新編研究生綜合英語教程 吉林大學(xué) 潘海英

新編研究生綜合英語教程

AdvancedEnglishforGraduateStudents:

GeneralSkills&AcademicLiteracyUnitOne

ResearchandMethodologyTextAWhyTeachResearchEthicsTextBTheNatureofInquiryInadditiontoabodyofknowledgethatincludesformulasandfacts,scienceisthepracticebywhichwepursueanswerstothequestionsthatcanbeapproachedscientifically.Thispracticeisreferredtocollectivelyasscientificresearch,andwhilethetechniquesthatscientistsusetoconductresearchmaydifferbetweendisciplines,likebiology,chemistry,geology,physics,oranyotherscientificfield,theunderlyingprinciplesandobjectivesaresimilar.Nowweareatatimeinwhichtheneedtobuildtrustbetweenscienceandsocietyisbecomingevermoreimportant.Prefaceltisvitalthattheconductofscienceitselfisbasedonthehighestethicalconsiderationsandthatmisconductwithinscienceitselfcanbeidentifiedanddealtwithinanopenandtransparentmanner.TextA,WhyTeachResearchEthics,examinestheroleandimportanceofethicaleducationonthepartofstudentsandfaculty.Beginningwithtwostoriesaboutunconsciousmisconduct,JudyE.SternandDeniElliottbringuptheurgentneedtoteachethicsinordertoensureagoodpracticeofscience.Suchnecessityarisesfromtheinadequacyoftraditionalindividualmentoringinhelpinglearnconventionsofscience.Oneaspectofresearchethicsconcernsresearchers'professionalspiritinthepursuitofultimatetruth,thatistosay,goodsciencemustbeconductedthroughrigorous,systematicandreplicableprocedure.InTextB,TheNatureofInquiry,theauthorswillelaborateonhowscientificresearchdistinguishesitselffromcommon-senseknowing,howresearchersapproachrealitydifferently,andwhatphilosophicalassumptionsunderpineachapproach.

BackgroundInformation

Pre-readingQuestions

TextAWhyTeachResearchEthics

VocabularyExercisesTextAWhyTeachResearchEthicsContents1.Informationabouttheauthors2.Informationaboutresearchethics3.CulturalBackgroundInformationBackgroundInformationTextExplanation&TranslationOrganizationoftheTextTextAWhyTeachResearchEthics

Vocabulary1.CoreVocabularyList22.VocabularyExpandingtheNotionofThemetoLarger

StructuresthanClauseTheModeDifferenceofSpeech&WritingThethemeandrhymeaccordingtoFunctionallinguistThematicProgressionAcomparisonofspeechwithwritingTheModeDifferenceofSpeech&Writing

ThedifferencebetweenSpeech&writingCoreVocabularyListThematicProgressionExpandingtheNotionofThemetoLargerStructures

thanClause

l.ComprehensionIIWordStudyIIIClozeVWritingExercisesIVTranslationIComprehension

1.AnswerQuestions2.ParaphraseIVTranslation1.EnglishTranslation2.ChineseTranslationWhyTeachResearchEthics

selectedfrom“TheEthicsofScientificResearch”

