編輯單位
中國社會(huì )科學(xué)評價(jià)研究院
哲學(xué)社會(huì )科學(xué)科研誠信管理辦公室
前言
2019年9月,應挪威北歐創(chuàng )新研究與教育研究所的邀請,中國社會(huì )科學(xué)評價(jià)研究院院長(cháng)荊林波等一行四人出訪(fǎng)挪威,實(shí)地走訪(fǎng)了挪威北歐創(chuàng )新研究與教育研究所、挪威大學(xué)等學(xué)術(shù)機構,就社會(huì )科學(xué)評價(jià)、科研誠信等主題開(kāi)展了交流與研討。各機構對評價(jià)院的工作和研究成果給予了高度評價(jià),調研取得了豐富成果,我們通過(guò)對挪威有關(guān)機構的走訪(fǎng),加深了彼此了解,并與有關(guān)機構簽訂了合作備忘錄,為進(jìn)一步加強與歐洲各學(xué)術(shù)機構的國際合作奠定了基礎。
在挪威訪(fǎng)問(wèn)期間,我們與來(lái)自挪威教育和研究部、挪威研究理事會(huì )、挪威大學(xué)國家出版委員會(huì ),以及挪威全國人文社會(huì )科學(xué)研究倫理委員會(huì )的多位專(zhuān)家舉行了座談。挪威全國人文社會(huì )科學(xué)研究倫理委員會(huì )專(zhuān)家Vidar Enebakk在會(huì )上介紹了挪威在科研誠信工作方面取得的成績(jì)和進(jìn)展,對挪威科研誠信工作各階段的歷史背景和挪威科研倫理機構的概況進(jìn)行了介紹,并介紹了挪威科研誠信體系建設、相關(guān)法規以及研究成果。它山之石可以攻玉,作為此次調研和交流的成果之一,我們希望把調研期間了解到的挪威在科研誠信工作方面的做法譯介回國內。
在挪威,國家科研倫理委員會(huì )是一個(gè)獨立的機構,負責各學(xué)科領(lǐng)域科研倫理和不當行為的調查,其下設有全國醫學(xué)與健康科研倫理委員會(huì )(NEM)、全國人文社會(huì )科學(xué)研究倫理委員會(huì )(NESH)、全國科學(xué)技術(shù)研究倫理委員會(huì )(NENT)、國家科研不端行為調查委員會(huì )、全國人類(lèi)遺產(chǎn)科研倫理委員會(huì )以及秘書(shū)處等部門(mén),其中,全國人文社會(huì )科學(xué)研究倫理委員會(huì )(NESH)成立于1990年,由十二名委員組成,含兩名專(zhuān)業(yè)代表和十名具有不同專(zhuān)業(yè)背景的成員。
NESH的章程規定,除其他事項外,委員會(huì )負責制定《社會(huì )科學(xué)、人文學(xué)科、法學(xué)和宗教學(xué)科研倫理指南》。指南第一版于1993年發(fā)布,并分別于1999年、2006年和2016年進(jìn)行了修訂,發(fā)布了新的版本。該指南是委員會(huì )對具體研究項目進(jìn)行評估時(shí)的主要依據,而在挪威,想要在研究項目中維護科研倫理的研究人員,會(huì )主動(dòng)要求NESH進(jìn)行項目評估。相應的,自然科學(xué)領(lǐng)域的《科學(xué)技術(shù)研究倫理指南》則由NENT負責制定。
我們把這兩份重要指南最新版本中的部分內容,連同由挪威國家研究倫理委員會(huì )于2014年制定的《科研倫理的一般準則》翻譯成中文,以期體系性地介紹挪威在科研誠信工作方面取得的成績(jì)和有效做法,從而為我國的科研誠信工作提供有益的借鑒。
哲學(xué)社會(huì )科學(xué)科研誠信管理辦公室
2020年2月
目錄
1.科研倫理的一般準則
2.社會(huì )科學(xué)、人文學(xué)科、法學(xué)和宗教學(xué) 科研倫理指南 (節選)
3.科學(xué)技術(shù)研究倫理指南(節選)
4.General guidelines for research ethics
5.Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology (excerpts)
6.Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology(excerpts)
科研對個(gè)人、社會(huì )和全球發(fā)展都至關(guān)重要。在所有這些層面上,科研都發(fā)揮了巨大作用。出于這兩點(diǎn)原因,科研必須以合乎倫理的方式進(jìn)行。
原則:
尊重。參與研究的人員,無(wú)論是以線(xiàn)人還是其他方式,都應受到尊重。
良好的結果。研究人員應設法確保其活動(dòng)產(chǎn)生良好的結果,并且任何不良后果均應在可接受范圍內。
公平。所有研究項目應公平地設計和實(shí)施。
誠信。研究人員應遵守公認的準則,并對同事和公眾采取負責任、公開(kāi)和誠實(shí)的行為。
1. 追求真理
科研活動(dòng)是對新知識的探求,需要進(jìn)行批判的、系統的驗證和同行評審。誠實(shí)、開(kāi)放、系統性和文件化是實(shí)現這一目標的基本前提。
2. 學(xué)術(shù)自由
研究機構應協(xié)助確保研究人員在選題、方法、研究實(shí)施和成果發(fā)表方面的自由。在委托研究中,委托機構有權與承擔委托任務(wù)的個(gè)人或機構合作,確定課題、研究的問(wèn)題和范圍,但不應試圖過(guò)度影響對研究方法、研究實(shí)施或成果發(fā)表的選擇。
3. 質(zhì)量
研究應具有較高的學(xué)術(shù)質(zhì)量。研究人員和機構必須具備必要的能力,設計相關(guān)的研究問(wèn)題,選擇適當的研究方法,并確保在數據收集、數據處理和材料的安全保存、存儲方面采取合理、適當的行為。
4. 自愿知情同意
征得同意是對個(gè)人或與個(gè)人相關(guān)的信息和材料進(jìn)行研究時(shí)的主要準則。征得同意應該是知情的、明確的、自愿的和可記錄的。征得同意的前提是對方有能力表示同意。為了確保自愿的真實(shí)性,如果存在參與者與研究者之間有從屬關(guān)系或者自由受到限制的情況,必須保持警惕。
5. 保密
一般情況下,成為研究對象的人員有權對其個(gè)人信息進(jìn)行保密。研究人員必須防止任何有可能對研究對象造成損害的信息的使用和傳播。無(wú)論保密責任是怎樣的,研究人員都有避免實(shí)施應受懲罰的行為的法律義務(wù)。研究人員必須決定何時(shí),以及以何種方式,告知參與者在保密義務(wù)方面的限制。
6. 公正
公正意味著(zhù)避免混淆角色和關(guān)系,以免引起對利益沖突的合理懷疑。必須保持研究人員與同事、研究參與者、財務(wù)來(lái)源和其他相關(guān)方之間有關(guān)角色和關(guān)系的公開(kāi)性。
7. 誠信
研究者對自己研究的可信度負責。捏造、偽造、剽竊以及類(lèi)似的嚴重違反學(xué)術(shù)規范的行為,都與這種誠信不符。
8. 良好的引文規范
研究人員必須遵守良好的引文規范,這些規范必須滿(mǎn)足可驗證性的要求,并為進(jìn)一步研究提供基礎。
9. 共同協(xié)商
研究人員必須互相尊重。他們必須就數據的所有權和共享、作者身份、發(fā)表、同行評議和總體合作等方面的規范達成共識并遵守這些規范。
10. 研究機構的責任
遵守科研倫理的責任不僅在研究人員個(gè)人,也在研究機構。研究機構負責確保遵守良好的學(xué)術(shù)規范,并建立機制處理涉嫌違反科研倫理規范的案件。
11. 研究結果可公開(kāi)
一般情況下,研究結果應該公開(kāi)。公開(kāi)研究結果對于確保研究結果的可驗證性,對于研究參與者和整個(gè)社會(huì )的獲利,以及對于確保與公眾對話(huà)都至關(guān)重要。這種交流也是民主體制的功能之一。
12. 社會(huì )責任
研究人員負有獨立的責任,確保他們的研究對研究參與者、相關(guān)團體或整個(gè)社會(huì )有益,并防止其造成傷害。研究決策必須考慮到研究領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展可能會(huì )對個(gè)人、動(dòng)物、社會(huì )或環(huán)境造成倫理上不可接受的后果。在參與公眾討論時(shí),研究人員必須清楚地區分以專(zhuān)家身份發(fā)表的專(zhuān)業(yè)意見(jiàn)和以個(gè)人身份發(fā)表的意見(jiàn),并避免濫用權威,這是絕對必要的。
13. 全球責任
研究機構和研究人員有責任將相關(guān)知識傳播到那些因經(jīng)濟落后而被排除在外的地區。研究應有助于消除全球不公平現象,并保護生物多樣性。
14. 法律法規
研究領(lǐng)域內有國家法律和法規以及適用的國際公約和協(xié)議的,研究人員和研究機構必須遵守這些法律和法規。
科研倫理指南(節選)
A)科研活動(dòng),社會(huì )與倫理道德
1. 科研規范和科研價(jià)值
科研人員必須遵守社會(huì )公認的科研道德規范。
科學(xué)研究是追求創(chuàng )新、改進(jìn)和更深刻理解的過(guò)程。科學(xué)研究是由各種具體情況和價(jià)值觀(guān)念支配的,具有系統性和社會(huì )性特點(diǎn)的有組織活動(dòng)。追求真理是科學(xué)最基本的義務(wù),然而科學(xué)研究永遠無(wú)法完全實(shí)現這一目標。大多數的研究結論只能在特定條件下成立的。盡管如此,規范科研標準本身還是有價(jià)值的,其可作為科研社團共同追求真理過(guò)程中的指導方針和管理原則。
復雜和理解復雜是人文社會(huì )科學(xué)研究過(guò)程中不可或缺的部分。不同的學(xué)術(shù)方法和理論立場(chǎng)對同一事物會(huì )有不同但合理的解釋。因此,更重要的是去沉思和理解個(gè)人價(jià)值觀(guān)念、態(tài)度是如何影響個(gè)人對問(wèn)題、數據來(lái)源和解釋的選擇。無(wú)論科研人員的價(jià)值觀(guān)、所持觀(guān)念和立場(chǎng)如何,文獻的完整性、論證的前后一致性、評價(jià)的公正性和對不確定因素的坦誠都是科研倫理道德的常見(jiàn)義務(wù)。
