“约束”与“内化” :科研人员伦理意识提升路径研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 科研人员作为科技创新的主体，在科技伦理治理体系中扮演着重要的角色，开展科学研究工作并需要承担相应的社会伦理责任。机构伦理审查监管制度和伦理宣传教育是科技伦理治理的两条重要路径，分别发挥“约束”和“内化”的治理功能。本文运用结构方程模型实证分析探讨两条路径的有效性和作用机制，分析两条治理路径对于科研人员伦理道德规范接受程度、伦理风险感知和研究意愿的影响。结果表明“约束”路径正向影响科研人员伦理道德规范接受以及伦理风险感知，间接正向影响科研人员对生物技术伦理争议的积极态度和研究意愿，“内化”路径则正向影响科研人员风险感知。研究结果为科研机构构建伦理治理路径、提升科研人员伦理风险意识以及规范研究活动提供了参考依据。

Abstract: As the main body of scientific and technological innovation, scientific researchers play an important role in the ethical governance system of science and technology. To carry out scientific research, they need to bear corresponding social ethical responsibilities. Institutional ethical review and supervision system and ethical publicity and education are two important ways of scientific and technological ethical governance, which respectively play the governance functions of "restraint" and "internalization". This paper uses structural equation model to empirically analyze the effectiveness and mechanism of the two paths, and analyzes the impact of the two governance paths on researchers' acceptance of ethical codes, ethical risk perception and research willingness. The results showed that the "constraint" path positively affected the acceptance of ethical codes and ethical risk perception of researchers, indirectly positively affected the positive attitude and research willingness of researchers towards ethical disputes in biotechnology, and the "internalization" path positively affected the risk perception of researchers. The research results provide a reference for scientific research institutions to build an ethical governance path, enhance the ethical risk awareness of researchers and standardize research activities.

李欣哲鲁晓. “约束”与“内化” :科研人员伦理意识提升路径研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2024, 42(3): 449-459.

参考文献

[1] 黄先蓉, 陈文锦. 加强出版伦理建设提升出版伦理治理能力——基于《关于加强科技伦理治理的意见》的思考 [J]. 科技与出版, 2022, (05): 40-6. [2] 关健. 医学科技伦理治理监管策略和实施重点 [J]. 中国医学伦理学, 2022, 35(06): 589-96. [3] 吴太胜. 新时代科技伦理困境的理性追问 [J]. 齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, (12): 46-50+9. [4] 中共中央办公厅国务院办公厅印发《关于加强科技伦理治理的意见》 [Z]. 新华社 2022-3-20 [5] 赵延东, 邓大胜. 科技工作者如何看学术不端行为——问卷调查的结果 [J]. 科研管理, 2012, 33(08): 90-7. [6] 李闪闪, 张新庆, 蒋辉, et al. 我国医学科研人员对伦理审查的认知和态度分析 [J]. 中国医学伦理学, 2022, 35(01): 33-40. [7] 何光喜, 张新庆, 赵延东, et al. 我国医学科研人员对科研伦理的认知和态度——基于一项全国性抽样调查结果 [J]. 中国医学伦理学, 2022, 35(01): 26-32. [8] Douglas H E. The Moral Responsibilities of Scientists (Tensions between Autonomy and Responsibility) [J]. American Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, 40(1): 59-68. [9] 冯欣怡, 朱怡雯. 当代大学生科技伦理意识对利益抉择的影响 [J]. 科技创新与生产力, 2021, (01): 26-32. [10] 王前, 杨中楷, 刘盛博，郭驰. 高校理工科学生科技伦理意识的问题与对策 [J]. 科学学研究, 2017, 35(07): 967-74. [11] Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation [J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(9): 1568-80. [12] Responsible research & innovation [Z]. European Commission [13] Agile Governance: Reimagining Policy-making in the Fourth Industrial Revolution [Z]. World Economic Forum [14] 于雪, 凌昀, 李伦. 新兴科技伦理治理的问题及其对策 [J]. 科学与社会, 2021, 11(04): 51-65. [15] 李建军. 如何强化科技伦理治理的制度支撑 [J]. 国家治理, 2021, (42): 33-7. [16] 杨博文. 科技伦理与安全审查的内在理路与二元结构——以《生物安全法》为中心展开 [J]. 科学学研究: 1-15. [17] A B. Ethics and Risk Management: The Cultural Perspective [M]. 2015: 105-25. [18] 樊春良. 科技伦理治理的理论与实践 [J]. 科学与社会, 2021, 11(04): 33-50. [19] 吴翠丽. 风险社会治理与科技伦理应对 [J]. 兰州学刊, 2008, (12): 13-6. [20] 芦文龙, 文成伟. 科技伦理意识养成——科技人员面临的挑战与出路 [J]. 科技进步与对策, 2012, 29(03): 146-9. [21] Davis F D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology [J]. MIS quarterly, 1989: 319-40. [22] 宋艳, 陈琳, 李琴, et al. 人工智能伦理风险感知、信任与公众参与 [J]. 科学学研究, 2022, 40(07): 1153-62+71. [23] 黄浩, 刘鲁, 王建军. 基于TAM的移动内容服务采纳分析 [J]. 南开管理评论, 2008, 11(06): 42-7. [24] Slovic P. Perception of risk [J]. Science, 1987, 236(4799): 280-5. [25] Beck U. World at risk [M]. Polity, 2009. [26] 李桂梅. 论科技伦理意识 [J]. 吉首大学学报(社会科学版), 1996, (03): 1-5. [27] 胡利凡, 邱叶. 新时代应用型高校大学生科技伦理意识现状及强化对策研究 [J]. 科技传播, 2022, 14(09): 47-9+54. [28] Young H P. Conventional contracts [J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 1998, 65(4): 773-92. [29] 李培功, 沈艺峰. 社会规范、资本市场与环境治理:基于机构投资者视角的经验证据 [J]. 世界经济, 2011, 34(06): 126-46. [30] Durkheim é. De la division du travail social [M]. F. Alcan, 1922. [31] 李建军, 王添. 科研机构伦理审查机制设置的历史动因及现实运行中的问题 [J]. 自然辩证法研究, 2022, 38(03): 51-7. [32] Sewpaul V, Henrickson M. The (r) evolution and decolonization of social work ethics: The Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles [J]. International Social Work, 2019, 62(6): 1469-81. [33] March J G, Olsen J P. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life [J]. American political science review, 1983, 78(3): 734-49. [34] Powell W W, DiMaggio P J. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis [M]. University of Chicago press, 2012. [35] 杨翾, 彭迪云, 谢菲. 基于TAM/TPB的感知风险认知对用户信任及其行为的影响研究——以支付增值产品余额宝为例 [J]. 管理评论, 2016, 28(06): 229-40. [36] 刘江, 顾东辉. “约束—内化”vs.反思性实践认知——社会工作伦理守则与留职意愿关系研究 [J]. 社会学研究, 2022, 37(02): 183-201+30. [37] Pavlou P A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model [J]. International journal of electronic commerce, 2003, 7(3): 101-34. [38] 宋艳, 陈琳, 李琴, et al. 人工智能伦理风险感知、信任与公众参与 [J]. 科学学研究: 1-20. [39] 李广利. 煤矿员工风险感知量表开发与应用 [J]. 中国安全生产科学技术: 1-7. [40] Sitkin S B, Pablo A L. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior [J]. Academy of management review, 1992, 17(1): 9-38. [41] 赵宝春. 非伦理消费情景下感知风险对行为意愿的影响:直接经验的调节作用 [J]. 管理评论, 2016, 28(02): 116-26. [42] Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, et al. The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards [J]. Risk analysis, 2013, 33(6): 1049-65. [43] 董雪旺, 叶周婧, 徐宁宁, et al. 基于TAM和TRI的游客网约导游使用意向研究 [J]. 旅游学刊, 2020, 35(07): 24-35. [44] Kline R B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling [M]. Guilford publications, 2015. [45] Baumgartner H, Homburg C. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review [J]. International journal of Research in Marketing, 1996, 13(2): 139-61. [46] Doll W J, Xia W, Torkzadeh G. A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument [J]. MIS quarterly, 1994: 453-61. [47] Marsh H W, Balla J R, McDonald R P. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size [J]. Psychological bulletin, 1988, 103(3): 391. [48] Hair J F. Multivariate data analysis [J]. 2009. [49] Bentler P M, Bonett D G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures [J]. Psychological bulletin, 1980, 88(3): 588. [50] Bollen K A. Structural equations with latent variables [M]. John Wiley & Sons, 1989. [51] Bentler P M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models [J]. Psychological bulletin, 1990, 107(2): 238. [52] 吴明隆. 结构方程模型：AMOS的操作与应用（第2版） [M]. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010. [53] Hayes A F, Preacher K J. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable [J]. British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 2014, 67(3): 451-70. [54] Preacher K J, Hayes A F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models [J]. Behavior research methods, 2008, 40(3): 879-91. [55] 方杰, 温忠麟, 张敏强, et al. 基于结构方程模型的多重中介效应分析 [J]. 心理科学, 2014, 37(03): 735-41. [56] 温忠麟, 叶宝娟. 中介效应分析:方法和模型发展 [J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(05): 731-45. [57] Malhotra M K, Singhal C, Shang G, et al. A critical evaluation of alternative methods and paradigms for conducting mediation analysis in operations management research [J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2014, 32(4): 127-37. [58] Zhao X, Lynch Jr J G, Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis [J]. Journal of consumer research, 2010, 37(2): 197-206. [59] 马廷奇, 秦甜帆. 工程伦理教育的逻辑起点、现实困境与实践路径 [J]. 高教发展与评估, 2022, 38(05): 93-104+24.