HanoverandLondon:UniversityPressofNew

England,Hanover,1997.JudyE.Stern&DeniElliott1.Informationabouttheauthors2.InformationaboutresearchethicsBackgroundInformation3.CulturalBackgroundInformationJudyE.SternisaprofessorfromGieselSchoolofMedicineatDartmouthCollege.Herprofessionalinterestsincludeoutcomesofassistedreproductivetechnology,ethicalissuesinassistedreproduction,ethicalissuesinscientificresearchandreproductiveimmunology.D.Elliottisanethicistandethicsscholar,andhasbeenactiveinpracticalethicssincethe1980s.Background1.Informationabouttheauthors:Researchethicsinvolvestheapplicationoffundamentalethicalprinciplestoavarietyoftopicsinvolvingresearch,includingscientificresearch.Theseincludethedesignofresearchinvolvinghumanexperimentation,animalexperimentation,variousaspectsofacademicscandal,includingscientificmisconduct(suchasfraud,fabricationofdataandplagiarism),whistleblowing;regulationofresearch,etc.Researchethicsismostdevelopedasaconceptinmedicalresearch.Thekeyagreementhereisthe1974DeclarationofHelsinki.TheNurembergCodeisaformeragreement,butwithmanystillimportantnotes.Researchinthesocialsciencespresentsadifferentsetofissuesthanthoseinmedicalresearch.Background2.InformationaboutresearchethicsBackgroundSouthKoreanScientistHwangWoo-SukwasaccusedoffabricatingdataProfessorofXi’anJiaotongUniversityLiLianshengwasdeprivedoftheNationalAwardforplagiarism.Researchethicsinvolvestheapplicationoffundamentalethicalprinciplestoavarietyoftopicsonscientificresearch.Thesetopicsincludethedesignandimplementationofresearchinvolvinghumanexperimentation,animalexperimentation,variousaspectsofacademicscandal,includingscientificmisconduct(suchasfraud,fabricationofdataandplagiarism)whistleblowing,regulationofresearch,etc.Researchethicsismostdevelopedasaconceptinmedicalresearch.Thekeyagreementhereisthe1974DeclarationofHelsinki.TheNurembergCodeisaformeragreement,butNithmanystillimportantnotes.Researchinsocialsciencespresentsadifferentsetofissuesthanthoseinmedicalresearch.3.CulturalBackgroundInformationTheacademicresearchenterpriseisbuiltonafoundationoftrust.Researcherstrustthattheresultsreportedbyothersaresound.Societytruststhattheresultsofresearchreflectanhonestattemptbyscientistsandotherresearcherstodescribetheworldaccuratelyandwithoutbias.Butthistrustwillendureonlyifthescientificcommunitydevotesitselftoexemplifyingandtransmittingthevaluesassociatedwithethicalresearchconduct.Therearemanyethicalissuestobetakenintoseriousconsiderationforresearch.Sociologistsneedtobeawareofhavingtheresponsibilitytosecuretheactualpermissionandinterestsofallthoseinvolvedinthestudy.Theyshouldnotmisuseanyoftheinformationdiscovered,andthereshouldbeacertainmoralresponsibilitymaintainedtowardstheparticipants.Thereisadutytoprotecttherightsofpeopleinthestudyaswellastheirprivacyandsensitivity.Theconfidentialityofthoseinvolvedintheobservationmustbecarriedout,keepingtheiranonymityandprivacysecure.AspointedoutintheBSAforSociology,alloftheseethicsmustbehonoredunlessthereareotheroverridingreasonsnottodoso-forexample,anyillegalorterroristactivity.Q1:Hasyoursupervisorintroducedyoutotheresearchethicsinyourfield?Ifyes,howdidheorshedoso?Q2:Whatdoyouthinkisaneffectivewayofpreventingunethicalbehaviorsinscientificstudy?Q3:Whatisyourpersonalstanceontheacademicdishonestylikefakingdata,stealingideas,orusurpinglanguagewithoutattribution?Q4:Inyourmind,whatarethecriteriafor

agoodpracticeofscience?Pre-readingQuestions1.Recently,oneofushadtheopportunitytospeakwithamedicalstudentaboutaresearchrotationthatthestudentwasplanningtodo.ShewouldbeworkingwithDr.Z,whohadgivenhertheprojectofwritingapaperforwhichhehaddesignedtheprotocol,collectedthedata,andcompiledtheresults.Thestudentwastodoaliteraturesearchandwritethefirstdraftofthemanuscript.Forthisshewouldbecomefirstauthoronthefinalpublication.Whenconcernswereraisedabouttheproposedproject,Dr.Zwasshocked."lthoughtIwasdoingherafavor,"hesaidinnocently,"andbesides,Ihatewriting!"TextAWhyTeachResearchEthics1.最近，我們當(dāng)中的一員有機(jī)會(huì)與一名醫(yī)科學(xué)生談?wù)撍?jì)劃要做的一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室輪轉(zhuǎn)項(xiàng)目。她將與給她布置論文撰寫任務(wù)的Dr.Z一起完成該項(xiàng)目。Dr.Z已經(jīng)設(shè)計(jì)好研究工具，并收集數(shù)據(jù)，整理了實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果。該學(xué)生只需做做文獻(xiàn)檢索，然后撰寫初稿。這樣，在論文最終出版的時(shí)候，她就可以成為第一作者。然而，當(dāng)該項(xiàng)目受到越來越多非議時(shí)，Dr.Z震驚之余無辜地說，“我以為我是在幫她，而我也確實(shí)討厭寫作”。JudyE.Stern&DeniElliott2.Dr.Zisperhapsabitnaive.Certainly,mostresearcherswouldknowthatthestudent'sworkwouldnotmeritfirstauthorship.Theywouldknowthat"gift"authorshipisnotanacceptableresearchpractice.However,anearlierexperienceinourworkmakesuswonder.Severalyearsago,inconjunctionwiththegrantfromtheFundfortheImprovementofPottSecondaryEducation(FIPSE),ateamofphilosophersandscientistsatDartmouthCollege2ranaUniversitySeminarseriesforfacultyonthetopic"EthicalIssuesinscientificResearch."

