论文部分内容阅读
巴尔的摩案是美国科研不端行为调查程序走向成熟的阶梯。历时十年的巴尔的摩案调查程序经历了三次变化。在第一阶段的1986年,塔尔茨大学沃利茨委员会调查和麻省理工学院艾森的个人调查,凸显出当时美国大学有调查方针而缺乏可操作性规定,均存在着调查主体、调查原则和调查内容的严重缺陷;在第二阶段的1987-1991年间,美国国立卫生研究院组织的三次正式调查,凸显出听证会制度严重影响调查的公正性,不利于保护被告的权利——国会议员丁格尔主持了三次听证会,导致截然不同的三次调查结论,直至判定为科学不端行为;在第三阶段的1992-1996年间,重组后的美国科研诚信办公室实施调查以及金西·凯利的上诉和改判,凸显出上诉委员会的独立机构设置的重要性——它保证了被告的上诉权利,允许被告在上诉期间接触证据,这是改判金西·凯利不存在不端行为的程序基础。
The Baltimore case is a step toward a mature process of investigating scientific misconduct in the United States. The 10-year Baltimore case investigation process has undergone three changes. In the first phase of 1986, the Volterc Committee of the TARZ Institute and the personal survey of MIT Essen highlighted the fact that at that time American universities had a survey guideline and lacked operational provisions, all of which were subject to investigation. Principles and contents of the investigation. During the second phase of 1987-1991, three formal investigations conducted by the National Institutes of Health highlighted that the system of hearings seriously affected the fairness of the investigation and detrimental to the defendants’ rights. The National Assembly Congressman Dingle presided over three hearings, leading to a completely different conclusion of the three investigations until it was judged as scientific misconduct; during the third phase of 1992-1996, the reorganized US Office of Scientific Integrity Investigations and Kinsey Kelly The appeal and the revisions highlight the importance of the establishment of an independent body of the Board of Appeal - which guarantees the defendant the right of appeal and allows the accused to reach out to the evidence during the appeal, which is the procedural basis for the commutation of Kinsey Kelly’s misconduct.