Plagiering betragtes normalt som en af dødssynderne i den akademiske verden,
en form for videnskabelig uredelighed. For forskere kan plagiering have
meget alvorlige karrieremæssige konsekvenser, fx tilbagekaldelse af akademiske
grader og disciplinære sanktioner. I Tyskland har to ministre indenfor
de senere år måttet træde tilbage efter at være blevet grebet i plagiering. Plagiering
ser ud til at være et voksende problem og kontrollen er skærpet. Mange
universiteter, forlag og tidskrifter har indført rutinemæssig plagiatkontrol.
Efter en gennemgang af selve begrebet betydning og formelle regler i videnskabsetiske
kodekser præsenteres og diskuteres forskellige etiske begrundelser
for forbud mod plagiering. Tre positioner diskuteres. En naturretlig: åndelig
ejendomsret, retten til viden, man selv har frembragt følger af retten til
”frugten af eget arbejde” (Locke), eller en ret, som er forudsætning for personens
dannelse (Hegel). Den har svag støtte. En utilitaristisk – funktionalistisk
begrundelse (Mill/ Merton): at plagiat undergraver videnskabernes anerkendelsesregime,
der skal belønne efter præstation til gavn for vidensvækst. Den
har stærkere støtte, om end funktionalitet kan være vanskelig at opnå og påvise
i praksis. Dysfunktionalitet og perverse effekter, fx på grund af for stærkt
publiceringspres, kan forekomme. Afslutningsvis inddrages Axel Honneths
anerkendelsesteori op som et supplement og korrektiv til utilitarismen.
ENGELSK ABSTRACT
Heine Andersen: PLAGIARISM IN RESEARCH. Research ethical and sociological aspects
Plagiarism is usually regarded as one of the deadly sins in science, a form of
scientific misconduct. Plagiarism can have serious consequences for researcher
careers, such as revocation of academic degrees and disciplinary sanctions.
In recent years, two ministers in Germany had to resign after being
caught in plagiarism. Plagiarism seems to be a growing problem, and many
universities, publishers and scientific journals have introduced routine control
for it.
After a review of meaning and formal rules of ethical codes, this article discusses
three ethical traditions, representing different reasons for prohibiting
plagiarism. The first is natural law: a right to spiritual property, to knowledge
that you yourself have generated. This is a right to “the fruit of one’s own labor”
(John Locke), or that which is essential for the person’s self-realization
(Hegel). There appears to be weak support for this position. The second is
a utilitarian-functionalist reason (Mill/ Merton): plagiarism undermines the
recognition regime in modern science, the principle of reward according to
contribution to the growth of knowledge. This position has greater support,
but it is often difficult to validate in practice. The strong pressure on researchers
to publish may create dysfunctional and perverse effects. Finally, Axel
Honneth’s theory of recognition theory is presented as a supplement and corrective
to utilitarianism.
Keywords: Plagiarism, scientific misconduct, research ethics.
Knowledge and attitudes of physicians toward research ethics and scientific misconduct in Lebanon
