|
|
|
| The Realistic Drive and Academic Logic of the Sampling of National Science and Technology Program Projects: An External NormativePerspective of Scientific Research Integrity |
| Liu Shengli1,2,Pan Yuntao1,Zhao Xiaoyuan1 |
| (1.Center for Scientific Metrology and Evaluation Research,Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, Beijing 100038, China;2.Library and Institute of Science, Technology and Society, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The social demand and institutional supply of scientific research integrity are classic topics of science policy and undergoing an ethical turn and a model evolution from "internal norms" to "external norms"in recent decades. It is urgent to guide the cognitive level of public decision-making groups to sublimate from "local perceptual understanding" to "overall rational understanding" to promote the scientific decision-making of relevant policies. In order to get rid of the concepts such as "governance of scientific research integrity" and "governance of scientific research misconduct" that emphasize or limit government responsibilities and obligations, it is essential to employ the institutional paradigm and theoretical perspective defined by the concept of "external norms of scientific research integrity" to dominate and integrate multidisciplinary and multi-field knowledge to meet the needs of "interdisciplinary" theoretical innovation and academic construction. #br#Therefore, the realistic drive and doctrinal logic of the institutionalized practice of "sampling of national science and technology plan projects" are examined from the perspectives of “external norms of scientific research integrity” in this study with the focus on the "standardized" nature of the system and the overall optimization of the "system and strategy" to promote the criticism and improvement of the relevant systems of "external norms of scientific research integrity". The selection of research contents and research methods is based on the following considerations:(1)the judgment of "realistic situation" and "principled" knowledge has the effect of "correcting" and "accelerating"in practice, and once the "academic logic" pointing to "certainty" is understood and mastered by the public, it will produce a powerful synergy to transform society, upgrade the system, and guide people's conscious action; (2)"random inspection of national science and technology projects(NSTP)" is an urgent adjustment of government scientific research regulatory policies that need to be explained. #br#This research argues that the realistic drives mainly include three aspects: (1) the global institutionalization trend of "external norms of scientific research integrity" and the crisis of scientific research integrity against the backdrop of the evolution of public perception and scientific research organization model; (2) the rigid need of government to ensure the integrity, efficiency and local effectiveness of the National Science and Technology Program; (3) the significant deficiencies of over-reliance on whistleblowing, public opinion, and the system of social moral rewards. Meanwhile, the academic logic is found to be derived from moral philosophy, philosophy of science, judicial economics, information economics and statistical quality management, mainly including: (1) facing up to the social attributes of the "scientific research establishment" to improve the institutionalized "discipline" of "moral self-discipline"; (2) improving the technical quality of punishment to realize a deterrent mechanism based on "rule-based" punishment; (3) shortening the "entrustment-agent" chain of intervention in investigations to improve the efficiency of scientific research integrity supervision; (4) introducing the technical strategy of "statistical sampling + AQL" to establish a macro control of scientific research quality at the overall level. #br#These results indicate that random inspection of NSTP is both legitimate and reasonable, and some further practice efficiency improvements can be made following the advices based on the above-mentioned academic logic. The first advice is to sort out and eliminate the monopoly of opportunities, information constraints and information asymmetries associated with opportunistic behaviors such as "laziness" and "shoddy", and eliminate opportunists and uncertainties from the scientific power system. Then it is necessary to promote the elimination of unnecessary "workshop-style" scientific research, and upgrade scientific research information flow and scientific research workflow. The last but not the least thing is to protect the freedom of idea generation and the rights and interests of non-literature dissemination stage, and promote the health and fairness of the evaluation relationship and evaluation rules between people in the scientific research system. The present research conclusions and the demonstration framework are conducive to deepening the empirical understanding of the "Sampling of National Science and Technology Program Projects" as well as "External Norms of Scientific Research Integrity", and provide a more concise cognitive framework and a more methodical analytical framework for management decision-making, knowledge dissemination and theoretical update iteration.#br#
|
|
Received: 18 July 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 科技部.关于开展2021年度国家科技计划项目随机抽查工作的通知 [Z].国科办监〔2021〕125号,2021.
[2] 科技部.关于开展2020年度国家科技计划项目随机抽查工作的通知[Z].国科办监〔2020〕89号,2020.