2.Dr.Z或許有一點(diǎn)天真。當(dāng)然，大多數(shù)研究人員都知道，該學(xué)生所做的工作并不稱第一作者這個(gè)頭銜。他們知道，這種“贈(zèng)予”原創(chuàng)作者頭銜的做法，并不是可以接受的科研行為。然而，早期的工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)使我們產(chǎn)生疑問。若干年前，在高等教育改革（FIPSE）基金的援助下，一個(gè)由哲學(xué)家和科學(xué)家組成的團(tuán)隊(duì)在達(dá)特茅斯學(xué)院，為全體教員舉辦以“科學(xué)研究中的倫理問題”為主題的系列講座。Atoneseminar,aseniorresearcher(let'scallhimProfessorR)arguedasimilarpositiontothatofDr.Z.InthiscaseProfessorRknewthat"gift"authorship,authorshipwithoutasignificantresearchcontribution,wasanunacceptableresearchpractice.However,hehadareasontogiveauthorshiptohisstudent.在其中一次研討會(huì)上，一個(gè)資深研究員（讓我們叫他R教授）與Dr.Z持有相似的觀點(diǎn)。在這個(gè)案例中，R教授明知道把原創(chuàng)作者身份“贈(zèng)予”沒有研究貢獻(xiàn)的人是不符合學(xué)術(shù)道德規(guī)范的。然而，他卻有理由給他的學(xué)生一個(gè)作者身份。Thestudenthadworkedforseveralyearsonaprojectsuggestedbyhimandtheprojecthadyieldedtopublishabledata.Believingthathehadadutytothestudenttoensureapublication,ProfessorRhadgiventhestudentsomedatathathehimselfhadcollectedandtoldthestudenttowriteitup.Thestudenthadworkedhard,hesaid,albeitonanotherproject,andthestudentwoulddothewriting.Thus,hereasoned,theauthorshipwasnota"gift."因?yàn)檫@個(gè)學(xué)生已經(jīng)在他所建議的項(xiàng)目上花費(fèi)了幾年的功夫，然而卻沒能發(fā)表任何研究結(jié)果。他認(rèn)為他有責(zé)任幫助這名學(xué)生發(fā)表論文。于是R教授給了該學(xué)生一些他自己收集的數(shù)據(jù)，讓其撰寫一篇論文。R教授說這名學(xué)生一直努力的做項(xiàng)目，盡管不是同一項(xiàng)目，而且該生還負(fù)責(zé)論文寫作，所以他認(rèn)為原創(chuàng)作者頭銜并不算“贈(zèng)予”。3.Thesetwostoriespointupamajorreasonforencouragingcoursesinresearchethics:Goodintentionsdonotnecessarilyresultinethicaldecisions.Bothofthefacultymembersintheabovescenarios"meantwell."Inbothcases,thefacultymemberstrulybelievedthatwhattheyweredoingwasmorallyacceptable.Inthefirstcase,Dr.Z'sindefensibleerrorwasthathewasunawareoftheconventionsofthefield.3.這兩個(gè)故事都強(qiáng)調(diào)了推動(dòng)開設(shè)科研倫理課程的重要性，即：并非好的意愿就能引導(dǎo)人們做出正確的道德選擇。上述兩個(gè)情節(jié)中的教師本意是好的。這兩個(gè)案例中的教師認(rèn)為他們所做的事情在道德層面上是可以接受的。在第一個(gè)案例中，Dr.Z的解釋之所以站不住腳是因?yàn)樗麤]有意識(shí)到這一領(lǐng)域的公約。Inparticular,heseemedblissfullyoblivioustothemeaningoffirstauthorship.Inthesecondcase,ProfessorRwasdongwhathethoughtbestforthestudentwithouttakingintoconsiderationthatmoral.tyisapublicsystemandthathisactionswithregardtoasinglestudenthavepublicconsequencesforthepracticeofscienceasaprofession.而他似乎也遺忘了第一作者的概念。在第二個(gè)案例中，R教授自認(rèn)為他所做的事情都是對(duì)他學(xué)生最有益的，然而卻沒有考慮道德是一個(gè)公共體系，他對(duì)這一名學(xué)生的做法卻對(duì)科學(xué)研究產(chǎn)生了公共影響。4.Well-meaningscientists,suchasthosejustmentioned,can,withthebestofintentions,makeunethicaldecisions.Insomecases,suchdecisionsmayleadindividualstobecomeembroiledincasesofmisconduct.Acourseinresearchethicscanhelpsuchscientiststoappreciatethatitistheirresponsibilitytoknowprofessionalconventionsaswellastounderstandthepublicnatureofmorality.4.