新编研究生综合英语教程TEXT1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28、 concerns were raised about the proposed project, Dr. Z was shocked. l thought I was doing her a favor, he said innocently, and besides, I hate writing!1. 1. 最近，我们当中的一员有机会最近，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与一名医科学生谈论她正计划要做的一个实验室轮转项目。她将与给的一个实验室轮转项目。她将与给她布置论文撰写任务的她布置论文撰写任务的Dr.ZDr.Z一起完一起完成该项目。成该项目。Dr.ZDr.Z已经设计

29、好研究工已经设计好研究工具，并收集数据，整理了实验结果。具，并收集数据，整理了实验结果。该学生只需做做文献检索，然后撰该学生只需做做文献检索，然后撰写初稿。这样，在论文最终出版的写初稿。这样，在论文最终出版的时候，她就可以成为第一作者。然时候，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，而，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，而我也确实讨厌写我是在帮她，而我也确实讨厌写作作”。Judy E. Stern & Judy E. Stern & DeniDeni Elliott Elliott2. D

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

31、 the grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Pott Secondary Education (FIPSE), a team of philosophers and scientists at Dartmouth College 2 ran a University Seminar series for faculty on the topic Ethical Issues in scientific Research. 2. Dr.Z或许有一点天真。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

32、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。At one seminar, a senior researcher (lets call him Professor R) argued a similar position to that of Dr. Z. In this case Professor R knew that gift authorship, authorship without a s

33、ignificant research contribution, was an unacceptable research practice. However, he had a reason to give authorship to his student. 在其中一次研讨会上，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

34、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。The student had worked for several years on a project suggested by him and the project had yielded to publishable data. Believing that he had a duty to the student to ensure a publication, Professor R had given the student some data that he himself had collec

35、ted and told the student to write it up. The student had worked hard, he said, albeit on another project, and the student would do the writing. Thus, he reasoned, the authorship was not a gift.因为这个学生已经在他所建因为这个学生已经在他所建议的项目上花费了几年的功议的项目上花费了几年的功夫，然而却没能发表任何研夫，然而却没能发表任何研究结果。他认为他有责任帮究结果。他认为他有责任帮助这名学生发表论文。于

36、是助这名学生发表论文。于是R R教授给了该学生一些他自教授给了该学生一些他自己收集的数据，让其撰写一己收集的数据，让其撰写一篇论文。篇论文。R R教授说这名学生教授说这名学生一直努力的做项目，尽管不一直努力的做项目，尽管不是同一项目，而且该生还负是同一项目，而且该生还负责论文写作，所以他认为原责论文写作，所以他认为原创作者头衔并不算创作者头衔并不算“赠予赠予”。3. These two stories point up a major reason for encouraging courses in research ethics: Good intentions do not necess

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

38、3.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。In particular, he seemed blissfully oblivious to the meaning of first authorship. In the second case, Professor R was do ng what he thought best for the student wit

39、hout taking into consideration that moral. ty is a public system and that his actions with regard to a single student have public consequences for the practice of science as a profession.而他似乎也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。4. Well-meaning scientist

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

41、ssional conventions as well as to understand the public nature of morality.4. 例如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。5.There are scientists for whom a course in research ethics will be less useful. Efraim Racker, in a 1989 article,

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

43、sabti, described by D. J. Miller, was a meticulous plagiarizer. 5. 对于有些科学家来说，科研伦理课程可能作用并不大。Efraim Racker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Elias Alsabti是一个细心的剽窃者。This physician-researcher fabricated his curriculum vitae, copied a colle

44、agues grant for his own use, published other peoples data under his own name, and co-authored his pilfered data with fictitious collaborators. Individuals such as these are unlikely to learn research ethics through instruction because they are not interested in becoming ethical practitioners.这位医师编造个

45、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。6. The ethics of scientific research is somewhat unique within professional ethics in the sense that good science requires the ethical practice of science. Nevertheless, a course in research ethics cannot and should

46、 not have as its central focus the question, Why should I be moral? This question, while important, is not specific to the field of scientific research. 6. 某种程度上讲，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。正如达特茅斯团队预想的那样，一门学术伦理课程

47、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？”A course in research ethics, as envisioned by the Dartmouth team, must be a course that teaches the tools for making ethical decisions relative to matters of research. It will be designed for those scientis

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

49、people accused of misconduct. They are a so not the only people who are guilty of misconduct. Many other scientists have had live and careers affected by misconduct cases.7. 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。8 It is undoubtedly unfai

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

51、seload to include 29 institutional inquiries, 21 institutional investigations, and ORI inquiries or investigations. The 1995 ORI publication reported the 1994 caseload as 13 institutional inquiries, 17 institutional investigations, and 8 0RI inquiries or investigations. 8.然而，仅凭一些学术不端的个案来推论整个行业无疑是不公平

52、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。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

53、构自己披露，并且当事人均受到各种基金的资助。Of actions closed in these years (5 in 1991-1992; 44 in 1994), some involved fabrication, some falsification, some plagiarism, and others some combination of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other misconduct. Slightly fewer than half of the investigated cases closed

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

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

56、nduct. Although some particularly difficult cases may test the limits of these guidelines, most do not. In scientific research, a written code of conduct is not available. 9. 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

57、义。科学研究也并不提供书面的行为准则。The federal government and individual institutions have been struggling to clarify the standards under which misconduct can be adjudicated. The central definitions that delineate misconduct in science include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, these are confused

58、by other less clear categories of misconduct, which include other questionable behavior or other misconduct. Within this confusion of definitions it is not always obvious to students or faculty where and toward whom their obligations lie.联邦政府和私人机构一直试图阐明学术不端行为的裁定标准，比如一些描述科研不端行为的核心定义，包括编造，篡改和等等。然而这些行为

59、容易与包含“可疑行为”在内的其他不太确定的类别相互混淆。这些混淆的定义让学生和教职人员也不是很清楚他们到底承担哪些责任和义务？10 Complicating the confusion generated by the way in which we define research misconduct is the teaching process by which students routinely learn about the ethical obligations of their profession. Traditionally a scientist trains with

60、a single mentor. From this mentoring relationship the graduate student is expected to learn about scientific method, the body of knowledge that constitutes the specific field of science she is studying, and the institution of science. 10.我们对学术不端的定义往往会带来困惑，而学生们日常学习职业道德规范的过程则更加剧了人们的困惑。传统而言，一位科研工作者要接受导师的培训指导。通过指导，这名研究会学到科学研究方法，构成她得学科领域的知识体系，