2. 科研自由
科研人員和科研組織有責任維護科研的獨立和自由,特別是在充滿(mǎn)爭議的項目(課題)中或戰略因素和商業(yè)因素對科研活動(dòng)施加過(guò)多壓力和約束。
有關(guān)原創(chuàng )、公開(kāi)和信賴(lài)的科研規范可能會(huì )和其他當事人限制或控制科研活動(dòng)的欲望相沖突。必須保護科研活動(dòng)不受來(lái)自外部或內部對明確定義問(wèn)題探索的壓力,這些壓力錯綜復雜,可能來(lái)自財政、政治、社會(huì )、文化或者是宗教利益、宗教傳統。這也是為什么在2007年為學(xué)術(shù)自由立法的原因,指令學(xué)術(shù)組織促進(jìn)和保護學(xué)術(shù)自由。 不過(guò),Universities and Colleges Act此部法律匯編只有保護科研獨立這一條準則,但如今的法律中,教學(xué)和科研還必須遵守社會(huì )公認的科學(xué)準則和道德準則。論證的合理性和相關(guān)性,證明材料的質(zhì)量是研究結論和發(fā)展新知識的基礎,而不是科研界內外任何已存在的利益、傳統。
科研人員和科研組織需要將研究成果公開(kāi)和發(fā)表的職責與義務(wù)要求其不得保留或有選擇地報告結果和結論。任何強加控制研究結果方向的企圖都是非法的。要做出安排以保障科研組織的獨立性和組織內科研人員的獨立性。科研活動(dòng)預先設定了追求、生產(chǎn)知識以及向更廣泛的公眾傳播知識的自由。
在基礎研究、應用研究和委托研究中,科研獨立性的程度有所不同。盡管如此,任何合理和盡責的科研活動(dòng)都應免受外界壓力。此外根據教育和研究部的Standard agreement for research and report(2012)中的規定,需指定針對大學(xué)和學(xué)院外部的委托研究的保護科研誠信的規則。
3. 科研責任
要避免對合格科研活動(dòng)的控制與約束,而對科研活動(dòng)的信任要求科研人員和科研組織承擔起應負的責任。
科學(xué)規范、道德規范和法律規范組成了科研責任。科研活動(dòng)同樣需承擔社會(huì )責任,是否能成為社會(huì )決策的基礎工具,成為糾正錯誤、提供備選方案的關(guān)鍵因素,或者審慎地為公共話(huà)語(yǔ)提供基于科研的知識。
科研人員需要為所選項目(課題)、所用方法和分析角度給出正當理由,也需要保證推理結論所依據的證明材料的質(zhì)量。先入為主的觀(guān)念、隨意的意見(jiàn)對科研活動(dòng)的影響非常小。在科研群體中形成的一些必要方法論條件,包括系統論證、推理、詳實(shí)的證明材料以及按照有理有據的批判去修正意見(jiàn)等,提供了一個(gè)模式去處理社會(huì )其他領(lǐng)域的爭端。
科研活動(dòng)是有價(jià)值的,但同樣會(huì )造成傷害。合格且負責任的科研活動(dòng)需評估計劃外的不良后果。根據科研道德規范的可持續和預防原則,科研人員必須確保研究活動(dòng)不違反法律法規,不會(huì )對人類(lèi)、社會(huì )和自然造成威脅。
4. 科研機構的責任
科研機構必須保證科研活動(dòng)的合格且負責,預防科研不端行為,宣傳科研道德規范準則。
科研機構要為維持和發(fā)展合格的科研活動(dòng)提供便利。科研機構應向其員工和學(xué)生普及科研道德規范,提供科研道德培訓和相關(guān)法律培訓。這有助于引導個(gè)人對科研道德規范的思考,并促進(jìn)科研界對科研道德規范和困境的有益討論。科研機構必須確保其正常地行使了科研道德規范的指導和咨詢(xún)功能,以保證角色和責任的分工是明確的。在此背景下,科研道德規范指南是制止有害科研活動(dòng),確保科研活動(dòng)合規、負責的重要工具。科研機構應有明確的程序處理對違反科研活動(dòng)規范的懷疑和指控,例如成立不當行為委員會(huì ),負責監督和調查。
D)科研界
25. 合著(zhù)作品
科研人員要遵守良好的學(xué)術(shù)發(fā)表慣例,尊重其他研究者的學(xué)術(shù)貢獻,遵守公認的獨著(zhù)和合著(zhù)標準。
學(xué)術(shù)發(fā)表是確保研究開(kāi)放和負責任的關(guān)鍵環(huán)節。同時(shí),學(xué)術(shù)發(fā)表也帶來(lái)了各種各樣的科研道德挑戰和困境。激烈的競爭和巨大的發(fā)表壓力是科研界的特點(diǎn),這些特點(diǎn)給公認的科研道德規范帶來(lái)了壓力。例如,原創(chuàng )準則與謙遜準則相矛盾,權威和權力容易使科研偏離誠信和公正的準則。合著(zhù)作品應與各作者間職責分配相關(guān)。
在原則上,有四條定義合法作者身份的標準。如國際醫學(xué)雜志編輯委員會(huì )(ICMJE)的建議中所述,需滿(mǎn)足以下四條標準:
1. 研究者必須對概念、設計或數據采集、數據分析與闡釋做出重大貢獻;
2. 研究者必須對該著(zhù)作的學(xué)術(shù)內容部分的手稿或關(guān)鍵修訂做出貢獻;
3. 研究者必須同意所發(fā)表的最終版本;
4. 研究者必須對整個(gè)工作承擔責任并對其負責(不必是所有技術(shù)細節),除非另有說(shuō)明。
合作作者應當參與撰寫(xiě)和完成手稿,在人文社會(huì )科學(xué)中是慣例。只有那些真正在科研和寫(xiě)作中做出貢獻的人,才能視為共同作者。換句話(huà)說(shuō),例如僅僅數據收集、編輯修訂和出版許可等此類(lèi)廣義上的貢獻是不能視為共同作者的。作品的其他貢獻者應當在腳注中注明或結束語(yǔ)(致謝)中感謝他們的貢獻。
不接受任何形式的名譽(yù)作者。只有那些為科研提供了關(guān)鍵智慧的人才享有學(xué)術(shù)成果的著(zhù)作權。一般性指導工作、提供資金或者提供數據這些并不符合共同作者資質(zhì)要求。
應盡可能早的在科研項目中達成協(xié)議,尤其是在大型跨學(xué)科研究項目中,以確定出版物的共同作者名單和其中的職責分工。
26. 引用規范
所有科研人員和學(xué)生都必須遵守良好的引用慣例。這是嚴格檢查的先決條件,是進(jìn)一步研究的重要環(huán)節。
科研人員和學(xué)生有義務(wù)為他們使用的文獻提供準確的參考,無(wú)論這些文獻是主要文獻還是次要文獻都要明確地標注。當復用自己已出版作品(所謂的“復制”或更誤導性地稱(chēng)其為“自我剽竊”)時(shí),需要以恰當的引用標準說(shuō)明,如在前言中或腳注中。當科研人員和學(xué)生從他們的研究之外獲取信息時(shí)——例如公開(kāi)文件或互聯(lián)網(wǎng)——科研人員或學(xué)生必須提供準確的參考資料,以便追溯信息來(lái)源。參考文獻一般需要指明來(lái)自那一章節或哪一頁(yè),以便讀者方便地查找參考,也方便嚴格檢查結論、論證過(guò)程以及信息處理方法。
建立和宣傳良好的引用規范是科學(xué)教學(xué)和科研機構的共同責任,同時(shí)要加強對引用規范的理解,確保使用中的合規性以及及時(shí)處理不端案例。科研人員和學(xué)生在研究中必須遵守科研誠信,不能弄虛作假。導師有重大的責任跟進(jìn)學(xué)生對科研倫理道德的了解和態(tài)度,以便學(xué)生在今后的工作中使用良好的引用標準。
27. 抄襲
抄襲嚴重違反了公認的科研道德規范,是不可接受的行為。
抄襲者不僅損毀自己的科研聲譽(yù),而且有損科研系統的信譽(yù)。防止抄襲現象是全體科研人員和科研機構的共同責任。
在科研倫理中,抄襲是指將他人的研究成果占為己有,且沒(méi)有合理地注釋其來(lái)源。抄襲行為違反了遵守科研誠信的義務(wù),違反了對科研獨立、謙遜和合作的要求。開(kāi)展以他人工作為基礎的研究時(shí),科研人員必須規范地引用其資料來(lái)源。
完全復制是最明顯的抄襲行為。除此之外,抄襲還有其他多種形式,例如抄襲作品的思想、假設、概念、理論、解釋、設計、插圖和結論等等。雖然在一篇的作品中曾規范引用了他人作品,但若在其他部分繼續引用同一作品而不標示的話(huà),同樣算作抄襲。
需區分腳注、尾注以及正文中的直接引用和轉述。轉述內容不能與原始文本過(guò)于相似,以至于實(shí)際上是在引用。如果多條轉述是相關(guān)的,且整個(gè)解釋與論證都基于他人作品,則應認定為抄襲。
28. 科研誠信
科研人員和科研機構都必須促進(jìn)學(xué)術(shù)研究中規范化。
科研誠信是指在科研實(shí)踐中需堅持和遵守的優(yōu)良規范。
不斷行為嚴重違背了在科學(xué)實(shí)踐中追求真理的集體承諾。科研人員有保證信息真實(shí)可靠的義務(wù),說(shuō)謊、隱瞞、歪曲事實(shí)等科研不端行為卻是在誤導其他科研人員。捏造、篡改數據以及剽竊是最嚴重的科研不端行為。在任何類(lèi)型的研究中以及任何研究階段都應遵守科研誠信的規定。
科研機構應將弘揚科研誠信精神、預防科研不端行為的工作落到實(shí)處。還要有接收對科研不端行為舉報和指控的程序。
綜合大學(xué)、學(xué)院和其他教育機構有責任對學(xué)生等科研相關(guān)人員普及科研倫理和科研誠信培訓教育。這要求良好的引用和科研規范教育需貫穿在學(xué)生的整個(gè)學(xué)術(shù)生涯的教學(xué)和監管中。知名研究員應在他們的教學(xué)和研究中起到良好的榜樣作用。
E)委托研究
34. 科研活動(dòng)的分類(lèi)
研究人員和研究機構都必須確保,科研經(jīng)費和科研團隊與開(kāi)放,可靠和獨立的科研規范不沖突。