例如剛剛提到的那些善意的科學(xué)家，他們的意圖是好的，但卻做出了不道德的決定。一些情況下，這樣的決定可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致個(gè)人卷入到學(xué)術(shù)不端的指控中。科研倫理課程可以幫助這樣的科學(xué)家明白，他們有責(zé)任去了解職業(yè)慣例以及公共道德的本質(zhì)。5.Therearescientistsforwhomacourseinresearchethicswillbelessuseful.EfraimRacker,ina1989article,describedastudentinhislabwhowasa"professional"fabricatorofdata.Thisstudentcomposedlabbookswithoutperformingexperiments,addedradioactivematerialtogelstoproducebandswherehewishedthosebandstobe,andliedtohiscolleaguesabouthisactions.Anotherresearcher,EliasAlsabti,describedbyD.J.Miller,wasameticulousplagiarizer.5.對(duì)于有些科學(xué)家來說，科研倫理課程可能作用并不大。EfraimRacker在其1989年發(fā)表的文章中描述了一個(gè)他實(shí)驗(yàn)室里“專業(yè)的”數(shù)據(jù)造假者。這名學(xué)生沒做實(shí)驗(yàn)就拼湊出實(shí)驗(yàn)書，在凝膠中添加放射性材料來合成他想要的繃帶，并欺瞞他的同事。D.J.Miller描述的另一位研究者EliasAlsabti是一個(gè)細(xì)心的剽竊者。Thisphysician-researcherfabricatedhiscurriculumvitae,copiedacolleague'sgrantforhisownuse,publishedotherpeople'sdataunderhisownname,andco-authoredhispilfereddatawithfictitiouscollaborators.Individualssuchastheseareunlikelytolearnresearchethicsthroughinstructionbecausetheyarenotinterestedinbecomingethicalpractitioners.這位醫(yī)師編造個(gè)人履歷，抄襲同事的基金申請(qǐng)書為己所用，以個(gè)人名義發(fā)表他人數(shù)據(jù)，并虛構(gòu)合作者一起用剽竊的數(shù)據(jù)合寫論文。像這樣的人是不會(huì)通過課程學(xué)習(xí)研究倫理的，因?yàn)樗麄儗?duì)學(xué)術(shù)道德并不感興趣。6.Theethicsofscientificresearchissomewhatuniquewithinprofessionalethicsinthesensethatgoodsciencerequirestheethicalpracticeofscience.Nevertheless,acourseinresearchethicscannotandshouldnothaveasitscentralfocusthequestion,"WhyshouldIbemoral?Thisquestion,whileimportant,isnotspecifictothefieldofscientificresearch.6.某種程度上講，科學(xué)研究倫理屬于職業(yè)道德的范疇，并且是獨(dú)一無二的。而一定意義上，好的科學(xué)研究要求符合道德規(guī)范的工作。然而，一門學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程不能夠也不應(yīng)該把“我為什么應(yīng)該遵守道德？”作為焦點(diǎn)問題。這個(gè)問題雖然重要，但并不只是具體針對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)研究領(lǐng)域。正如達(dá)特茅斯團(tuán)隊(duì)預(yù)想的那樣，一門學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程必須教會(huì)大家如何就科學(xué)研究做出有道德的決策。這將是專門為那些致力于成為遵守道德規(guī)范的研究人員而設(shè)計(jì)的課程。這樣的一門課程將會(huì)給學(xué)生提供這個(gè)問題的答案，“我怎樣才能做出一個(gè)符合道德的決定？”Acourseinresearchethics,asenvisionedbytheDartmouthteam,mustbeacoursethatteachesthetoolsformakingethicaldecisionsrelativetomattersofresearch.Itwillbedesignedforthosescientistswhoarealreadycommittedtobeingethicalresearchers.Suchacourseshouldprovidestudentstheanswerstothequestion,"HowcanImakemoraldecisions?"

