伦理维度：公共政策研究中不可缺失的研究向度

公共政策目标是实现以人为本的全面、协调、可持续的社会发展,人的问题是公共政策的核心问题。从公共性出发,以公共利益为基本价值导向,立足于公平公正的伦理要求,制定合乎伦理要求的公共政策,这是和谐社会的必然性要求,也是党与政府提升执政能力的根本性要求。所以,伦理维度是公共政策研究不可缺失的研究向度。如果仅以工具理性为基础,忽视价值合理性,必定会导致公共政策异化。     

重大公共政策社会稳定风险评估中风险沟通机制的构建--基于北京市水价调整政策的案例分析

针对重大公共政策社会稳定风险评估（以下简称“稳评”）中利益相关方之间风险沟通不足的问题,引入IRGC的风险治理理念,建立重大公共政策稳评中风险沟通机制的分析框架,将风险沟通作为稳评工作的核心环节并贯穿于政策制定与实施的全过程。为了验证该分析框架的适用性,选取北京市水价调整政策为典型案例,对稳评过程中风险沟通机制的现实运作进行深入剖析和经验总结,并从注重评估工作与风险沟通的全程性、加强多元主体间的协商对话、充分发挥媒体作用等方面,就如何进一步推进和完善重大公共政策稳评机制展开探讨。     

社会工作视野中的伦理

社会工作与伦理的关系经历了从自发到自觉,危机的产生,再到伦理对于社会工作的重新回归的发展阶段。社会工作中的伦理体系的构建既要借鉴西方发达国家已有的社会工作伦理价值体系,又要立足于中国的本土实际,既要充分挖掘我国传统文化资源,更要顺应中国当今社会主流的伦理文化的发展,适应中国社会主义市场经济的发展。现代社会工作视野中的伦理应该是由多层次的理论与实践体系所构成,包括对社会工作道德哲学层次的思考,社会工作道德原则和规范的构建,社会工作的实践机制以及社会工作伦理与相关学科的相互借鉴的研究。     

论信念伦理在公共危机管理中的意义

马克斯·韦伯将信念伦理和责任伦理视为人类活动中的两种基本伦理导向。其中,信念伦理强调善良动机的重要性和目的对于行为选择的支配性。公共危机管理理念之下,需要有信念伦理的自律,作为公共管理者的行为导向与约束,这既出于公共事务管理本身的需要,也基于公共危机应对的要求。同时,在公共危机管理中,应当将信念伦理和责任伦理两种行为导向有机地结合起来。     

民族伦理学研究的人类学视角

民族伦理学涉及民族学和伦理学两门学科,而民族学与人类学在学科性质上的“亲缘性”、在研究目标和理论立场上的共通性,内在地要求民族伦理学 应主动采用人类学的研究方法,以推进民族伦理学研究由抽象演绎向实证分析和文化解释的转变。深化民族伦理学研究,需要研究者面向普通人的生活世界,深入民间进行田野工作;需要研究者以历史主义的学术立场,探究民族伦理文化的历史变迁和现实状况。民族伦理学应关注不同民族人民用自身的道德话语和道德行为“书写”出来的道德生活史,在对人们日常交往生活的微观叙事中展现民族丰富多样的伦理文化。     

Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher's Perspective, 2nd Edition*

Wiley has updated its publishing ethics guidelines, first published in 2006. The new guidelines provide guidance, resources, and practical advice on ethical concerns that arise in academic publishing for editors, authors, and researchers, among other audiences. New guidance is also included on whistle blowers, animal research, clinical research, and clinical trial registration, addressing cultural differences, human rights, and confidentiality. The guidelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the wide range of communities that Wiley serves. They are also published in Advanced Materials, Headache, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, International Journal of Clinical Practice, and on the website http://exchanges.wiley.com/ethicsguidelines .     

An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies

Research misconduct is an international concern. Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct, and many institutions have developed their own policies. While institutional policies play a key role in preventing and policing misconduct, national policies are also important to ensure consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards. The purpose of this study was to obtain more information about research misconduct policies across the globe. We found that twenty-two of the top forty research and development funding countries (55%) had a national misconduct policy. Four countries (18.2%) are in the process of developing a policy, and four (18.2%) have a national research ethics code but no misconduct policy. All twenty-two countries (100%) with national policies included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the definition of misconduct, but beyond that there was considerable diversity. Unethical authorship was mentioned in 54.6% of the misconduct definitions, followed by unethical publication practices (36.4%), conflict of interest mismanagement (36.4%), unethical peer review (31.8%), misconduct related to misconduct investigations (27.3%), poor record keeping (27.3%), other deception (27.3%), serious deviations (22.7%), violating confidentiality (22.7%), and human or animal research violations (22.7%). Having a national policy was positively associated with research and development funding ranking and intensiveness. To promote integrity in international research collaborations, countries should seek to harmonize and clarify misconduct definitions and develop procedures for adjudicating conflicts when harmonization does not occur.     