制訂科研政策的首要責任是確保不同類(lèi)型科研活動(dòng)之間的平衡,包括不同學(xué)科之間、委托研究和科研人員自發(fā)研究之間(包括理論研究和應用研究)。科研經(jīng)費來(lái)源差異和科研團隊的差異體現在科學(xué)和社會(huì )的關(guān)系上時(shí),出現了不同的科研倫理問(wèn)題和困境。過(guò)去僅限于委托研究的挑戰,例如開(kāi)放性、問(wèn)責制和獨立性等規范性要求,這些挑戰如今也出現在其他類(lèi)型的科研活動(dòng)之中。
多數科研協(xié)會(huì )與社會(huì )的聯(lián)系密切。社會(huì )資本為科研提供資金支持是為了獲得相應的回報。社會(huì )資本對科研效用和相關(guān)性的期望與科研保持自由獨立的規范并不一致,這些矛盾需通過(guò)合同條款、所有權、保密協(xié)議以及出版權解決。
知識是屬于集體的資源,如果科研過(guò)于私有化,將會(huì )抑制知識的進(jìn)步和科研對社會(huì )的貢獻。由外部規則主導的委托研究是社會(huì )總體知識進(jìn)步的重要組成部分。因此,委托研究和科研人員自發(fā)研究之間應保持合理的平衡。科研贊助商應了解既定的科研組織標準和科研報告標準。
35. 委托研究
政府委托科研項目和個(gè)人委托項目都有為任務(wù)設置指標的合法權力,只要這些指標與其他對研究的約束不沖突即可。但是這些指標并不能免除科研人員和科研機構應承擔的責任,這些責任來(lái)自與委托人或機構簽署的協(xié)議。
科研人員和科研機構的科研成果不僅代表自己,也代表了科研界作為可靠知識來(lái)源的信譽(yù)。委托人有權決定和改變科研的問(wèn)題和科研方向,但無(wú)權妨礙科研人員選擇研究方法和基于實(shí)驗的得出的科研研究成果。科研人員和科研機構都有權利和義務(wù)指出研究的不確定性和局限性,例如當研究研究成果將應用于政策決策時(shí)。
36. 大型項目中研究人員的責任
參與大型研究項目的科研人員對這些項目負有共同責任。應該明確區分單個(gè)研究人員對研究項目的貢獻。
在大型科研項目和分級管理的科研項目中,研究人員個(gè)體和項目管理之間的管理類(lèi)似于研究人員/研究機構與委托項目之間的關(guān)系。如果研究人員在對機構或項目的忠誠與可被接受的科研倫理相沖突時(shí),最基本的原則是,每個(gè)研究人員要對自己參與的部分負責任。研究人員還應負擔起揭露違背科研倫理項目的責任。
著(zhù)作權和發(fā)表權必須有明確的協(xié)議規定。在委托研究和報告中,委托人、研究機構和研究人員之間的著(zhù)作權和發(fā)表權也應通過(guò)協(xié)議明確規定。
37. 學(xué)術(shù)獨立與利益沖突
研究人員和研究機構均應在與他們的領(lǐng)導的關(guān)系中保持獨立性。
研究人員和研究機構都必須避免來(lái)自委托人的制約。這些制約會(huì )破壞研究的公正性和研究質(zhì)量。如果研究人員或研究機構的科研經(jīng)費只由單一委托贊助,這種制約尤其常見(jiàn)。因此,要保證研究人員/機構和委托人之間沒(méi)有趨同的利益關(guān)系很重要,以保證研究的獨立性。(既得利益的威脅)若可將咨詢(xún)建議服務(wù)出售給期待獲得特定研究研究成果的參與者,則增加了既得利益威脅。
非經(jīng)濟因素也可能威脅到科研的獨立性。人際關(guān)系會(huì )影響研究的獨立性,不管是私人關(guān)系還是研究人員(機構)和科研項目參與者之間的長(cháng)期合作關(guān)系。這些人際關(guān)系可能會(huì )引導研究被用于促進(jìn)某些政黨的觀(guān)點(diǎn)和利益(典型的政治威脅);或者不能確保研究人員與參與者之間充足的距離(對保密的威脅);或者因為參與者有直接影響研究人員的權力地位,從而威脅研究的獨立性(壓力威脅)。
在某些情況下,研究獨立性的作用會(huì )和研究人員的其他身份相沖突,例如指導教師或顧問(wèn)。如果研究人員接受了可能損害所在機構信任的任務(wù),則必須向組織匯報情況。在某些情況下,這種身份的沖突會(huì )非常激烈,以至于并不適合接受該任務(wù)。
38. 科研經(jīng)費公開(kāi)透明
研究人員和主管人員有義務(wù)向公共公開(kāi)科研經(jīng)費的來(lái)源。
科研經(jīng)費來(lái)源必須清楚透明。經(jīng)費透明能更好的保護科研人員免受不必要的壓力,從而確保研究的自主性和獨立性。此外,主管人員有要求科研經(jīng)費公開(kāi)透明的合理要求。
科研人員在發(fā)布使用科研成果時(shí),有不受約束的義務(wù)公開(kāi)所有的關(guān)系(主管人員、科研基金等),這些可能會(huì )影響研究報告可信性的關(guān)系。
39. 科研成果的陳述報告與利用
科研人員和委托人都有責任防止以誤導的方式呈現科研成果。希望得出特別理想的研究成果而去限定研究的主題,或者故意篡改研究成果都是不道德的。
科研管理人員不得以以下方式隱瞞科研成果,委托人不得以公開(kāi)發(fā)表的調查研究成果歪曲一個(gè)或多個(gè)情況的方式保留研究研究成果。必須保護研究人員免受委托人指定特定研究結論的不合理要求,在某些情況下,研究人員有退出研究任務(wù)的權利。
委托人必須接受研究人員有權在研究報告中討論其任務(wù)授權:例如,指出任務(wù)授權中省略了對具有明顯專(zhuān)業(yè)或實(shí)踐意義的觀(guān)點(diǎn)、解釋或考慮。當研究可能對個(gè)人或團體的聲譽(yù)產(chǎn)生影響,或者可能影響政治決策時(shí),對有關(guān)原始資料和有效推理的要求就特別重要。在這種情況下,研究人員討論其發(fā)現的替代解釋或指出科學(xué)不確定性尤為重要。如果調查研究成果是由委托人選擇性或傾向性地使用的,則研究人員有義務(wù)指出這一點(diǎn),并要求糾正誤導性的結論。
40. 出版的權利和義務(wù)
知識是一種集體利益,一般而言,所有研究成果都應發(fā)布。這對于確保嚴格檢查或重復使用研究成果也很重要。
通常,研究人員有權利和義務(wù)發(fā)表完整的研究項目摘要和研究成果。這對于防止選擇性地或以曲解的方式呈現研究成果,以及給其他人測試研究成果的機會(huì )都很重要。
但是,私人公司和政府機構可能有保護自己和利益的合理要求。談判策略和國家安全都可能要求推遲研究成果的發(fā)布,或者在特殊情況下,不應發(fā)布研究成果。除此類(lèi)情況和隱私考慮外,委托人和研究人員應盡力確保公眾能夠獲得研究成果。對發(fā)布權的任何限制必須在項目開(kāi)始時(shí)通過(guò)合同規定。
F)科研宣傳
41. 宣傳是學(xué)術(shù)責任
研究人員和研究機構有義務(wù)將科學(xué)知識宣傳給研究界以外的廣大讀者。
研究的宣傳涉及將專(zhuān)業(yè)研究領(lǐng)域的科學(xué)成果,方法和價(jià)值傳達給學(xué)科以外的人們。宣傳可以針對其他學(xué)科的研究人員,也可以針對更廣泛的受眾。可以宣傳已成熟的該學(xué)科見(jiàn)解,或者是最新的研究成果。
在人文和社會(huì )科學(xué)領(lǐng)域,科研成果與科研報告的關(guān)系尤其緊密,學(xué)術(shù)出版物通常也是宣傳的一種形式。在某些情況下,研究與宣傳之間沒(méi)有清晰的界線(xiàn),因為知識作為公開(kāi)辯論的一部分,充當了公眾和研究之間的調節劑,公眾的意見(jiàn)反過(guò)來(lái)影響研究的問(wèn)題和答案。
宣傳研究的主要原因之一是要滿(mǎn)足公眾的知識好奇心。宣傳同樣對保持民主社會(huì )的秩序很重要。宣傳應有助于維護和發(fā)展文化傳統,有助于宣傳輿論和宣傳與社會(huì )有關(guān)的知識。社會(huì )在研究上投入了大量資金,因此有權分享研究研究成果。
42. 對個(gè)人和機構的要求
研究機構必須創(chuàng )造條件廣泛地宣傳高質(zhì)量成體系的研究成果。
研究宣傳對個(gè)人和機構提出了道德要求。大學(xué)和大學(xué)學(xué)院在宣傳知識,成果以及科學(xué)規范和價(jià)值觀(guān)方面責任重大,既要在學(xué)生教學(xué)中,也要在公共管理,文化娛樂(lè )以及工商業(yè)活動(dòng)中宣傳有關(guān)的知識。學(xué)術(shù)機構應促進(jìn)其宣傳工作,例如設置相關(guān)工作人員、教學(xué)或通過(guò)經(jīng)濟激勵等措施。應鼓勵學(xué)術(shù)機構開(kāi)展多種方式的教育,例如通過(guò)媒體,講座系列,非學(xué)術(shù)會(huì )議、公開(kāi)聽(tīng)證會(huì )進(jìn)行不同學(xué)科領(lǐng)域的知識共享和辯論。
宣傳研究成果還與言論自由和《挪威憲法》第100條中的基礎設施要求相關(guān):“國家政府應創(chuàng )造條件,以促進(jìn)公開(kāi)和開(kāi)明的公眾話(huà)語(yǔ)權。”此外,學(xué)術(shù)界也必須為這些公眾話(huà)語(yǔ)權做出貢獻。運行良好的公共行政管理和市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟的憲政民主制社會(huì )是由民間社會(huì )的各個(gè)領(lǐng)域決定的,這些領(lǐng)域的主要特征不以盈利和管理為原則,而是以辯論為原則。
大學(xué)和學(xué)院也有責任維護和進(jìn)一步推廣挪威語(yǔ)成為一種學(xué)術(shù)語(yǔ)言。 挪威語(yǔ)成為挪威的學(xué)術(shù)用語(yǔ)對于向公眾宣傳研究成果很重要。
良好的宣傳要求研究機構與其他機構,例如大眾傳媒,學(xué)校,藝術(shù)機構,不同信仰的社區和自愿協(xié)會(huì )之間進(jìn)行互動(dòng)與合作。宣傳可以在研究人員和其他人員(例如記者和教師)的參與下進(jìn)行,可以是書(shū)面,口頭或其他方式(例如展覽和電子媒體)。所有參與此類(lèi)宣傳的人都應遵守科研倫理規范。
43. 跨學(xué)科演講與公共協(xié)商
各學(xué)科專(zhuān)家與公眾之間的互動(dòng)是現代社會(huì )中學(xué)術(shù)宣傳的重要方式。
