Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct

This article describes and discusses the views of researchers on the significance of raising concerns about scientific misconduct in their work environment and the reasons or circumstances that might deter them from doing so. In this exploratory qualitative research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 33 researchers working in life sciences and medicine. They represent three seniority levels and five universities across Switzerland. A large majority of respondents in this research study argued that failure to raise concerns about scientific misconduct compromises research integrity. This is an encouraging result demonstrating that researchers try to adhere to high ethical standards. However, further interaction with respondents highlighted that this correct ethical assessment does not lead researchers to take the consequent action of raising concerns. The factors that discourage researchers from raising concerns need to be addressed at the level of research groups, institutions, and by setting a positive precedent which helps them to believe in the system’s ability to investigate concerns raised in a timely and professional manner. Training of researchers in research integrity related issues will have limited utility unless it is coupled with the creation of research culture where raising concerns is a standard practice of scientific and research activities.     

The Civilizing Process of Trust: Developing Quality Mechanisms which are Local,Professional‐led and thus Legitimate

‘Quality’ and ‘performance’ have become defining concepts for policymakers and health‐care systems alike. Yet whilst these principles are of fundamental importance, their practical implementation and assurance are far from straightforward. This commentary analyses the difficulties faced in enhancing quality and performance in the English NHS. Many recent initiatives have been driven through incentives and external auditing of the professionals providing health care on the frontline. Drawing on recent literature and research findings, we argue that this checking‐based ‘audit culture’ is fundamentally flawed in driving quality and performance. Many targets and measures are too crude to reflect important aspects affecting patient outcomes and therefore these frameworks lack legitimacy amongst professionals. An alternative, trust‐based model is proposed – one more capable of acknowledging the meaning, complexity and specificities inherent to professional work. Quality mechanisms developed locally by professionals are able to produce the legitimacy crucial for their effectiveness. It is argued that the normative obligation of approaches based on conditional trust is a more compelling incentive towards good practice than targets and sanctions. This governance by ‘the social’ is able to motivate a more holistically enlightened and consistent reflexivity towards practice, though it is only able to flourish in the absence of purposive‐rational systems.     

论协同主义视野下的当事人事案解明义务

基于协同主义的理念,民事诉讼中的当事人应当负担事案解明义务,即为了查清案件事实,促进诉讼进程,当事人应当陈述相关事实、提交相关证据。当事人的事案解明义务并非一般意义上的原则性规定,而是在特定条件下才应当承担的义务,法官对于违反事案解明义务的行为应当酌情给予制裁。我国民事诉讼引入当事人事案解明义务可能存在理论和实践层面的障碍,但由于协同主义理念在我国民事诉讼中有生存的土壤,故旨在实现当事人之间实质平等的当事人事案解明义务也就有了探讨的必要。     

论法官说理义务的障碍及解决

为了树立司法权威,提高司法公信力,2012年新修订的《民事诉讼法》明确规定了法官说理义务。这需要从两方面贯彻实施:一方面,应当修正限制法官说理的司法政策,从而塑造良好的制度环境;另一方面,应当对判决书的样式做相应的调整,从以法官展示事实、适用法律为中心转向以说服当事人接受判决结果为中心。     

可持续发展·义务本位·文明的飞跃

可持续发展呼唤义务本位的法律精神 ;具有普遍意义的义务本位为可持续发展的法制建设提供了法理上的依据 ;可持续发展观的推行意味着人类文明的一次质的飞跃 ;义务本位是推进可持续发展、促进人类文明飞跃的重要思想理论武器。     

浅析企业年金计划的偿付责任与企业负债率的关系

开办企业年金计划企业的会计报表屁示,这些企业的财务杠杆率相对企业的举债能力而言普遍偏低,但是,如果企业把年金计划的偿付责任作为企业长期负债合并到企业资产负债表中,则这类企业的低财务杠杆率相对于最优财务杠杆率的差距将减小。本文从企业年金缴费对应征税收入影响和会计处理的角度,分析企业年金计划对企业边际税率和企业资本结构调整的作用。     

美国金融控股公司加重责任制度评析

美国金融控股公司加重责任制度的主要内容是,要求金融控硬公司完全或部分地保证其所管理的子公司的清偿能力,要求金融控股公司向其不能清偿债务的子公司重新注入资金,或向政府机构赔偿因子公司经营失败而给公众债权人造成的损失,或赔偿公共保险基金。加重责任制度抑制了金融控殷公司中特有的道德风险问题。加重责任制度存在的问题可以采取一定的措施加以解决。     

美国金融控股公司加重责任制度研究

美国金融控股公司加重责任制度的主要内容是 ,要求金融控股公司完全或部分地保证其所管理的子公司的清偿能力 ,要求金融控股公司向其不能清偿债务的子公司重新注入资金 ,或向政府机构赔偿因子公司经营失败而给公众债权人造成的损失 ,或赔偿公共保险基金。它要求控股公司对子公司作出开放式的财务承诺 ,表明了对传统的公司有限责任制度的制度突破。加重责任制度与公司法人人格否认制度本质上存在很多差异     

人工智能产品算法设计者的犯罪过失判断——以危惧感说的核心观点为立场

判断人工智能产品算法设计者的过失时,修正的旧过失论对导致危害结果发生的因果历程设置了具体预见可能性标准,这一标准与算法的黑箱属性以相关性而不是因果关系为基础的决策过程存在冲突。同时,此立场只重视结果忽视行为的逻辑会打击算法设计者的积极性,阻碍算法进步。新过失论虽然以结果避免义务作为犯罪过失的核心,但是其对结果预见可能性的标准缺乏具体设计,在判断预见可能性时往往束手无策。因此,两种立场都不是判断人工智能产品算法设计者犯罪过失的合理方案。相比之下,虽然危惧感说(超新过失论)认为结果预见可能性只需达到危惧感的观点受到了主流观点的批评,但这种批评值得商榷:其一,只看到了这种立场对结果预见可能性的低程度要求,却没有看到这种要求背后的核心观点对于判断犯罪过失的合理性;其二,将危惧感说提出者本人对个别案件的过失判断等同于危惧感说的全部,略显片面。与修正的旧过失论和新过失论相比,危惧感说的核心观点是:结果预见可能性与结果避免义务存在相互关联性,这是判断人工智能产品算法设计者犯罪过失的合理方案。以危惧感说的核心观点为思路,犯罪过失包括客观的结果预见可能性、客观的结果预见义务和客观的结果避免义务。人工智能产品算法设计者客观的结果预见可能性的标准是:一旦遭遇包含异常因素的特殊情况,算法有可能做出不利决策,进而引发消极后果。算法设计者客观的结果预见义务的内容是:其一,应当预见到其设计的算法不仅会被用于没有异常因素出现的正常情况,而且可能被用于伴随异常因素出现的特殊情况;其二,一旦其设计的算法面临特殊情况,该系统可能会做出不利决策。算法设计者客观的结果避免义务的内容是:应当避免在设计算法时植入为社会公众普遍反对或不赞同的价值理念;在设计时检验"投喂"给算法系统的数据质量,最大程度防止缺陷数据进入算法机器学习训练的"垃圾进"风险;及时告知产品生产者算法可能面对的异常情况。     

权利义务观与亲子伦理精神的现代重建

在传统社会中,孝慈精神是亲子伦理精神的核心内容。孝慈精神逻辑上主张权利与义务相统一,但事实上却重孝轻慈、表现为一种权利义务失衡的价值选择。在现代社会中,社会转型形成个人独立化趋势与家庭私人生活领域化趋势,而此两大趋势迫使人们排斥权利义务失衡的价值选择而追求权利和义务统一的价值信念,最终导致亲子伦理精神的现代危机。在亲子伦理精神的现代重建过程中,首先要确立法律层面权利义务观的基石地位,其次要重视道德层面权利义务观的提升功能,其三要慎用法律作为道德底线的强制权威。