Why the tolerance of potential harms? Research ethics in Alzheimer disease

This article summarizes the history of presentations to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) by representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, Inc., on the topic of human subjects research ethics. The interactions between these two bodies presents a useful profile of a public commission and a voluntary association working to clarify issues of great importance to the association's constituency. The context of epidemiology and ongoing research is also briefly presented. The author is a member of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, Inc., National Ethics Advisory Panel, and in that role presented the Association position before NBAC and at the Friends Research Institute conference.     

Ethical consideration of the research proposal and the informed-consent process: An online survey of researchers and ethics committee members in Thailand

Researchers designing and conducting studies using human data should consider the values and principles of ethical conduct. Research ethics committees (RECs) typically evaluate the ethical acceptability of research proposals. Sometimes, differences arise between how researchers and RECs interpret ethical principles, and how they decide what constitutes ethical conduct. This study aimed to explore the opinions of these two groups about the importance of core ethical issues in the proposal and in the informed-consent process. An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to a target population in health-related academic/research institutes across Thailand; 219 researchers and 72 REC members participated. Significantly, more REC members than researchers attributed the highest importance to three core ethical considerations – risk/benefit, vulnerability, and confidentiality/privacy. For the informed-consent process, significant differences were found for communication of risks, decision-making authority for consent, process for approaching study participants, and availability of a contact for study deviations/violations. The different ratings indicate differences in the groups’ perspectives on ethical principles, which may affect focal congruence on ethical issues in the proposal. Communication of these findings should help close gaps between REC and researcher perceptions. Further study should investigate how RECs and researchers perceive equivocal ethics terms.     

非人类中心环境伦理学的若干理论问题

非人类中心环境伦理的建立需要在理论上对传统的伦理思想有一些重大的突破。从历史上人类道德意识发展的趋势看 ,人们将道德关怀的范围扩展到人类之外是有可能的 ;但从道德行为的性质看 ,非人类中心的环境伦理得面对一些重要的理论难题。解决这些难题的关键 ,不在于根据既有的伦理原则进行逻辑的推衍 ,而在于人们通过跟非人类生命形式的沟通而建立起与它们的认同。这种认同在程度和范围上受到的限制意味着非人类中心的环境伦理可能也只能在有限的意义上建立。     

Canadian policy on reporting breaches of research integrity: When should Research Ethics Boards be informed?

ABSTRACT

In Canada, institutions that receive research funding from the three federal granting agencies must establish research ethics boards (REBs) to review the ethical acceptability of research involving humans. Institutions are also expected to promote the responsible conduct of research, fostering researchers’ abilities to act with integrity in the conduct of their research. Where a researcher fails to act with integrity in research with humans, institutional policies and procedures of the U15, Canada’s most research-intensive universities, vary in the extent to which they involve their REBs in response to such breaches. Some make no mention of the REB, whereas others state that their REB should be provided with information relating to upheld allegations. In this paper, we argue that when allegations of research integrity breaches are corroborated, the institution’s REB should be identified as a party required to receive that information. Only then can REBs ensure compliance with research ethics standards, which is essential to maintain the public’s trust.     

The role of funding on research and science: The impact of glyphosate herbicides on health and the environment

The objective of this research is to determine the factors that influence the outcomes of previous scientific research on the potential adverse effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) on human and animal health and the environment. The emphasis is placed on answering the questions about the causal linkages between who funds and performs the research and the research outcomes. A lack of change in use of the GBHs in agriculture stems directly from public (Government) support of the position how the GBHs are safe for humans and the environment. The results of our meta-analysis clearly demonstrate how large and growing majority of influential research on the subject suggests otherwise. Early research on the subject, prior to 2010, done by private and public sector researchers was strongly indicating how GBHs are safe for humans, animals and the environment. It is possible that there is inertia in food safety policy leading to this large gap and disconnect between the results of hundreds of more recent studies and the (current) course of public policy. This study helps us better understand why science on this subject has not been conclusive and thus not the main driver of “science-based” policies about the GBH based production of genetically modified foods. The importance and the implications of this research are obvious: Evidence-based decisions and policies informed by rigorous research and unimpeded by other interested parties are necessary when it comes to developing public policy that affects food safety and in turn human and animal health, and the environment.     