社會(huì )面臨的許多重大挑戰,例如,生態(tài)環(huán)境、全球化和人權等相關(guān)問(wèn)題,要求跨學(xué)科合作以及不同領(lǐng)域的學(xué)術(shù)知識的整合。因此,非常需要跨學(xué)科、面向大眾的翻譯作品和知識宣傳。研究機構建立跨學(xué)科論壇為專(zhuān)家的討論和向大眾宣傳提供了良好的基礎。
跨學(xué)科演講是學(xué)術(shù)辯論文化的基本要求。研究人員必須清晰地表達自己的觀(guān)點(diǎn),以使來(lái)自其他領(lǐng)域的同事和其他演講參與者形成對其主張的正確認識。與內部學(xué)術(shù)討論一樣,不能忽視他人的貢獻。
宣傳應該清楚,并明確表達學(xué)術(shù)不確定性和各個(gè)學(xué)科的局限性。研究人員應該從自己所涉領(lǐng)域的學(xué)科和專(zhuān)業(yè)知識的角度清楚地表達其局限性,這可能使讀者和公眾更容易確定其他學(xué)科觀(guān)點(diǎn)是否可能導致其他解釋。這樣的跨學(xué)科和跨機構的討論可以作為一種擴展的同行評審。
44. 參與公開(kāi)辯論
研究人員應為公眾辯論提供科學(xué)依據。研究人員應公正清晰地表達自己的觀(guān)點(diǎn),以避免對研究成果曲解性的解釋。
當研究人員參加公眾辯論時(shí),他們的學(xué)術(shù)專(zhuān)長(cháng)是輿論形成的基礎。他們可能會(huì )在正在辯論的領(lǐng)域提供信息,他們可能會(huì )對有爭議的話(huà)題采取合理的立場(chǎng),或者可能試圖將新話(huà)題引入公共議程。
研究人員有責任清楚準確地表達自己的意見(jiàn),以保護自己的研究在政治,文化,社會(huì )和經(jīng)濟等領(lǐng)域不被濫用。研究人員還應參與有關(guān)合理解釋和合理使用研究成果的討論。其他組織機構,例如公共關(guān)系部門(mén),大眾媒體,政黨,利益組織,企業(yè)和行政機構同樣有責任保護自己的行為不被曲解與濫用。
研究人員參加公開(kāi)討論,對其推理的公正性和明確性提出了很高的要求。以研究人員身份或以公民身份參加公開(kāi)討論的界定可能存在灰色地帶。研究人員以專(zhuān)家的身份參與時(shí),不僅應陳述自己的學(xué)科,還應陳述自己的學(xué)歷或職位。當研究人員作為公民參加時(shí),他們不應使用自己的頭銜或提及特殊的學(xué)術(shù)專(zhuān)業(yè)知識。
45. 學(xué)術(shù)傳播的追責制
對追責制的要求與學(xué)術(shù)宣傳一樣嚴格。
不能期望參與大眾化學(xué)術(shù)演講的觀(guān)眾能夠驗證專(zhuān)業(yè)研究人員的斷言。 因此,對學(xué)術(shù)宣傳追責制的要求與學(xué)術(shù)出版物一樣嚴格。
腳注、尾注和參考文獻看似繁瑣,但它們可以幫助感興趣的讀者更廣泛地瀏覽相關(guān)文獻。更重要的,其他學(xué)科的專(zhuān)家是讀者的一部分。
研究人員可能會(huì )在項目進(jìn)行中與公眾分享假設,理論和初步發(fā)現,但必須謹慎地將初步研究成果作為最終結論。
46. 向項目參與人報告研究成果
研究人員負有特殊的義務(wù),以一種易于理解和接受的方式將研究成果報告給研究的參與者。
研究參與者有權獲得研究回報。這也適用于涉及海量數據的研究。當不可能與每個(gè)參與者直接聯(lián)系時(shí),公開(kāi)宣傳研究成果有助于滿(mǎn)足這一要求。
參與者還必須有機會(huì )在有必要時(shí)能糾正誤解。研究過(guò)程中研究人員與參與者之間的對話(huà)通常有助于研究。研究人員必須告知研究參與者人研究成果,以便以參與者可以理解的方式傳達關(guān)鍵發(fā)現和見(jiàn)解。
以下指南是有關(guān)如何在科學(xué)實(shí)踐活動(dòng)中應履行的研究道德倫理:
4. 研究人員有責任保證高質(zhì)量研究,做到科研誠信、真實(shí)和責任擔當。研究機構務(wù)必為促進(jìn)高質(zhì)量研究創(chuàng )造條件。
科研誠信、真實(shí)和責任是研究倫理中最基本的要求。研究人員和研究機構有義務(wù)去熟悉和遵守與其研究相關(guān)的研究倫理。
科研誠信
研究人員有責任去尊重他人的研究成果以及科學(xué)實(shí)踐符合規范。研究人員不得在計劃、執行或匯報等研究階段隱瞞、歪曲和篡改任何事實(shí)。抄襲剽竊行為包括將他人研究或思想占為己有。
個(gè)人研究者有額外的責任在涉及其個(gè)人或他人利益時(shí),保證其科學(xué)實(shí)踐的規范性。研究人員在其研究過(guò)程中發(fā)現或認識到錯誤時(shí),務(wù)必承認錯誤,糾正錯誤,確保錯誤的影響最小化。
規范的引用習慣
研究的本質(zhì)是在前人的基礎上繼續研究。研究人員必須坦誠地指出其研究中使用的他人發(fā)表或未發(fā)表觀(guān)點(diǎn)或研究,只有這樣,研究人員各自的科研貢獻才是清晰的。研究人員必須全面且符合實(shí)情的呈現他人的研究。引文保證了研究的可追溯、可檢驗。
核實(shí)
研究人員和研究機構應在一定時(shí)期后為他人核實(shí)研究提供數據。如果在此階段沒(méi)有使用這些數據,則理應將數據提供給其他研究人員。
在現有的規章制度框架內,研究機構應制定工作指南和程序去保存研究數據,保證數據可被檢索查詢(xún),及時(shí)研究人員完成工作離開(kāi)此機構也應保證數據的完整。
5. 研究人員必須尊重其他研究人員的學(xué)術(shù)貢獻,遵守學(xué)術(shù)署名和學(xué)術(shù)合作規范。
研究人員應規范學(xué)術(shù)發(fā)表行為。研究人員應明確其在團隊中的責任以及在合作者中的角色,不接受榮譽(yù)作者身份。當數位作者均有貢獻時(shí),每位作者身份都應正當合理。根據國際醫學(xué)雜志編輯委員會(huì )(ICMJE)的判別標準,符合規范的作者身份有以下四種:a)研究人員必須在構思和設計、數據獲取、數據分析和闡釋方面做出有價(jià)值的貢獻;b)研究人員必須在起草手稿或修訂出版物的核心部分中有貢獻;c)研究人員必須認同出版前的最后版本;d)除另有說(shuō)明外,研究人員必須為整個(gè)作品(不必是所有技術(shù)細節)負責。
在跨多學(xué)科的出版物中,所有作者必須為其在科研工作中承擔的部分負責,同時(shí)必須為其他共享者負責的部分負責。
滿(mǎn)足標準a的作者同時(shí)應滿(mǎn)足標準b和標準c。不滿(mǎn)足所有四條標準的貢獻者不應被承認。
6. 當參與到審查他人工作(文章、論文、應用軟件、職位等)時(shí),研究人員有責任評估他們自己的資質(zhì)和公正性。
如果研究人員有任何疑問(wèn),研究人員應避免參與評審。
當擔任同行評議時(shí),研究人員應遵守如下規則:1)如果研究人員與作者有嚴重的沖突,或者與作者有直接合作或競爭關(guān)系,則研究人員則應回避;2)研究人員必須在必要時(shí)要勇于承認其專(zhuān)業(yè)知識的局限性。
7. 研究人員必須遵守國家和國際有關(guān)維護道德和安全的法律法規。
無(wú)論是在國內還是在國外,合格的研究慣例需要遵守本國的法律和法規。這也意味著(zhù)如果道德標準與本國的道德標準不同,那么研究人員應仔細考慮遵守國外立法和法規是否在道德倫理上是否可辯解的。
這意指:
a)研究人員根據要求申請適當的項目授權;
b)研究人員遵守國家實(shí)驗室安全標準并學(xué)習和教導他人使用實(shí)驗設備;
c)研究人員不能因滿(mǎn)足較低的道德或安全標準,而將研究的部分內容在其他國家完成;
d)研究人員應告知資助機構,在他們從事研究的國家里從事此項研究會(huì )違背的所有道德或安全標準規范。
在所有社群中,專(zhuān)業(yè)人士和非專(zhuān)業(yè)人士都有基于經(jīng)驗的不同知識類(lèi)型。個(gè)人和當地社區可能擁有特定的當地知識。傳統知識是另一個(gè)有用的類(lèi)型,國際科學(xué)理事會(huì )將其定義為人民與自然環(huán)境互動(dòng)中,維護和發(fā)展具有悠久歷史的知識,是對專(zhuān)有技術(shù),實(shí)踐和代表性的累積。土著(zhù)人民的傳統知識就是這種類(lèi)型,但是在每個(gè)社區中都可以找到這種知識。應當給與這類(lèi)知識及其承載者應有的尊重,保護他們免遭不合理的利用。
14.研究人員必須承認其他形式知識的經(jīng)濟和文化價(jià)值。
研究人員直接使用或基于其他知識開(kāi)展研究,有義務(wù)承認該知識的經(jīng)濟和文化價(jià)值。如果此類(lèi)研究可帶來(lái)經(jīng)濟利益,則公平和公正的分享收益應保證有益于傳統知識的持有者。通過(guò)《名古屋議定書(shū)》等國際公約,特別有力地防止了對土著(zhù)民的傳統知識不合理的剝削。
15.研究人員應與受影響的相關(guān)其他知識持有者進(jìn)行對話(huà)。
本地和傳統知識都來(lái)自于經(jīng)驗。盡管這些知識形式不一定符合科學(xué)知識的通常標準,但它們可能是理解特定人群和當地社區的自然、環(huán)境和生活條件的重要補充。因此,對于研究人員而言,與這些知識的持有者進(jìn)行對話(huà)非常重要,尤其是在應用研究中,因為這可能會(huì )影響當地社會(huì )及其生活條件。國際組織特別強調在環(huán)境研究中必須尊重和利用土著(zhù)人民的傳統知識。這意味著(zhù)在應用科學(xué)知識或技術(shù)時(shí),研究人員應該對利用相關(guān)知識持開(kāi)放態(tài)度。
16.相關(guān)受影響各方應參與研究
研究人員必須使用適當的方法來(lái)確保受影響的各方都參與其中。
公民民主參與可以糾正研究方向,使研究更有針對性。 用戶(hù),公民和其他社會(huì )角色的參與已出現在一些國際公約中,例如《奧爾胡斯公約》。
