DeclarationofHelsinki.TheNurembergCodeisaformeragreement,butNithmanystillimportantnotes.Researchinsocialsciencespresentsadifferentsetofissuesthanthoseinmedicalresearch.3.Cultural Background Information第21页/共113页Theacademicresearchenterpriseisbuiltonafoundationoftrust.Researcherstrustthattheresultsreportedbyothersaresound.Societytruststhattheresultsofresearchreflectanhonestattemptbyscientistsandotherresearcherstodescribetheworldaccuratelyandwithoutbias.Butthistrustwillendureonlyifthescientificcommunitydevotesitselftoexemplifyingandtransmittingthevaluesassociatedwithethicalresearchconduct.第22页/共113页Therearemanyethicalissuestobetakenintoseriousconsiderationforresearch.Sociologistsneedtobeawareofhavingtheresponsibilitytosecuretheactualpermissionandinterestsofallthoseinvolvedinthestudy.Theyshouldnotmisuseanyoftheinformationdiscovered,andthereshouldbeacertainmoralresponsibilitymaintainedtowardstheparticipants.Thereisadutytoprotecttherightsofpeopleinthestudyaswellastheirprivacyandsensitivity.Theconfidentialityofthoseinvolvedintheobservationmustbecarriedout,keepingtheiranonymityandprivacysecure.AspointedoutintheBSAforSociology,alloftheseethicsmustbehonoredunlessthereareotheroverridingreasonsnottodoso-forexample,anyillegalorterroristactivity.第23页/共113页Q1:Has your supervisor introduced you to the research ethics in your field?If yes,how did he or she do so?Q2:What do you think is an effective way of preventing unethical behaviors in scientific study?Q3:What is your personal stance on the academic dishonesty like faking data,stealing ideas,or usurping language without attribution?Q4:In your mind,what are the criteria for a good practice of science?Pre-readingQuestions第24页/共113页1.Recently,oneofushadtheopportunitytospeakwithamedicalstudentaboutaresearchrotationthatthestudentwasplanningtodo.ShewouldbeworkingwithDr.Z,whohadgivenhertheprojectofwritingapaperforwhichhehaddesignedtheprotocol,collectedthedata,andcompiledtheresults.Thestudentwastodoaliteraturesearchandwritethefirstdraftofthemanuscript.Forthisshewouldbecomefirstauthoronthefinalpublication.Whenconcernswereraisedabouttheproposedproject,Dr.Zwasshocked.lthoughtIwasdoingherafavor,hesaidinnocently,andbesides,Ihatewriting!Text A Why Teach Research Text A Why Teach Research EthicsEthics1.最近，我们当中的一员有机会与最近，我们当中的一员有机会与一名医科学生谈论她正计划要做的一名医科学生谈论她正计划要做的一个实验室轮转项目。她将与给她一个实验室轮转项目。她将与给她布置论文撰写任务的布置论文撰写任务的Dr.ZDr.Z一起完成一起完成该项目。该项目。Dr.ZDr.Z已经设计好研究工具，已经设计好研究工具，并收集数据，整理了实验结果。该并收集数据，整理了实验结果。该学生只需做做文献检索，然后撰写学生只需做做文献检索，然后撰写初稿。这样，在论文最终出版的时初稿。这样，在论文最终出版的时候，她就可以成为第一作者。然而，候，她就可以成为第一作者。然而，当该项目受到越来越多非议时，当该项目受到越来越多非议时，Dr.ZDr.Z震惊之余无辜地说，震惊之余无辜地说，“我以为我以为我是在帮她，而我也确实讨厌写作我是在帮她，而我也确实讨厌写作”。Judy E.Stern&Deni Elliott第25页/共113页2.Dr.Zisperhapsabitnaive.Certainly,mostresearcherswouldknowthatthestudentsworkwouldnotmeritfirstauthorship.Theywouldknowthatgiftauthorshipisnotanacceptableresearchpractice.However,anearlierexperienceinourworkmakesuswonder.Severalyearsago,inconjunctionwiththegrantfromtheFundfortheImprovementofPottSecondaryEducation(FIPSE),ateamofphilosophersandscientistsatDartmouthCollege2ranaUniversitySeminarseriesforfacultyonthetopicEthicalIssuesinscientificResearch.2.Dr.Z或许有一点天真。当然，大多数研究人员都知道，该学生所做的工作并不称第一作者这个头衔。他们知道，这种“赠予”原创作者头衔的做法，并不是可以接受的科研行为。然而，早期的工作经验使我们产生疑问。