研究生英语综合教程UNIT1课文及翻译(含汉译英英译汉)PDF版

UNIT1

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 with 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 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!"

2. Dr. Z is perhaps a bit naive. Certainly, most researchers would know that the student's 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 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."

At one seminar, a senior researcher (let's 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 significant research contribution, was an unacceptable research practice. However, he had a reason to give authorship to his student.

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 collected 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."

3. These two stories point up a major reason for encouraging courses in research ethics: Good intentions do not necessarily 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. Z's indefensible error was that he was unaware of the conventions of the field.

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 without 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.

4. Well-meaning scientists, 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 1. 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个实验室轮转项目。她将与给她布置论文撰写任务的Dr.Z一起完成该项目。Dr.Z已经设计好研究工具，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。然而，当该项目受到越来越多非议时，Dr.Z震惊之余无辜地说，“我以为我是在帮她，而我也确实讨厌写作”。

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。在其中一次研讨会上，一个资深研究员（让我们叫他R教授）与Dr.Z持有相似的观点。在这个案例中，R教授明知道把原创作者身份“赠予”没有研究贡献的人是不符合学术道德规范的。然而，他却有理由给他的学生一个作者身份。

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”。

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。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. 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