세계 주요 국가의 연구윤리 관련 법제도 비교
Comparative Analysis of the Laws and Institutions Related to Academic Research Ethics of Major Countries
1
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
지난 2007년 OECD에서 국제연구진실성위원회를 설립한 이래 연구진실정 확보를 위한 국제적 차원의 공조체계 구축이 중요한 이슈로 대두되고 있다. 각 나라의 문화와 역사 등에 따라 연구윤리의 개념이 다르게 이해될 수는 있지만 효과적인 연구윤리 법제도가 지켜야 하는 기본적인 원칙이 지켜질 때 이런 국제적 공조가 가능해진다. 본 연구의 목적은 주요 선진국의 연구윤리 관련 법과 제도를 살펴보고 이들 국가 제도의 차이점과 공통점을 비교분석하여 우리나라 관련 법제도 개선방향을 모색해 보는 것이다. 이를 위해 연구윤리 법제도에 관해 우리보다 앞서가는 국가로 평가되는 미국, 노르웨이, 덴마크와 보통 수준의 제도를 운용하고 있는 영국, 핀란드, 캐나다, 일본, 호주의 국가 사례를 유형별로 나누어 살펴본다. 국가차원의 단일한 연구윤리법과 전문화된 연구윤리조직이 없는 한국은 영국, 캐나다와 함께 중간정도 수준의 연구윤리거버넌스 체계를 구비한 것으로 평가된다.
Abstract
Since the launching of the OECD International Research Integrity Committee in 2007 devising a mechanism for international cooperation has emerged as an important issue to enhance research integrity. Although the concept of research ethics may differ among countries there are basic principles of research ethics that each country should value to enable such collaboration. This paper aims at reviewing laws and institutions related to research ethics and integrity of Norway, Denmark, Finland, USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and Korea to find similarities and differences and to propose alternatives for Korea, which seems to have developed a medium-level research integrity governance system like UK and Canada.
참고문헌 (21)
- 과학기술부, "연구윤리 확보를 위한 지침 해설서", 과학기술혁신본부, ~ (2007)
- 교원소청심사위원회, "교원소청심사위원회 결정문집 10-20집", ~ (2011)
- 교육과학기술부·학술진흥재단, "해외 연구윤리 확립 활동 사례", ~ (2008)
- 한상연, "우리나라 연구윤리 관련 법제도에 관한 연구", 교육행정학연구, 30(4), pp.1~24 (2012), 한국교육행정학회
- Australian Research Integrity Committee Framework, "Australian Research Council", Australian Government, ~ (2011)
- Canadian Research Integrity Committee, "The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada. (Prepared by HAL consultants)", ~ (2009)
- Annual Report of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, "Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation", ~ (2008)
- Dyke, Tomothy, "The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research - Challenges and Responses", Proceedings from 2nd World Congress on Research Integrity (2010)
- European Science Foundation, "Fostering Research Integrity in Europe", ~ (2010)
- Hall, Bruce, "Australia needs an office of academic integrity", MJA, 185(11) (2006)
- Finland National Advisory Board on Research Ethics, "Ethical Evaluation of Research Ethics in Finland", ~ (2006)
- Fischer, Peggy, "Experiences in Developing Research Integrity Structures", Proceedings from 2nd World Congress on Research Integrity (2010), Office of Inspector General, US National Science Foundation
- Kalleberg, Ragnvald, "The interplay of self-regulation, National guidelines and law in the Norwegian system", Proceedings from the conference, Reaching a Global Stand in Research Integrity, European Science Foundation (2011)
- Macfarlane, Bruce & Saitoh, Yoshiko, "Research Ethics in Japanese Higher Education: Faculty Attitudes and Cultural Mediation", Journal of Academic Ethics (2008)
- McCubbins, Mathew, "Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms", American Journal of Political Science, 28(1) (1984)
- Royal Irish Academy, "Ensuring Integrity in Irish Research: A Discussion Document", ~ (2010)
- Rumball, Sylvia, "Research Integrity in New Zealand: Current Framework, Challenges and Recommendations", Proceedings from 2nd World Congress on Research Integrity (2010), Committee for Freedom and Responsibilities in the Conduct of Science
- "National Standards Needed for Research Integrity" (2011)[URL]
- Tsuchiya, Takashi, "The Contemporary Situation of Ethics of Human Experimentation in Japan", The paper presented at the 7th International Tsukuba Bioethics Roundtable (2002), Tsukuba University
- Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees. Annual Report 2008, "UK Department of Health", US Office of Research Integrity, ~ (2009)
- Vuorio, Eero, "How to revise national research guidelines in the changing international landscape?", Proceedings from 2nd World Congress on Research Integrity (2010)