若干年前，在高等教育改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一个由哲学家和科学家组成的团队在达特茅斯学院，为全体教员举办以“科学研究中的伦理问题”为主题的系列讲座。第26页/共113页Atoneseminar,aseniorresearcher(letscallhimProfessorR)arguedasimilarpositiontothatofDr.Z.InthiscaseProfessorRknewthatgiftauthorship,authorshipwithoutasignificantresearchcontribution,wasanunacceptableresearchpractice.However,hehadareasontogiveauthorshiptohisstudent.在其中一次研讨会上，一个资深研在其中一次研讨会上，一个资深研究员（让我们叫他究员（让我们叫他R R教授）与教授）与Dr.ZDr.Z持有相似的观点。在这个案例中，持有相似的观点。在这个案例中，R R教授明知道把原创作者身份教授明知道把原创作者身份“赠赠予予”没有研究贡献的人是不符合学没有研究贡献的人是不符合学术道德规范的。然而，他却有理由术道德规范的。然而，他却有理由给他的学生一个作者身份。给他的学生一个作者身份。第27页/共113页Thestudenthadworkedforseveralyearsonaprojectsuggestedbyhimandtheprojecthadyieldedtopublishabledata.Believingthathehadadutytothestudenttoensureapublication,ProfessorRhadgiventhestudentsomedatathathehimselfhadcollectedandtoldthestudenttowriteitup.Thestudenthadworkedhard,hesaid,albeitonanotherproject,andthestudentwoulddothewriting.Thus,hereasoned,theauthorshipwasnotagift.因为这个学生已经在他所建议的项目上花费了几年的功夫，然而却没能发表任何研究结果。他认为他有责任帮助这名学生发表论文。于是R教授给了该学生一些他自己收集的数据，让其撰写一篇论文。R教授说这名学生一直努力的做项目，尽管不是同一项目，而且该生还负责论文写作，所以他认为原创作者头衔并不算“赠予”。第28页/共113页3.Thesetwostoriespointupamajorreasonforencouragingcoursesinresearchethics:Goodintentionsdonotnecessarilyresultinethicaldecisions.Bothofthefacultymembersintheabovescenariosmeantwell.Inbothcases,thefacultymemberstrulybelievedthatwhattheyweredoingwasmorallyacceptable.Inthefirstcase,Dr.Zsindefensibleerrorwasthathewasunawareoftheconventionsofthefield.3.这两个故事都强调了推动开设科研伦理课程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引导人们做出正确的道德选择。上述两个情节中的教师本意是好的。这两个案例中的教师认为他们所做的事情在道德层面上是可以接受的。在第一个案例中，Dr.Z的解释之所以站不住脚是因为他没有意识到这一领域的公约。第29页/共113页Inparticular,heseemedblissfullyoblivioustothemeaningoffirstauthorship.Inthesecondcase,ProfessorRwasdongwhathethoughtbestforthestudentwithouttakingintoconsiderationthatmoral.tyisapublicsystemandthathisactionswithregardtoasinglestudenthavepublicconsequencesforthepracticeofscienceasaprofession.而他似乎也遗忘了第一作者的概念。在第二个案例中，R教授自认为他所做的事情都是对他学生最有益的，然而却没有考虑道德是一个公共体系，他对这一名学生的做法却对科学研究产生了公共影响。第30页/共113页4.Well-meaningscientists,suchasthosejustmentioned,can,withthebestofintentions,makeunethicaldecisions.Insomecases,suchdecisionsmayleadindividualstobecomeembroiledincasesofmisconduct.Acourseinresearchethicscanhelpsuchscientiststoappreciatethatitistheirresponsibilitytoknowprofessionalconventionsaswellastounderstandthepublicnatureofmorality.4.例如刚刚提到的那些善意的科学家，他们的意图是好的，但却做出了不道德的决定。一些情况下，这样的决定可能会导致个人卷入到学术不端的指控中。科研伦理课程可以帮助这样的科学家明白，他们有责任去了解职业惯例以及公共道德的本质。第31页/共113页5.Therearescientistsforwhomacourseinresearchethicswillbelessuseful.EfraimRacker,ina1989article,describedastudentinhislabwhowasaprofessionalfabricatorofdata.Thisstudentcomposedlabbookswithoutperformingexperiments,addedradioactivematerialtogelstoproducebandswherehewishedthosebandstobe,andliedtohiscolleaguesabouthisactions.Anotherresearcher,EliasAlsabti,describedbyD.J.Miller,wasameticulousplagiarizer.5.对于有些科学家来说，科研伦理课程可能作用并不大。EfraimRacker在其1989年发表的文章中描述了一个他实验室里“专业的”数据造假者。这名学生没做实验就拼凑出实验书，在凝胶中添加放射性材料来合成他想要的绷带，并欺瞒他的同事。D.J.Miller描述的另一位研究者EliasAlsabti是一个细心的剽窃者。第32页/共113页Thisphysician-researcherfabricatedhiscurriculumvitae,copiedacolleaguesgrantforhisownuse,publishedotherpeoplesdataunderhisownname,andco-authoredhispilfereddatawithfictitiouscollaborators.Individualssuchastheseareunlikelytolearnresearchethicsthroughinstructionbecausetheyarenotinterestedinbecomingethicalpractitioners.