個(gè)別研究人員與高級主管人員或主管部門(mén)有時(shí)可能會(huì )發(fā)生沖突。當研究人員履行其道德義務(wù)充當舉報人,又與上級或權威的立場(chǎng)相背時(shí),這種沖突問(wèn)題更加嚴重。來(lái)自?xún)炔康呐e報一般與研究?jì)炔繂?wèn)題有關(guān),比如科研誠信,或者事關(guān)重要的社會(huì )問(wèn)題。這種舉報通常是自行分析的評估,因此通常是更多未解決問(wèn)題的導火索。研究機構必須確保舉報人的合法權利不受威脅。
19. 當研究人員在工作過(guò)程中意識到自己認為與道德原則或社會(huì )責任相沖突時(shí),他們必須有機會(huì )和責任并根據情況承擔舉報人的角色。
具體來(lái)說(shuō),這意味著(zhù)研究人員必須仔細考慮:
a)在組織內部解決沖突的可能性
b)應同時(shí)考慮舉報屬實(shí)與否對研究者個(gè)人、研究機構和社會(huì )造成的后果
c)不舉報的可能后果
d)選擇對自己可以最大程度減少沖突和最佳彌補傷害的舉報渠道
e)舉報背后的其他可能影響舉報人客觀(guān)性的動(dòng)機
20. 研究機構必須具有獨立的機制,可以在員工舉報時(shí)為員工提供支持。
重要的是,涉及舉報的各方都必須尊重這一事實(shí),即必須以中立的方式處理舉報事件。必須由一個(gè)獨立的集體調查沖突,并且必須保護舉報人免遭外界不合理或不合時(shí)宜的反應。
這要求:
a)研究機構必須建立保護舉報人和保護舉報事件的機制
b)研究機構必須建立機構內部對舉報案件的獨立審查機制
c)研究機構必須確保研究人員都熟悉這些機制
Research is of great importance – to individuals, to society and to global development. Research also exercises considerable power at all these levels. For both these reasons, it is essential that research is undertaken in ways that are ethically sound.
PRINCIPLES
? Respect. People who participate in research, as informants or otherwise, shall be treated with respect.
? Good consequences. Researchers shall seek to ensure that their activities produce good consequences and that any adverse consequences are within the limits of acceptability.
? Fairness. All research projects shall be designed and implemented fairly.
? Integrity. Researchers shall comply with recognized norms and to behave responsibly, openly and honestly towards their colleagues and the public.
1 Quest for truth. Research activity is a quest for new knowledge, with critical and systematic verification and peer review. Honesty, openness, systematicness and documentation are fundamental preconditions for achieving this goal.
2 Academic freedom. Research institutions shall assist in ensuring the researchers’ freedom in their choice of topic and methodology, implementation of research and publication of results. In commissioned research, the commissioning agency has the right to define the topic, research questions and scope of the research assignment in cooperation with the person or institution undertaking the assignment. The commissioning agency should not seek to unduly influence choice of methodology, implementation or publication.
3 Quality. Research should be of high academic quality. The researcher and institution are required to possess the necessary competence, design relevant research questions, undertake suitable choices of methodology and ensure sound and appropriate project implementation in terms of data collection, data processing and safekeeping/storage of the material.
4 Voluntary informed consent. Consent is the main rule in research on individuals or on information and material that can be linked to individuals. This consent should be informed, explicit, voluntary and documentable. Consent presupposes the capacity to give such consent. To ensure real voluntariness, vigilance must be exercised in cases where the participant is in a dependency relationship to the researcher or in a situation of restricted freedom.
5 Confidentiality. As a general principle, those who are made the subjects of research are entitled to have their personal information treated confidentially. The researcher must prevent any use and communication of information that might inflict damage on individuals who are the subjects of research. Irrespective of the duty of confidentiality, researchers have a legal obligation to avoid punishable offences. The researcher must decide when and in what way the participant should be informed about limitations of the duty of confidentiality.
6 Impartiality. Impartiality means avoidance of confusing roles and relationships in a way that may give rise to reasonable doubt concerning conflicts of interest. Openness regarding relevant roles and relationships that the researcher is involved in must be maintained in relation to colleagues, research participants, sources of finance and other relevant parties.
7 Integrity. The researcher is responsible for the trustworthiness of his or her own research. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and similar serious violations of good academic practice are incommensurate with such trustworthiness.
8 Good reference practice. Researchers must adhere to good reference practices, which fulfil requirements for verifiability and form the basis for further research.