7Althoughitisthefabricatorsandtheplagiarizerswhomwemostoftenthinkofwhenwethinkofresearchmisconduct,thesearenottheonlypeopleaccusedofmisconduct.Theyareasonottheonlypeoplewhoareguiltyofmisconduct.Manyotherscientistshavehadliveandcareersaffectedbymisconductcases.7.雖然當(dāng)我們思考學(xué)術(shù)不端時(shí)，大多數(shù)時(shí)候我們想到的是數(shù)據(jù)造假者或者剽竊者，但是這些人并不是唯一被指控學(xué)術(shù)不端的人。同樣，他們也不是唯一被認(rèn)定學(xué)術(shù)不端的人。許多科學(xué)家的生活和事業(yè)都曾受到了學(xué)術(shù)不端事件的影響。8Itisundoubtedlyunfairtogeneralizefromafewcasesofmisconducttoanentireprofession.Nevertheless,reportedcasesofmisconductarenotuncommon,andthiscouldreflectafailuretotrainstudentstothehighestethicalstandards.The1993OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)4publicationreportedthe1991-1992caseloadtoinclude29institutionalinquiries,21institutionalinvestigations,andORIinquiriesorinvestigations.The1995ORIpublicationreportedthe1994caseloadas13institutionalinquiries,17institutionalinvestigations,and80RIinquiriesorinvestigations.8.然而，僅憑一些學(xué)術(shù)不端的個(gè)案來推論整個(gè)行業(yè)無疑是不公平的。不過已披露的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的確不在少數(shù)，這也反映了學(xué)生道德培養(yǎng)水平仍有待提高。1993年，科研誠信辦公室（ORI）的報(bào)告公布了其在1991年至1992年期間，對(duì)其自身以及29個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的訪談?dòng)涗浐?1個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查結(jié)果。1995年，該研究室的報(bào)告又涵蓋了1994年對(duì)于13個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的訪問和對(duì)17個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)的調(diào)查，以及8份該研究室的調(diào)查研究。近些年（1991至1992年55件；1994年44件）的調(diào)查顯示出，學(xué)術(shù)行為中主要涉及偽造、篡改、剽竊等，甚至多種不端行為的并存的情況。對(duì)于已結(jié)案件的調(diào)查中，僅有不足一半的涉及不斷行為，而且對(duì)被告方也實(shí)施了相應(yīng)的制裁。當(dāng)事人的學(xué)術(shù)職稱從技術(shù)人員到教授不等。案件多由科研機(jī)構(gòu)自己披露，并且當(dāng)事人均受到各種基金的資助。Ofactionsclosedintheseyears(5in1991-1992;44in1994),someinvolvedfabrication,somefalsification,someplagiarism,andotherssomecombinationoffabrication,falsification,plagiarism,and"othermisconduct."Slightlyfewerthanhalfoftheinvestigatedcasesclosedasofthesereportswerefoundtoinvolvemisconductandresultedinsanctionagainsttheaccusedparty.Theacademicrankoftheaccusedrangedfromtechniciantofullprofessor.Caseswerereportedfromanumberofinstitutions,andtheaccusedpartieswerefundedbyavarietyoffundingsources.9Casesofmisconductarenotsimplematterstoevaluate.Onesourceofconcernisconfusionwithinliefieldofscienceaboutjustwhatconstitutesapunishableinfringementofethicalstandards.Inthefieldsofengineering,law,andmedicine,clearwrittenguidelinesexistfordefiningethicalconduct.Althoughsomeparticularlydifficultcasesmaytestthelimitsoftheseguidelines,mostdonot.Inscientificresearch,awrittencodeofconductisnotavailable.9.學(xué)術(shù)不端并不是能夠簡(jiǎn)單評(píng)價(jià)的問題。其中一個(gè)重要問題是，在科學(xué)領(lǐng)域里，對(duì)于什么樣的行為有違倫理規(guī)范，應(yīng)當(dāng)受到懲罰，仍然模棱兩可。工程，法律，和醫(yī)學(xué)領(lǐng)域?qū)Φ赖滦袨榈亩x有明確的書面指導(dǎo)原則。雖然某些特別復(fù)雜的案例會(huì)挑戰(zhàn)這些原則的底線，但多數(shù)原則具有指導(dǎo)意義?？茖W(xué)研究也并不提供書面的行為準(zhǔn)則。Thefederalgovernmentandindividualinstitutionshavebeenstrugglingtoclarifythestandardsunderwhichmisconductcanbeadjudicated.Thecentraldefinitionsthatdelineatemisconductinscienceincludefabrication,falsification,andplagiarism.However,theseareconfusedbyotherlessclearcategoriesofmisconduct,whichinclude"otherquestionablebehavior"or"othermisconduct."Withinthisconfusionofdefinitionsitisnotalwaysobvioustostudentsorfacultywhereandtowardwhomtheirobligationslie.聯(lián)邦政府和私人機(jī)構(gòu)一直試圖闡明學(xué)術(shù)不端行為的裁定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，比如一些描述科研不端行為的核心定義，包括編造，篡改和等等。然而這些行為容易與包含“可疑行為”在內(nèi)的其他不太確定的類別相互混淆。這些混淆的定義讓學(xué)生和教職人員也不是很清楚他們到底承擔(dān)哪些責(zé)任和義務(wù)？10Complicatingtheconfusiongeneratedbythewayinwhichwedefineresearchmisconductistheteachingprocessbywhichstudentsroutinelylearnabouttheethicalobligationsoftheirprofession.Traditionallyascientisttrainswithasinglementor.Fromthismentoringrelationshipthegraduatestudentisexpectedtolearnaboutscientificmethod,thebodyofknowledgethatconstitutesthespecificfieldofsciencesheisstudying,andthe"institution"ofscience.10.我們對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)不端的定義往往會(huì)帶來困惑，而學(xué)生們?nèi)粘W(xué)習(xí)職業(yè)道德規(guī)范的過程則更加劇了人們的困惑。傳統(tǒng)而言，一位科研工作者要接受導(dǎo)師的培訓(xùn)指導(dǎo)。通過指導(dǎo)，這名研究會(huì)學(xué)到科學(xué)研究方法，構(gòu)成她得學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的知識(shí)體系，和科學(xué)的“制度。Whatislearnedabouttheinstitutionofscienceincludesknowledgeofthemechanicsofobtainingfunding,informationonthewritingofgrantsandpapers,andanunderstandingoftherolesandresponsibilitiesformaintainingandsharingresearchdata.Aspartofherinstructioninalloftheseareas,itisassumedthatshewillalsolearntheethicsofscientificresearch.這些“制度”包括獲取經(jīng)費(fèi)的技術(shù)性細(xì)節(jié)，關(guān)于基金申請(qǐng)和論文撰寫的知識(shí)，以及在維護(hù)和共享研究數(shù)據(jù)中的角色和職責(zé)的理解。除了以上這些方面，科學(xué)研究的倫理據(jù)信也將是她課程學(xué)習(xí)的一部分。11InthecaseofthestoryofDr.Zabove,itisclearthatDr.Z'srelationshipwithhismentordidnotresultinhishavinglearnedabasicconventionofthefield.So,itisnotsurprisingthatDr.Zwaspreparedtopasshisunrecognizedconfusiontoastudentwhowasworkingwithhim.Mentoringrelationshipswithinscienceeducationdonotnecessarilyresultinadequatefamiliaritywiththeethicsofresearch.11.以Dr.Z的案子為例，很顯然，Dr.Z與他的導(dǎo)師的關(guān)系并沒有使他學(xué)到了這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的一個(gè)基本公約。所以，隨后Dr.Z把他的困惑傳遞給了他的學(xué)生，也就不足為奇了。因此，科學(xué)教育中的師徒關(guān)系不一定能使學(xué)生充分了解學(xué)術(shù)道德。12JudithSwazey5oftheAcadiaInstitutehasstudiedthisissueandpresentssomeverydistressingdataoftheefficacyofmentoringrelationshipsingraduateeducation.Although89%of2,000graduatestudentrespondentsfrom98departmentsofmajorresearchinstitutionssaidthattheyrelatedtoasinglefacultymemberwhowasparticularlysupportiveoftheirwork,lessthan45%ofstudentsfeltthatthisfaculty