这位医师编造个人履历，抄袭同事的基金申请书为己所用，以个人名义发表他人数据，并虚构合作者一起用剽窃的数据合写论文。像这样的人是不会通过课程学习研究伦理的，因为他们对学术道德并不感兴趣。第33页/共113页6.Theethicsofscientificresearchissomewhatuniquewithinprofessionalethicsinthesensethatgoodsciencerequirestheethicalpracticeofscience.Nevertheless,acourseinresearchethicscannotandshouldnothaveasitscentralfocusthequestion,WhyshouldIbemoral?Thisquestion,whileimportant,isnotspecifictothefieldofscientificresearch.6.某种程度上讲，科学研究伦理属于职业道德的范畴，并且是独一无二的。而一定意义上，好的科学研究要求符合道德规范的工作。然而，一门学术伦理课程不能够也不应该把“我为什么应该遵守道德？”作为焦点问题。这个问题虽然重要，但并不只是具体针对学术研究领域。第34页/共113页正如达特茅斯团队预想的那样，一门学术伦理课程必须教会大家如何就科学研究做出有道德的决策。这将是专门为那些致力于成为遵守道德规范的研究人员而设计的课程。这样的一门课程将会给学生提供这个问题的答案，“我怎样才能做出一个符合道德的决定？”Acourseinresearchethics,asenvisionedbytheDartmouthteam,mustbeacoursethatteachesthetoolsformakingethicaldecisionsrelativetomattersofresearch.Itwillbedesignedforthosescientistswhoarealreadycommittedtobeingethicalresearchers.Suchacourseshouldprovidestudentstheanswerstothequestion,HowcanImakemoraldecisions?第35页/共113页7Althoughitisthefabricatorsandtheplagiarizerswhomwemostoftenthinkofwhenwethinkofresearchmisconduct,thesearenottheonlypeopleaccusedofmisconduct.Theyareasonottheonlypeoplewhoareguiltyofmisconduct.Manyotherscientistshavehadliveandcareersaffectedbymisconductcases.7.虽然当我们思考学术不端时，大多数时候我们想到的是数据造假者或者剽窃者，但是这些人并不是唯一被指控学术不端的人。同样，他们也不是唯一被认定学术不端的人。许多科学家的生活和事业都曾受到了学术不端事件的影响。第36页/共113页8Itisundoubtedlyunfairtogeneralizefromafewcasesofmisconducttoanentireprofession.Nevertheless,reportedcasesofmisconductarenotuncommon,andthiscouldreflectafailuretotrainstudentstothehighestethicalstandards.The1993OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)4publicationreportedthe1991-1992caseloadtoinclude29institutionalinquiries,21institutionalinvestigations,andORIinquiriesorinvestigations.The1995ORIpublicationreportedthe1994caseloadas13institutionalinquiries,17institutionalinvestigations,and80RIinquiriesorinvestigations.8.然而，仅凭一些学术不端的个案来推论整个行业无疑是不公平的。不过已披露的学术不端行为的确不在少数，这也反映了学生道德培养水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研诚信办公室（ORI）的报告公布了其在1991年至1992年期间，对其自身以及29个机构的访谈记录和21个机构的调查结果。1995年，该研究室的报告又涵盖了1994年对于13个机构的访问和对17个机构的调查，以及8份该研究室的调查研究。第37页/共113页近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的调查显示出，学术行为中主要涉及伪造、篡改、剽窃等，甚至多种不端行为的并存的情况。对于已结案件的调查中，仅有不足一半的涉及不断行为，而且对被告方也实施了相应的制裁。当事人的学术职称从技术人员到教授不等。案件多由科研机构自己披露，并且当事人均受到各种基金的资助。Ofactionsclosedintheseyears(5in1991-1992;44in1994),someinvolvedfabrication,somefalsification,someplagiarism,andotherssomecombinationoffabrication,falsification,plagiarism,andothermisconduct.Slightlyfewerthanhalfoftheinvestigatedcasesclosedasofthesereportswerefoundtoinvolvemisconductandresultedinsanctionagainsttheaccusedparty.Theacademicrankoftheaccusedrangedfromtechniciantofullprofessor.Caseswerereportedfromanumberofinstitutions,andtheaccusedpartieswerefundedbyavarietyoffundingsources.第38页/共113页9Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinliefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.9.学术不端并不是能够简单评价的问题。其中一个重要问题是，在科学领域里，对于什么样的行为有违伦理规范，应当受到惩罚，仍然模棱两可。工程，法律，和医学领域对道德行为的定义有明确的书面指导原则。虽然某些特别复杂的案例会挑战这些原则的底线，但多数原则具有指导意义。科学研究也并不提供书面的行为准则。第39页/共113页Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichincludeotherquestionablebehaviororothermisco