|
|
|
| Research on the Processing Procedure of Research Misconduct：Comments on the "Rules for Investigation and Handling of Cases of Scientific Research Integrity (Trial)" |
| Wang Jixia,Yin Jiaxi |
| （School of Humanity and Social Science,University of Science and Technology Beijing,Beijing 100083,China） |
|
|
|
Abstract Research misconduct have always been the phenomena resisted by the academia.In recent years, it has occurred frequently, among which Zhai Tianlin incident and gene editing baby incident have become hot topics among the public.The impact of these events prompted the academic community, universities, education management departments and science and technology management departments to strengthen the investigation of scientific research misconduct, and also led to a large increase in the number of reported cases of scientific research misconduct by the public.While the phenomena attract great public attention, government departments have continuously issued corresponding documents to strengthen the construction of scientific research integrity.For example, the opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Research Integrity jointly issued by the office of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council in 2018 proposed to "adhere to zero tolerance and maintain a high-pressure situation of severely cracking down on acts seriously violating the requirements of scientific research integrity".In 2019, the opinions on further carrying forward the spirit of scientists and strengthening the construction of style and style of study jointly issued by the office of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council stressed that "strengthening the construction of style and style of study and creating a clean and positive scientific research environment" all showed a strict attitude of zero tolerance for scientific research misconduct.
In this context, in September 2019, the rules for investigation and handling of scientific research integrity cases (Trial) jointly issued by the Ministry of Science and technology and other 20 ministries and commissions have constructed the scientific research misconduct as a whole for the first time (scientific research integrity cases) the investigation and handling process system defines the responsibilities of various departments in handling scientific research misconduct cases, and integrates the previous decentralized regulations of various science and technology that there are specific and unified procedures for the investigation and handling of scientific research misconduct cases.the "rules for investigation and handling of cases of scientific research integrity (Trial)"has constructed the overall investigation and processing procedures of scientific research misconduct, which is a milestone document for the construction of scientific research integrity in China.
However, the "Investigation and Handling Rules of Scientific Research Integrity Cases (Trial)" can not really solve the problems such as the diversity of investigation subjects, the confusion between factual problems and academic problems, the lack of fairness of procedural rules and the lack of relief channels.It is necessary to learn from the experience of regulation of scientific research misconduct in the United States, make up for the lack of self-discipline in the scientific community through legal procedures, constantly improve the processing procedures of scientific research misconduct in the endogenous mechanism, force the investigation departments to standardize the internal investigation and processing procedures through legislative and judicial intervention in the external constraints, and construct the combination of self-discipline and external constraints of legal rules so as to purify the academic circles and promote "rejuvenating the country through science and technology".
The investigation of scientific research misconduct in the United States has experienced a process of extinction of "Scientific Dialogue", that is, in the past, scientists in the scientific community collected and reviewed relevant evidence.Because this model ignored and avoided the legitimacy of the investigation procedure, and the process was very slow, "for the investigation procedure of federal agencies, this is a bad model".Therefore, the development of the investigation and punishment procedure of scientific research misconduct has adopted a formal "legal model".Now the United States has established a complete and efficient processing program.Judicial review attaches great importance to the protection of the substantive rights (property rights, freedom rights, etc.) of the respondents in the investigation and handling procedures of academic / scientific research misconduct.China's handling of scientific research misconduct has also experienced a slow transition from "Scientific Dialogue" to the current limited introduction of public power and law The text has the characteristics of strong attribute of public power and weak judicial intervention and protection.In China's judicial practice, the judicial review of scientific research misconduct has achieved a certain degree of breakthrough.Although scientific research and academic behavior enjoy greater freedom and autonomy because of their professionalism and self-discipline, state supervision should maintain a relatively positive position and attitude when academic autonomy is suspected of "professional abuse".Therefore, the court should have the right to review the cases of scientific research misconduct, and China's norms of scientific research misconduct should also undergo a transformation from "Scientific Dialogue" to legal model, which shall urge the investigation department to standardize the internal investigation and handling procedures through necessary judicial intervention to realize procedural legitimacy, build a scientific research integrity construction system combining the self-discipline constraints of the scientific community and the external constraints of legal rules, so that research misconduct could be prevented not only because of severe punishment, but also good governance and self-conscience to truly purify the academic community and promote" rejuvenating the country through science and technology ".
|
|
Received: 18 January 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 和鸿鹏,齐昆鹏,王聪.科研不端定义的国际比较研究:表现形式与界定方式[J].自然辩证法研究,2020,36(5):73-78. [2] 王聪,刘玉强.我国高校科研诚信政策中的科研诚信概念研究[J].科学与社会,2020,10(2):127-141. [3] 刘兰剑,杨静.科研诚信问题成因分析及治理[J].科技进步与对策,2019,36(21):112-117. [4] 史冬波,周博文.科研不端行为特征与治理对策:国家自然科学基金披露科研不端行为的实证分析[J].科技进步与对策,2019,36(3):106-110. [5] 常宏建,方玉东.我国科研不端行为法律规制体系:现状、问题与建构[J].科技进步与对策,2015,32(24):89-93. [6] 和鸿鹏,陈雅玲.比较视角下的中国科研不端查处政策:兼评《科研诚信案件调查处理规则(试行)》[J].中国科学基金,2020,34(3):318-323.[7] HOOMAN MOMEN, LARAGH GOLLOGLY.Cross-cultural perspectives of scientific misconduct [J].Medicine and Law, 2007(3):409-416. [8] SPECE R G,BERNSTEIN C.Scientific misconduct and liability for the Acts of others[J].Medicine and Law,2007,26(3):477-491. [9] SOVACOOL B K.Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct[J].The American Journal of Bioethics,2005,5(5):W1-W7. [10] 徐靖.科研失信行为处理的程序法治规则[J].高校教育管理,2020,14(3):83-91.[11] 北京市第一中级人民法院(2017)京01行终277号二审行政判决书[Z].2017.[12] 浙江省杭州市中级人民法院(2017)浙01行初212号一审行政判决书[Z].2017. [13] 严燕.论学术不端法律规制的谦抑性[J].学术界,2016，31(5):111-119. [14] 徐靖.高等学校学术委员会与学位评定委员会的法律关系[J].高等教育研究,2019,40(2):47-54. [15] 王阳.美国科研诚信建设演变的制度逻辑与中国借鉴[J].自然辩证法研究,2020,36(7):52-58. [16] 刘军仪.美英科研诚信建设的实践与探索[M].北京:党建读物出版社,2016:36-37.[17] DAN L BURK.Research misconduct: deviance, due process, and the disestablishment of science[J].George Mason Independent Law Review,1995(2):305-350.[18] 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93:Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct[EB/OL].https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf.2020-1-2.[19] 45 CFR 689: Research Misconduct[EB/OL].https://www.nsf.gov/oig/_pdf/cfr/45-CFR-689.pdf.2020-1-2.[20] GARY S MARX.An overview of the research misconduct process and an analysis of the appropriate burden of proof[J].Journal of College and University Law,2016,42(2):311-374.[21] ROY G SPECE, CAROL BERNSTEIN.What is scientific misconduct, who has to (dis)prove it, and to what level of certainty[J].Medicine and Law, 2007,26(3): 493-510.[22] Board of Regents of State Colleges v.Roth ,408 U.S.564(1972) [EB/OL].https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1971/71-162_01-18-1972.pdf.2020-01-02.[23] STEVEN G OLSWANG, BARBARA A LEE.Scientific misconduct: institutional procedures and due process considerations[J].Journal of College and University Law, 1984,11(1):51-64. [24] 周佑勇.作为过程的行政调查:在一种新研究范式下的考察[J].法商研究,2006,23(1):129-136. [25] 周佑勇.行政法的正当程序原则[J].中国社会科学,2004，25(4):115-124. [26] 危怀安,韦滨.科研诚信问题的整体性治理[J].科技进步与对策,2019,36(21):106-111. [27] 董兴佩.学术不端行为惩戒立法论纲[J].山东科技大学学报(社会科学版),2007,9(5):26-32. [28] 姚荣.重申学术自由的内在与外在界限[J].高校教育管理,2019,13(2):89-100. [29] 史昱.中国科研诚信政策的演变与评价(1949—2017年)[J].中国软科学,2019，34(10):158-164. |
|
|
|