9 Collegiality. Researchers must show each other respect. They must agree on and comply with good practices for data ownership and sharing, authorship, publication, peer review and cooperation in general.
10 Institutional responsibility. The responsibility for ethical conduct rests not only with the individual researcher, but also with the research institution. The institution is responsible for ensuring compliance with good academic practice and for establishing mechanisms that can address cases of suspected violations of ethical research norms.
11 Availability of results. As a main rule, research results should be made available. Openness regarding research findings is essential for ensuring verifiability, for returning some benefit to the research participants and society in general, and for ensuring a dialogue with the public. Such communication is also a function of democracy.
12 Social responsibility. Researchers have an independent responsibility to ensure that their research will be of benefit to research participants, relevant groups or society in general, and for preventing it from causing harm. Research decisions must take into account any knowledge that the development of a research area may entail ethically unacceptable consequences for individuals, animals, society or the environment. It is absolutely essential that when participating in public debate, the researcher clearly distinguishes between professional comments made in his or her capacity as an expert on the one hand and statements of personal opinion on the other, and refrains from abusing his or her authority.
13 Global responsibility. Research institutions and researchers have a responsibility to communicate relevant knowledge to regions that are otherwise excluded for reasons of economic disadvantage. Research should help counteract global injustice and preserve biological diversity.
14 Laws and regulations. In the field of research, there are national laws and regulations as well as applicable international conventions and agreements, and researchers and research institutions must abide by these.
A) RESEARCH, SOCIETY AND ETHICS
1 Norms and values of research
Researchers are obliged to comply with recognised norms of research ethics. Research is a quest for new and improved or deeper insight. It is a systematic and socially organised activity governed by various specific and values. The most fundamental obligation of science is the pursuit for truth. At the same time, research can never fully achieve this goal. Most conclusions are contingent and limited. Nevertheless, the norms of science have a value in themselves as guidelines and regulatory principles for the research community’s collective pursuit for truth.
In the humanities and social sciences, involvement and interpretation are often integral parts of the research process. Different academic approaches and theoretical positions may also allow for different, but nonetheless reasonable, interpretations of the same material. Consequently, it is important to reflect on and account for how one’s own values and attitudes affect the choice of topic, data sources and interpretations. Integrity in documentation, consistency in argumentation, impartiality in assessment and openness regarding uncertainty are common obligations in research ethics, irrespective of the values, positions or perspectives of the researchers.
2 Freedom of research
Both researchers and research institutions are responsible for preserving the freedom and independence of research, especially when the topic is controversial or when strategic or commercial considerations impose pressure and constraints on research. Scientific norms regarding originality, openness and trustworthiness may conflict with the desire of other parties to prevent or govern research. Research must be safeguarded against internal or external pressure that limits the exploration of well-defined problems that may intersect financial, political, social, cultural or religious interests and traditions. This is part of the reason why academic freedom was made statutory in 2007, ordering institutions to promote and protect academic freedom. However, the independence of research exists as a norm independently of this codification, while at the same time the law now states that teaching and research must comply with recognised scientific and ethical principles.
It is the soundness and relevance of the arguments and the quality of the documentation that should provide the foundation for research based conclusions – and for knowledge production in research in general – not any established interests and traditions in or outside the research community.
The duty and obligation of openness and publication means that neither researchers nor research institutions may withhold or selectively report results and conclusions. Any attempts to impose or dictate what results the research should lead to, are illegitimate. This calls for arrangements to ensure both the independence of institutions and the independence of researchers within the institutions. Research presupposes the freedom to seek, produce and disseminate scientific knowledge to the wider public.
The level of independence varies between basic, applied and commissioned research. All research must nonetheless be protected from pressure that endangers good and responsible research. In addition, commissioned research outside the university and university college sector must also have procedures for protecting the integrity of research, as set out in the Ministry of Education and Research’s ?Standard agreement for research and report assignments? (2012).
3 Responsibility of research
Responsible research requires freedom from control and constraints, while trust in research requires the exercise of responsibility by both researchers and research institutions.
Scientific, ethical and legal norms and values regulate the responsibility of research. Research also has a social responsibility, whether it be instrumental as a foundation for societal decisions, critical as a source of correctives and alternative choices of action, or deliberative as a supplier of research-based knowledge to the public discourse.
Great demands are placed on the justifications of the researchers for their choice of questions, methods and analytical perspectives, and also on the quality of the documentation used to support conclusions, so that preconceived notions and unwitting opinions have minimal influence on the research. The methodological requirements posed by the research community in respect of argumentation, reasoning, documentation and willingness to revise opinions in the light of well-founded criticism may serve as a model for how to deal with disagreement in other segments of society.
Research is valuable, but it can also cause harm. Good and responsible research also includes assessing unintended and undesirable consequences. Researchers must make sure that the research does not violate laws and regulations, or represent a risk to poeple, society and nature – in accordance with the principles of sustainability and precaution in research ethics.
4. Responsibility of institutions
Research institutions must guarantee that research is good and responsible by preventing misconduct and promoting the guidelines for research ethics.
The institutions must facilitate the development and maintenance of good scientific practice. They should communicate the guidelines for research ethics to their employees and students, and also provide training in research ethics and the relevant rules of law that govern research. This would facilitate individual reflection on research ethics and good discussions in the research communities about norms and dilemmas related to research ethics.
The institutions must ensure that they manage the guiding and advisory function of research ethics properly, so that the distribution of roles and responsibilities is clear. In this context, the guidelines for research ethics will be an important tool for preventing undesirable practice and ensuring that research is good and responsible. The institutions should also have clear procedures for handling suspicions and accusations of serious breaches of good scientific practice, for example by establishing misconduct committees with responsibility for oversight and investigation.
D)THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY
25 Co-authorship
Researchers must observe good publication practice, respect the contributions of other researchers, and observe recognised standards of authorship and cooperation.
Academic publishing is critical for ensuring that research is open and accountable. At the same time, publishing raises different ethical challenges and dilemmas. The research community is characterised by strong competition and great pressure to publish, which often puts pressure on recognised norms of research ethics. For example, the norm of originality may easily conflict with the norm of humility, and differences in authority and power may easily come into conflict with integrity and impartiality. Co-authorship is also linked to the distribution of responsibilities among different contributors.
In principle, four criteria define rightful authorship. They must all be met, as stated in the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):
1 The researcher must have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design or the data acquisition or the data analysis and interpretation; and
2 the researcher must have contributed to drafting the manuscript or critical revision of the intellectual content of the publication; and
3 the researcher must have approved the final version before publication; and
4 the researcher must be able to accept responsibility for and be accountable for the work as a whole (albeit not necessarily all technical details) unless otherwise specified.
It is common practice in the humanities and social sciences to require that co-authors have actually helped write and complete the manuscript. Only those who have actually contributed to the analysis and writing of a scientific work may be credited as co-authors. In other words, it is not enough to have contributed to the intellectual work with the article in a broad sense, for example a combination of data acquisition, critical revision and approval of the end product. Other contributors must be credited or thanked in footnotes or a closing note (Acknowledgements).
All forms of honorary authorship are unacceptable. Authorship must be limited to persons who have provided significant intellectual input to the research. General guidance, provision of funding or data acquisition do not in themselves qualify for co-authorship.
An agreement must be made as early as possible in the research process, not least in large and interdisciplinary research projects, as to who will be listed as the co-authors of a publication, and how responsibilities and tasks are to be distributed among the authors.
26 Good citation practice
All researchers and students are obliged to follow good citation practice. This is a prerequisite for critical examination and important for enabling further research.
Researchers and students are under an obligation to provide accurate references to the literature they use, whether this is primary or secondary literature. This must be accounted for explicitly, also when re-using text from one’s own publications (so-called ?duplication? or more misleadingly referred to as ?self-plagiarism?) in the form of proper citation, for example in a preface or in footnotes. When researchers and students obtain information from sources outside their research – such as public documents or the internet – they must provide accurate references that make it possible to trace the information back to the source.
References should usually specify chapters or pages, so that other persons can check the quotes and references. This enables critical examination of assertions and arguments, including of how the sources are used.
Both scientific disciplines and research institutions are responsible for establishing and communicating rules for good citation practice, as well as for creating understanding of these norms, ensuring compliance, and reacting to misconduct. Each researcher or student must conduct their research with integrity, and handle their sources honestly. Supervisors have a special responsibility for following up students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards research ethics, so that they may exercise good citation practice in future work.
27 Plagiarism
Plagiarism is unacceptable and constitutes a serious breach of recognised norms of research ethics.
A plagiarist undermines not only his or her own reputation as a researcher, but also the credibility of the research. Both researchers and research institutions are responsible for preventing plagiarism.
Plagiarism in research ethics is taking something from someone else and presenting it as one’s own without correctly citing their sources. Plagiarism violates the duty of truthfulness in science, and the requirement of originality, humility and collegiality. Researchers who build on the work of others must cite their sources in accordance with good practice.
The most obvious type of plagiarism is pure duplication. Plagiarism can nonetheless take other forms, for example the use of ideas, hypotheses, concepts, theories, interpretations, designs, illustrations, results etc. Citing another work early in one’s own text and then making extensive further use of it without subsequent citation may also be plagiarism.
It is important to distinguish between direct quotes and paraphrasing in footnotes and endnotes as well as in the text. Paraphrasing must not be so close to the original text that it in reality constitutes a quote. If several paraphrases are connected, the entire interpretation and argumentation may be based on the work of others. If so, this may also constitute plagiarism.
28 Scientific integrity
Both researchers and research institutions must promote norms for good scientific practice.