membergavethem"alot"ofhelptowardteachingthemthedetailsofgoodresearchpractice,and15to20%ofthestudentsfeltthatthehelptheygotinthisareawas"none."12.阿卡迪亞學(xué)院的Judith

Swazey對(duì)這一問題進(jìn)行了研究，研究數(shù)據(jù)顯示研究生教育中師徒關(guān)系的效果令人失望。在對(duì)98所主要研究機(jī)構(gòu)中抽取的2000名研究生的調(diào)查中，89%的受訪者說他們只與一位非常支持他們工作的師長(zhǎng)有聯(lián)系，不到45%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為這為師長(zhǎng)在告訴他們?nèi)绾翁岣哐芯抠|(zhì)量的細(xì)節(jié)方面，給了他們“許多”幫助。15%—20%的學(xué)生覺得他們?cè)谶@一領(lǐng)域沒有收獲。Fewerthan45%ofstudentsbelievedthattheygot"alot"ofhelpfulcriticismonaregularbasis.Inthemajorityofcases,studentsfeltthattheirfacultysupportpersondidnotprovidethetypeofmentoringrelationshipthatonewouldhopeforintheethicstrainingofaresearchscientist.不足45%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為他們定期的得到了很多有益的批評(píng)教育。但在大多數(shù)情況下，學(xué)生覺得與支持他們的師長(zhǎng)并沒有建立那種他們希望的關(guān)系，一種可以從中學(xué)習(xí)到的一個(gè)科學(xué)家需要具備的學(xué)術(shù)道德的關(guān)系。13WhenSwazeyaskedstudentstocomparetherolethatadepartmentshouldtakeinpreparingstudentstorecognizeanddealwithethicalissuesintheirfieldtotheroleactuallytakenbythedepartment,herresultswereequallydisturbing.Eighty-twopercentofstudentsfeltthedepartmentshouldtakean"active"or"veryactive"roleinthisprocess,whileonly22%feltthatanactiveorveryactiverolewasactuallytaken.13.在辨別和應(yīng)對(duì)學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的道德問題方面，Swazey讓學(xué)生們比較所在院系應(yīng)起的作用和實(shí)際所起的作用，結(jié)果同樣令人擔(dān)憂。82%的學(xué)生覺得院系應(yīng)該起到“積極的”或“非常積極的”作用，而只有22%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為所在院系起到了“積極的”和“非常積極的”作用。14Theperceptionsoffacultywerenotmuchdifferentfromthoseofthestudents.Ninety-ninepercentof2,000facultymemberssurveyedfeltthat"academicsshouldexercisecollectiveresponsibilityfortheprofessionalconductoftheirgraduatestudents;"only27%ofthesefacultyfeltthattheyfollowedthroughwiththisresponsibility.14.教職人員和學(xué)生們的看法沒有多大的不同。在接受調(diào)查的2000名教職人員中，有99%的人認(rèn)為“學(xué)者們”應(yīng)該對(duì)研究生的職業(yè)行為負(fù)有集體責(zé)任，而只有27%的教職人員認(rèn)為他們履行了這一職責(zé)。15Thesedataprovideevidencetoindicatethatindividualmentoringisalessthanadequateteachingmethodforethics.Ifthemajorityofstudentsdonotreceivementoringthatleavesthemwithaclearunderstandingoftheirresponsibilitiesasscientists,thencasesofunintentionalmisconductandquestionablepracticeareinevitable.15.這些數(shù)據(jù)提供的證據(jù)表明，單獨(dú)的師生指導(dǎo)并不是最理想的道德教育方法。如果大多數(shù)學(xué)生所接受的指導(dǎo)，不能讓他們清晰地了解科研工作者的職責(zé)所在，那么無意識(shí)的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為與可疑的學(xué)術(shù)不端行為將在所難免。16TheroleandimportanceofethicseducationhavebeguntoberecognizedbytheNIH.GuidelinesforNIFresearchtraininggrantsnowrequireaminimalnumberofhoursofethicseducatio'1.Ethicsneednotbetaughtwithinasinglegraduatecourse,butitisbeginningtoberecognizedthateducationinthebasicconventionsofthefieldandinthebasicapproachestoethicaldecisionmakingcannolongerbelefttoone-on-onementoringalone.16.美國國立衛(wèi)生研究院首先認(rèn)識(shí)到學(xué)術(shù)道德教育的作用和重要性。美國國立衛(wèi)生研究院資助的研究培訓(xùn)指南要求用最短時(shí)間完成學(xué)術(shù)道德教育。學(xué)術(shù)道德不需要以單獨(dú)一門課程講授，但是人們開始認(rèn)識(shí)到，學(xué)科基本慣例和道德決策的基本方法不能再僅僅依賴一對(duì)一的師生指導(dǎo)。Astheever-dwindlingavailabilityofresearchfundsfuelsthefireofcompetition,therewillbeincreasedpressureonscientiststobendorbreakrules.Researchlaboratories,particularlylargegroupswheresomestudentsrarelyseetheirfacultyadvisers,cannotbeassumedtoteachresearchethics,oreventotrainstudentsinallresearchconventions.由于科研基金數(shù)量持續(xù)減少，業(yè)內(nèi)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)愈發(fā)激烈，更多的科學(xué)家將迫于壓力而打破規(guī)則。尤其是在大型的研究實(shí)驗(yàn)室，學(xué)生很少能見到他們的指導(dǎo)教師，所以無法指望實(shí)驗(yàn)室教授學(xué)術(shù)道德，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生科研規(guī)范。17.無論科研倫理是通過一個(gè)課程，一系列課程或是穿插在研究生課程中的研討班來學(xué)習(xí)，學(xué)生顯然需要更多的機(jī)會(huì)接觸學(xué)術(shù)道德。研究倫理需要而且必須以正式的方式教授。我們相信，在堅(jiān)實(shí)的哲學(xué)理論框架指引下，學(xué)術(shù)倫理課程一定會(huì)給廣大學(xué)子帶來長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的益處。17Whetherscientificethicsisapproachedthroughasinglecourseoraseriesofcoursesorseminarsthroughoutthegraduatecurriculum,ithasbecomeobviousthatstudentsneedexposuretoethicsinanumberofcontexts.Researchethicscanandmustbetaughtinaformalizedmanner.Itisourbeliefthatcoursesinresearchethicsthatincorporateasolidphilosophicalframeworkhavethegreatestpotentialforlong-termusefulnesstostudents.(1902words)1JudyE.SternisaprofessorfromGieselSchoolofMedicineatDartmouthCollege.Herprofessionalinterestsincludeoutcomesofassistedreproductivetechnology,ethicalissuesinassistedreproduction,ethicalissuesinscientificresearchandreproductiveimmunology.Deni.Etliottisanethicistandethicsscholar,andhasbeenactiveinpracticalethicssincethe1980s.Zhushi

DartmouthCollege,commonlyreferredtoasDartmouth,isaprivateIvyLeagueresearchuniversitylocatedinHanover,NewHampshire.IncorporatedastheTrusteesofDartmouthCollege,"itisoneofthenineColonialCollegesfoundedbeforetheAmericanRevolution.Withanundergraduateenrollmentof4,194andatotalstudentenrollmentof6,144,DartmouthisthesmallestuniversityintheIvyLeague3Curriculumvitae(CV)isanequivalentofresume,whichprovidesanoverviewofaperson'sexperienceandotherqualifications.Insomecountries,aCVistypicallythefirstitemthatapotentialemployerencountersregardingthejobseekerandistypicallyusedtoscreenapplicants,oftenfollowedbyaninterview.OfficeofResearchIntegrity(ORI)isoneofthebodiesconcernedwithresearchintegrityintheUnitedStates.TheOfficeofResearchIntegrityoverseesanddirectsthePublicHealthService(PHS)researchintegrityactivitiesonbehalfoftheSecretaryofHealthandHumanServiceswiththeexceptionoftheregulatoryresearchintegrityactivitiesoftheFoodandDrugAdministration.5JudithP.SwazeyispresidentofTheAcadiaInstitute.Shereceivedabachelor'sdegreefromWellesleyCollegeandaPh.D.inthehistoryofsciencefromHarvardUniversity.