[3] 刘垠.五部委开展2020年度国家科技计划项目随机抽查[N]. 科技日报, 2020-10-14.
[4] 唐壮,聂培琴.建立并完善道德自律和法律规制互动的科研诚信体系[J].科研管理, 2008,29(S1): 4-12.
[5] 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.
[6] 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): 6-14.
[7] 印波. 至善、因袭与实用:科研诚信案件查处规范制定的价值准则[J].科学与社会, 2020,10(4): 85-101.
[8] 俞立平, 周朦朦, 苏光耀. 中国科研诚信政策的演化特征研究——基于1981-2020年的政策文本分析 [J]. 情报科学, 2022,40(5): 51-58,64.
[9] 姜春林.国内外科研诚信研究比较:主题、热点与趋势[J].西南民族大学学报(人文社科版), 2020,41(8): 226-233.
[10] 杨锐, 杨亮, 李良强, 等. 我国科研诚信政策特征及演化逻辑——基于文本挖掘法[J].科技进步与对策, 2020,37(20): 89-98.
[11] 吴冠军.科研诚信与学术声誉——基于政治哲学与博弈论的思考[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020,38(7): 75-86.
[12] LI T.Five ways China must cultivate research integrity [J].Nature,2019,575(7784):589-599.
[13] 刘胜利, 潘云涛, 赵筱媛. 科研诚信外部规范合目的性与合规律性的理论分析[J].现代情报, 2020,40(9): 7-14.
[14] 罗卫东.跨学科社会科学研究:理论创新的新路径[J].浙江社会科学, 2007,23(2): 35-41.
[15] 默顿,林聚任. 科学的规范结构[J]. 世界哲学, 2000,45(3): 56-60.
[16] POLANYI M, POLANYI M. The republic of science[J]. Minerva, 1962, 1(1): 54-73.
[17] BUSH V. Science, the endless frontier: a report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research [M]. National Science Foundation, 1945.
[18] 大卫·古斯顿, 龚旭. 在政治与科学之间:确保科学研究的诚信和产出率[M].北京:科学出版社, 2011.
[19] 科技界:腐败之忧 [J].检察风云, 2007,15(3): 12-18.
[20] LANCET T. Scientific fraud: action needed in China [J]. Lancet, 2010, 375(9709): 94-105.
[21] 李艾丹, 张希, 梁冰. 中国学者发表的国际科技论文被撤销现象分析[J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2019, 30(10): 5-12.
[22] 卢梭.社会契约论[M].北京: 商务印书馆, 2018.
[23] MACILWAIN C. Scientific misconduct: more cops, more robbers[J]. Cell, 2012, 149(7): 1417-1425.
[24] 科恩, 布鲁克斯. 社会科学,自然科学与公共政策:伯纳德·科恩与哈维·布鲁克斯对谈[J].科学文化评论, 2016,13(2): 26-33.
[25] 康德. 实践理性批判[M].北京: 商务印书馆, 2016.
[26] BOURDIEU P. Science of science and reflexivity[M]. Polity Press, 2004.
[27] 迈克尔·马尔凯.科学社会学理论与方法[M].林聚任,译.北京: 商务印书馆, 2006.
[28] 桑本谦. 私人之间的监控与惩罚:一个经济学的进路[M].济南:山东人民出版社, 2005.
[29] 曹南燕. QRP——科学研究中的灰色领域——小恶不止,大祸立至[J].河池学院学报, 2007, 27(3): 4-10.
[30] 龚旭.科学政策与同行评议[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2009.
[31] 张维迎.公有制经济中的委托人—代理人关系:理论分析和政策含义[J].经济研究, 1995,41(4): 31-33.
[32] FEALING K. The science of science policy: a handbook [M]. Stanford University Press, 2011.
[33] 陈潭.集体行动的困境:理论阐释与实证分析——非合作博弈下的公共管理危机及其克服[J].中国软科学, 2003,18(9): 139-144.
[34] 胡志斌.学术不端行为的法律规制研究[M].北京:中国法制出版社, 2014.
|
| [1] |
. [J]. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS AND POLICY, 2000, 17(3): 64-65. |
|
|
|
|