Scientific integrity is about maintaining and complying with good scientific practice.
Misconduct is serious breach of good scientific practice associated with the collective commitment to the pursuit for truth. Researchers have an obligation to truthfulness, and scientific misconduct implies misleading others through lying, concealment or distortion.
The most serious examples of misconduct are fabrication and falsification of data and plagiarism. The norm of scientific integrity applies in full to all types of research and in every stage of the research process.
Institutions are required to have routines that promote integrity and prevent misconduct. Institutions must also have procedures for handling suspicions and accusations of scientific misconduct.
E)COMMISSIONED RESEARCH
34 Different types of research
Both researchers and research institutions must ensure that the funding and organisation of research is not in conflict with the norms of open, reliable and independent research.
An overarching responsibility of research policy is to maintain the balance between different types of research, both between different disciplines and between commissioned research and researcher-driven research (pure and applied research). Different types of funding and organisation give rise to different research ethics issues and dilemmas in the relationship between science and society. Many of the challenges that used to be restricted to commissioned research, relating to norms such as openness, accountability and independence, may be equally relevant today for other types of research as well.
Research communities interact with society in general. When society funds research, it is because it expects something in return. Society’s expectations concerning utility and relevance are not irreconcilable with the requirement that research must be free and independent, but this places demands on transparency with respect to terms of contract, ownership, confidentiality and the right to publish.
Knowledge is a collective good, and if research becomes too privatised, it will inhibit both the development of knowledge and the contribution of research to society. At the same time, commissioned research, where external principals decide on the subject, are an important part of society’s aggregate knowledge development. For that reason, there must be a balance between commissioned research and researcher-driven research. Research funders should be aware of established standards for the organisation of research and reporting assignments.
35 Commissioned research
Both public and private commissioners have a legitimate right to set the parameters for research assignments, as long as those parameters does not conflict with the other requirements made with regard to the research. However, that does not exempt researchers and research institutions from their share of the responsibility for the agreements they sign with commissioners.
Researchers and research institutions do not merely report their own results; they also represent the credibility of the research community as a reliable source of knowledge. The commissioner has a right to steer or influence the subject and issues addressed, but not the choice of method, results or conclusions drawn by the researcher on the basis of the results. Both researchers and research institutions have a right and a duty to point out the uncertainties and limitations of the research, for example when the results are to be used in policy decisions.
36 The responsibility of researchers in large projects
Researchers who take part in large research projects have a shared responsibility for those projects. It should be clear how an individual researcher has contributed to a research project.
When research is organised into large, hierarchically managed projects, the relationship between individual researchers and the project management is analogous to the relationship between the researcher/research institution and the commissioner. If researchers experiences a conflict between loyalty to the institution or project and an ethically acceptable approach, the basic principle is that the individual researcher has a responsibility for their own participation. Researchers are also responsible for disclosing circumstances that are not acceptable according to research ethics.
Copyright and the right to publish must be regulated by explicit agreements. This also applies to the relationship between the commissioner, the research institution and the researcher in connection with commissioned research and reports.
37 Independence and conflict of interests
Both researchers and research institutions should maintain their independence in relation to their principals.
Both researchers and research institutions must avoid becoming dependent on their commissioners. Dependence may undermine their impartiality and the scientific quality of the research. This is particularly true if a single commissioner is responsible for a substantial portion of the researcher’s or research institution’s funding. It is therefore important for the researcher/institution and the commissioner not to have convergent interests to the point that they threaten the independence of the research (the vested interest threat). The sale of advisory or consulting services to actors who also have an interest in the research having a particular outcome may increase the vested interest threat.
Non-financial factors may also threaten independent research. Personal ties, either through family relations or as a result of long-term connections between the research institution/researcher and those taking part in the research projects may lead to dependence in several ways. These ties may lead to the research being used to promote the views and interests of certain parties (representative party threat), or it may lead to there not being sufficient distance between the researcher and the participants (threat to confidentiality), or it may lead to independence being threatened because the participants are in a position where they can influence the researcher (threat of pressure).
In some situations, the role of independent research may come into conflict with other roles the researcher may have, for example as adviser or consultant. If a researcher accepts an assignment that may undermine the institution’s credibility, it is necessary to report the situation at the very least. In some situations, the conflict between roles will be so strong that the roles should not be combined.
38 Transparency in research funding
Both researchers and commissioners have a duty to make it publicly known who is funding the research.
It must be clear who is funding the research. Transparency concerning funding makes it easier for researchers to protect themselves against undue pressure and thus ensure the freedom and independence of the research. Moreover, commissioners have a reasonable claim to have their funding of research publicly known.
When researchers are going to publish and use results, they have an independent responsibility to be open and transparent about all ties (commissioners and funding etc.) that might have a bearing on the credibility of the research/reporting that has been conducted.
39 Presentation and use of results
Both researchers and commissioners have a responsibility to prevent research results from being presented in a misleading manner. It is unethical to delimit the subject of the research with a view to producing particularly desirable results, or to present research results in an intentionally skewed manner.
Commissioners may not withhold research results in such a way that the findings that are made public give a distorted picture of one or more circumstances. Researchers must be protected against undue pressure from the commissioner to draw particular conclusions, and in certain situations should invoke their right to withdraw from assignments.
Commissioners must accept that researchers have a right to discuss their mandates as part of research reporting: for example, to point out that perspectives, interpretations or considerations of manifest professional or practical relevance have been omitted from the mandate. The requirements regarding source material and valid reasoning are especially important when research may have consequences for the reputation or integrity of individuals or groups, or when it may affect political decisions. In such cases, it is particularly important for researchers to discuss alternative interpretations of their findings, or to point out scientific uncertainty. If the results are used in a selective or tendentious manner by a commissioner, researchers has an obligation to point this out, and to demand that the misleading presentation be corrected.
40 Right and duty to publish
Knowledge is a collective good, and as a general rule, all results should be published. This is also important to enable the results to be critically examined or re-used.
Generally, researchers have a right and duty to publish complete descriptions and results of research projects. This may be important both for preventing research results from being presented selectively or in a skewed manner, and for giving others the opportunity to test the results.
However, private companies and government agencies may have a legitimate desire to protect themselves and their interests. Both negotiating strategies and the interests of national security may dictate that publication should be postponed or, in special cases, that the results should not be published. With exceptions for such situations and privacy considerations, commissioners and researchers should endeavour to ensure that the public has access to results. Any restrictions on the right to publish must be stipulated by contract at the start of the project.
F)DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH
41 Dissemination as an academic responsibility
Researchers and research institutions are obliged to disseminate scientific knowledge to a broader audience outside the research community.
Dissemination of research involves communicating scientific results, methods and values from specialised research fields to people outside the disciplines. Dissemination may be aimed at researchers in other disciplines, or at a broader audience. It may be a matter of disseminating established insights into the discipline, or results from more recent research.
The relationship between research and reporting is especially close in the humanities and social sciences, where a scholarly publication often also is a form of dissemination. In some cases there is not even a clear line between research and dissemination, because the knowledge is mediated as part of a public debate which in turn influences the research questions and answers.
One of the main reasons for dissemination of research is to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of the general public. Dissemination is also important for a well-functioning democratic society. Dissemination should contribute to maintaining and developing cultural traditions, to informing public opinion and to the dissemination of knowledge of relevance to society. Society has invested large sums in research, and therefore has a right to share the results.
42 Requirements for individuals and institutions
Research institutions must create conditions for extensive and broad dissemination of research characterised by high quality and relevance.
Research dissemination makes ethical demands on individuals and institutions alike. Universities and university colleges have a special responsibility to disseminate knowledge, results and scientific norms and values, both in their teaching of students and in relation to public administration, cultural life and business and industry. Institutions should promote dissemination, for example when appointing staff, in teaching, or through financial incentives. Institutions should also encourage dissemination in different arenas and through new kinds of learning, knowledge sharing and discourse, whether it be through the media, lecture series, conferences for non-academics or through public hearings.
Dissemination of research is also associated with freedom of expression and the infrastructure requirement in Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution: ?The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse.? Also the academic communities must contribute to these public discourses. Constitutional democracies with well-functioning public administrations and market economies are contingent on spheres in civil society that are primarily characterised not by principles of profitability and management logic, but by the principle that it is arguments that should count.
Universities and university colleges also have a responsibility to maintain and further develop Norwegian as an academic language.A Norwegian academic language is important for disseminating results both to those involved and to the general public and in the public discourse.
Good dissemination calls for interaction and cooperation between research institutions and other institutions such as the mass media, schools, art institutions, communities with various beliefs and voluntary associations. Dissemination may take place with varying participation by researchers and others (such as journalists and teachers), and may be written, verbal or based on other approaches (such as exhibitions and electronic media). All those who take part in such dissemination are subject to the same norms of research ethics.
43 Interdisciplinary discourse and public deliberation
An important part of dissemination of research in a modern society emerges from the interaction between specialists in various academic disciplines and the public discourse.
Many of the major challenges facing society related, for example, to ecology, globalisation and human rights, call for interdisciplinary cooperation and the integration of academic knowledge from a number of fields. There is therefore a strong need to translate and communicate knowledge both across different disciplines and to a broader public. The development of multi-disciplinary fora at research institutions provides a good basis both for discourse among specialists and for dissemination to the broader public.
Interdisciplinary discourse can define the basic demands made of a culture of academic discourse. Researchers must express themselves clearly enough for colleagues from other fields and other participants in the discourse to take a reasoned position on their assertions. As in the case of internal academic discussions, renderings of the contributions of others must not be tendentious and persons with other opinions must not have unreasonable views falsely attributed to them.