MainIdeaPartOne:

(Para.1-3)PartTwo(Para.4-8)PartThree(Para.9-16)Partfour(Para.17)OrganizationoftheTextTwostoriesoffacultymembers’involvementwithacademicmisconductrevealthenecessityethicaltraininginscientificpractice.TherampantoccurrencesofacademicdishonestycallforgreaterattentiontothegravityoftheissueTraditionalindividualmentoringisinadequatetotrainingthewould-bescientists’ethicalbehaviorsbecauseresearchmisconducttooelusivetodefine.Restatementofthenecessityandimportanceofincorporatingethicalcoursesintotheeducationofbroadersense.protocolembroiladjudicatecompilemeticulousdelineatefacultyfictitiousincorporatealbeitpractitionerpilferscenariosanctionenvisionobliviousinfringementcaseloadCoreVocabularyListprotocol

/?pr??t?k?l/n.theacceptedorestablished

codeofprocedureorbehaviorinanygroup,

organization,orsituation科學(xué)實(shí)驗(yàn)報(bào)告/計(jì)劃；（外交條

約）草案；協(xié)議...acomputerprotocolwhichcouldcommunicateacrossdifferentlanguages.…一個(gè)可以在不同的語言之間傳遞信息的計(jì)算機(jī)協(xié)議。...theMontrealProtocoltophaseoutuseandproductionofCFCs.…逐步停止使用和生產(chǎn)含氯氟烴的《蒙特利爾議定書》。kyotoprotocol京都議定書networkprotocol網(wǎng)絡(luò)協(xié)議CoreVocabularycompile

/k?m?p??l/v.collect(information)in

ordertoproducealistorbook匯編;匯集Thebooktook10yearstocompile.這本書花了10年編寫。CoreVocabularyfaculty/?fak(?)lti/n.agroupofuniversity

departmentsconcernedwithamajordivision

ofknowledge全體教職工Thefacultyagreedonachangeintherequirements.全體教員同意改變要求。Howcanfacultyimprovetheirteachingsoastoencouragecreativity?全體教員怎樣才能改進(jìn)教學(xué)以便激發(fā)創(chuàng)造力？facultymember教職工facultyandstaff教職員facultyandstudents教師和學(xué)生CoreVocabularyalbeit

/??l?bi??t/conj.thoughCharles'sletterwasindeedpublished,albeitinasomewhatabbreviatedform.查爾斯的信確實(shí)被刊登了出來，盡管有些刪節(jié)。Albeitfai,thegirlwasnotsoughtafter.那姑娘雖然漂亮，但不是被愛慕的女子。CoreVocabularyscenario/s??nɑ?r???/n.awrittenoutlineofa

film,novel,orstageworkgivingdetailsof

theplotandindividualscenes劇情概要，方案，分

鏡頭劇本Afastdiskencryptionalgorithmtargetedatthespecificapplicationscenarioofdiskencryptionisdevised.針對(duì)硬盤加密的特定應(yīng)用場(chǎng)景，設(shè)計(jì)并實(shí)現(xiàn)了快速硬盤加密算法。Verificationistheimportantpartofsimulationscenariosystem.校驗(yàn)是仿真想定系統(tǒng)組成中的重要部分。CoreVocabularyoblivious

/??bl?v??s/adj.notawareofor

concernedaboutwhatishappeningar