The Hidden Housing Policy: Management of Public Housing Estates in Australia

Management of public rental housing is out of public view because most of the rules, regulations, and management policy directions arise from within the housing authorities themselves. As such, the policies can be vague, contradictory, and unrelated to the actual social and economic situations of the residents of public housing. The housing estate manager must translate these policies into a workable day-by-day relationship with tenants. The quality of housing estates is the result. We must be concerned, for on this quality rests the success or failure of our public housing policy.     

Awareness of Publication Guidelines and the Responsible Conduct of Research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32’s.     

Awareness of publication guidelines and the responsible conduct of research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32's.     

Ethical challenges in international HIV prevention research

Members of an HIV-prevention research network were asked to describe ethical challenges faced in their work. Major themes included acceptable standards of care for participants, defining research of relevance to host countries, reducing risks related to stigma, designing research that meets local needs without contributing to an inadequate status quo, and ensuring informed consent for complex research with potentially vulnerable participants. The challenges are interrelated and highlight the need for innovative, practical strategies to be incorporated into the planning, design, and conduct of HIV prevention trials. Research in applied ethics to support decision-making about HIV prevention research is needed, along with ethics training, mechanisms to support community-wide benefit from research, and expanded dialog on ethics surrounding HIV prevention and public health research.     

汉唐“天狗”考释

唐贞观十七年（公元643年）与天宝三年（公元744年）两次出现＂天狗＂谣言,引起大规模恐慌。该谣言所指的＂天狗＂在汉唐时期被认为是大凶与灾难的象征,具有神秘性与耸动性。从形成的过程看,＂天狗＂谣言在南朝梁陈时期即已大规模流行。从社会学与伦理学角度分析,唐前期的两次＂天狗＂谣言反映了当时人们对于盛世下潜在政治危机的担忧,也体现了当时以阴阳五行为主的主流学术思想、以佛道为首的宗教神秘主义、包括谣言在内的封建迷信等社会思想对于大众的深刻影响。谣言是特殊的社会现象,曲折地反映了社会的现实,考察谣言为研究社会环境和大众思想提供了一个全新的视角。     

Unfinished business: ongoing ethical exceptionalism in the oversight of human pluripotent stem cell research in Canada

In this article, we critically examine the arguments for and against the exceptional status given human pluripotent stem cell research in Canada (through the latest [December 2010] revision of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans), and conclude that this exceptionalism is unwarranted and ethically unsound. In our view, the three federal research granting agencies should honor their longstanding commitment that researchers, research sponsors, and Research Ethics Boards in Canada have access to "a single reference document for all research involving humans conducted under the auspices of institutions eligible for Agency funding." As well, responsibility for the development, interpretation, and implementation of Canada's research ethics guidelines should be under the authority of a single oversight body that is independent of the federal research granting Agencies.     

Which ethics for science and public policy?

The problem of inaccurate, misapplied or fraudulent scientific data could be addressed by government regulations, or by self‐regulation from within science itself. To many, self‐regulation implies the grounding of research activities in some “neutral”; standard of “ethics”; acceptable in a “pluralistic”; society. Yet, there is no such thing as a “neutral ethics”; and many “contemporary”; theories contain such serious theoretical deficiencies and contradictions that they are practically inapplicable. As a viable alternative to these theoretical and practical problems, an objectively based realistic framework of ethics is considered, and used to ground both the individual scientific and the collective public policy decision making processes. This is an ethics of properly integrated relationships. It is then applied to an analysis of many of the causes of incorrect scientific data, as well as of many of the internal and external pressures and abuses often experienced by scientists today. This approach respects the integrity of each decision maker as a human being and a moral agent—which in turn better insures the integrity of the protocol, the data, and the public policy decisions which follow—and ultimately, the integrity of the scientific enterprise itself. The alternative is government regulations.     

Global Research Integrity in Relation to the United States' Research-Integrity Infrastructure

Recent global attention to research integrity has led to international meetings and the development of international policies and guidelines. The United States's infrastructure for fostering research integrity (policy, instruction, oversight) has usefully supported these international initiatives. The United States cannot and should not, however, expect other national and global systems to match exactly its approach to research integrity.