Dissemination should be clear and plainly express both academic uncertainty and the limitations of individual disciplines. Researchers should express clearly the limitations from the perspective of their own discipline and expertise in the field in question, which may make it easier for readers and the general public to determine whether other disciplinary perspectives could lead to other interpretations. Such interdisciplinary and inter-institutional discussions can serve as a sort of extended peer review.
44 Participation in public debate
Researchers should contribute scientific arguments to the public debate. Researchers should express themselves fairly and clearly in order to avoid tendentious interpretations of research results.
When researchers take part in public debate, they are using academic expertise as a basis for contributions to the formation of public opinion. They may contribute information in an area that is being debated, they may take a reasoned position on controversial topics, or they may seek to introduce new topics onto the public agenda.
Researchers have a responsibility to express themselves clearly and precisely, so that their research cannot be interpreted tendentiously and misused in political, cultural, social and economic contexts. Researchers should also engage in discussions about reasonable interpretations and justifiable use of research results. Other organisations and institutions, such as public relations departments, the mass media, political parties, interest organisations, enterprises and administrative bodies also have a responsibility to conduct themselves reasonably and acceptably in this context.
Participation in public debates places great demands on fairness, reasoning and clarity. There may be grey areas between participation as a researcher and participation as a citizen. Researchers should state their discipline and not only their degree or position, when acting in the capacity of expert. When academics take part as citizens, they should not use their titles or refer to special academic expertise.
45 Accountability in dissemination
The requirement of accountability is equally stringent in dissemination as in publication.
The audience of popularised academic presentations cannot be expected to be able to verify assertions made by specialised researchers. Accordingly, the requirement of accountability is equally stringent in dissemination as in academic publication.
Footnotes/endnotes and reference lists may seem cumbersome, but they can also help the interested reader to navigate through a large body of literature. It is also important to remember that specialists in other disciplines are part of the relevant audience.
Researchers may share hypotheses, theories and preliminary findings with the public in the course of a project, but must be cautious about presenting preliminary results as final conclusions.
46 Reporting results to participants
Researchers have a special obligation to report results back to the participants in a comprehensible and acceptable manner.
Participants in research have a right to receive something in return. This also applies to research where large groups of informants are involved. Dissemination of research may help to meet this requirement when direct contact with each participant is not possible.
Participants must also have the opportunity to correct misunderstandings where this is possible. Dialogue between researchers and participants in the course of the research project may often strengthen the research. Researchers must present the results so that key findings and insights are communicated in a manner that can be understood by the participants.
The next guidelines concern the exercise of research ethics through good scientific practice.
4 Researchers are responsible for conducting high-quality research characterised by scientific integrity, truthfulness, and accountability, and research institutions must create conditions that promote such practice.
Scientific integrity, truthfulness, and accountability are fundamental research ethics requirements. Researchers and research institutions have an obligation to familiarise themselves with and observe research ethics guidelines that are relevant to their type of research.
Scientific integrity
Researchers are responsible for respecting the research results of others and for exercising good scientific practice. Researchers must not conceal, misrepresent or falsify anything, whether in the planning, execution or reporting of the research. Plagiarism involves presenting the ideas or research of others as one’s own.
The individual researcher has an independent responsibility not to accept departures from good scientific practice, on his or her own account or that of others.Researchers who discover or are made aware of errors in their research, must admit the error, correct it, and ensure that the consequences of the error are minimal.
Good citation practice
It is in the nature of research to build on research by others. Researchers who take advantage of the ideas and research by others, both published and unpublished, must acknowledge this accurately, so that it is clear what the researcher’s own contribution is. Researchers must give a balanced and correct presentation of the research of others. Citations make research traceable and verifiable.
Verification
Researchers and research institutions must make data available to others for verification after a certain period. If the data are not used within this period, they should be made available to other researchers.
Within the framework of existing rules and regulations, institutions should have guidelines and procedures for preserving research data, in such a way that they can be retrieved - also after researchers have finished working at the institution.
5 Researchers must respect the contributions of other researchers and observe standards of authorship and cooperation.
Researchers must observe good publication practice. They must clarify individual responsibilities in group work as well as the rules for co-authorship. Honorary authorship is unacceptable. When several authors contribute, each authorship must be justified. Justified authorship is defined by four criteria, in accordance with the criteria drawn up by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):
a)Researchers must have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design or the data acquisition or the data analysis and interpretation; and
b)researchers must have contributed to drafting the manuscript or critical revision of the intellectual content of the publication; and
c)researchers must have approved the final version before publication; and
d)researchers must be able to accept responsibility for and be accountable for the work as a whole (albeit not necessarily all technical details) unless otherwise specified.
All authors in a multidisciplinary publication must be able to account for the part or parts for which they have been responsible in the research work, and which part or parts are the responsibility of other contributors.
All those who meet criterion a) must be able to meet b) and c). Contributors who do not fulfil all the criteria must be acknowledged.
6 When involved in reviewing the work of others (articles, theses, applications, positions, etc.), researchers have a responsibility to evaluate their own qualifications and impartiality.
If they are in any doubt, researchers should not take part in the review.
When acting as peer reviewers, researchers should abide by the following rules: i) researchers must recuse themselves as reviewers if they have been in a serious conflict with the author in question or if they have a direct cooperative or competitive relationship with the author; ii) researchers must acknowledge the limitations of their expertise where necessary.
7 Researchers must comply with national and international rules and regulations established to safeguard ethical and safety interests.
Good research practice entails observing national laws and rules, both in one’s home country and abroad. This also means the researcher should carefully consider whether it is ethically defensible to comply with foreign legislation and regulations, if the ethical standards are different from those in their home country.
This implies that:
a)researchers apply for the appropriate authorisations for projects where it is required
b)researchers respect national safety standards imposed on laboratories and learn and teach others to use equipment
c)researchers do not locate parts of their research in other countries for the purpose of achieving lower ethical or safety standards
d)researchers inform funding institutions of any non-conformant ethical or safety standards in the countries in which their research is conducted.
There are a multitude of types of knowledge in all societies. Professionals as well as laypeople have different kinds of experience-based knowledge. Individuals and local communities may possess specific local knowledge. Traditional knowledge is another useful term, which the International Council for Science defines as a cumulative body of knowledge, know-how, practices, and representations maintained and developed by peoples with extended histories of interaction with the natural environment. The traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples is of this type, but this kind of knowledge is found in every community. These types of knowledge and their bearers should be treated with due respect and at the same time protected against unreasonable exploitation.
14 Researchers must acknowledge the economic and cultural value of other forms of knowledge.
Researchers who directly use or build their research on other kinds of knowledge, have an obligation to acknowledge both the economic and the cultural value of this knowledge. Where such research results in financial gains, a fair and equitable share of the gain should benefit the bearers of the traditional knowledge. The traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples has particularly strong protection against unreasonable exploitation through international conventions such as the Nagoya Protocol.
15 Where relevant, researchers should engage in dialogue with other knowledge-bearers.
Local and traditional knowledge arise from experience. Although these forms of knowledge do not necessarily meet the usual standards for scientific knowledge, they may be an important supplement to understanding the nature, environment, and living conditions of particular populations and local communities. It is therefore important for researchers to enter into a dialogue with the bearers of this knowledge, not least in applied research, which can potentially impact local communities and their living conditions. International organisations have placed particular emphasis on the need to respect and use the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples in environmental research. This implies that when scientific knowledge or technology is applied, researchers should be open to utilising relevant kinds of knowledge.
16 Research should involve the affected parties where relevant.
Researchers must use appropriate methods to ensure that the affected parties are involved. Citizen participation may provide a democratic corrective to choices as to what research should focus on and be aimed at. The participation of users, citizens, and other social actors is laid down in a series of international conventions, including the Aarhus Convention.
On occasion, conflicts may arise between the individual researcher and a senior or an authority. This is particularly problematic when the conflict arises because the researcher regards it as his or her ethical duty to act as a whistleblower, sometimes contrary to the advice of a superior or authority. Instances of whistleblowing may concern internal matters in the research, such as scientific integrity, or they may pertain to matters of societal significance. As whistleblowing of this kind is based on discretionary assessments, it often creates a basis for unresolved conflicts. The institution must ensure that the whistleblower’s legal protection is not threatened.
19 When, in the course of their work, researchers become aware of matters that they consider to be in conflict with ethical principles or their social responsibility, they must have the possibility and, depending on the circumstances, the duty, to act as whistleblower.
In concrete terms, this means that researchers must consider carefully
a)the possibilities for resolving the conflict internally in the organisation
b)the possible consequences of such whistleblowing for the researcher personally, the research institution and society, both if the circumstances reported are correct and if they are not correct
c)the possible consequences of failing to act as a whistleblower
d)the whistleblowing channels that best lend themselves to minimise conflict and optimise actions to remedy the damage
e)possible other motives behind the whistleblowing that may affect the researcher’s own objectivity
20 Research institutions must have independent mechanisms that can support employees in whistleblowing situations.
It is important that all parties involved in a whistleblowing situation respect the fact that the process must be dealt with in a neutral manner. An independent body must investigate the conflict, and the whistleblower must be protected against unreasonable or untimely reactions.
This means that
a)research institutions must have mechanisms for taking care of both the whistleblower and the subject of the disclosure
b)research institutions must have mechanisms for conducting such an independent scrutiny of whistleblowing cases in the institution
c)these mechanisms must be known to the researchers at the institution