Ethics in the Research Process

Key Themes in Research Ethics

Nearly any decision that scientists make can have ethical implications, but the questions most often addressed under the broad heading of Research Ethics can be grouped as follows: (a) guidelines and oversight, (b) autonomy and informed [Page 426]consent, (c) standards and relativism, (d) conflicts of interest, and (e) the art of ethical judgment.

There is no exhaustive list of ethical problems because what constitutes an ethical problem for researchers is determined by a number of factors, including current fashions in research (not always in the human sciences) and such things as the prevailing political climate. Hence, a decision that a researcher makes might be regarded as controversial for several reasons, including a general sense that the action is out of step with the greater good. It is also common for decisions to be controversial because they are deemed to be contrary to the values that a particular scientific association promotes.

Legislation often piggybacks on such sentiments, with a close connection between views on what is ethical and what should (or should not) be enforced by law. In many countries, governmental panels weigh in on issues in research ethics. There, too, however, the categories of inquiry are fluid, with the panelists drawing on social, economic, and other considerations. The amorphous nature of the ethical deliberation that researchers might be party to thus results from there being so few absolutes in science or ethics. Most of the questions that researchers confront about the design of a study or proper conduct can readily be set against reasonable counter-questions. This does not rule out ethical distinctions, however. Just as the evaluation of scientific findings requires a combination of interpretive finesse and seasoned reflection, moral judgment requires the ability to critically evaluate supporting arguments.

Guidelines and Oversight

Current codes of ethics have their origin in the aftermath of World War II, when interest in formal guidelines and oversight bodies first arose. News of the atrocities committed by Nazi researchers highlighted the fact that, with no consistent standards for scientific conduct, judgments about methods or approach were left to each researcher's discretion. The unscrupulous scientist was free to conduct a study simply to see what might happen, for example, or to conscript research “volunteers.” The authors of the Nuremberg Code and, later, the Helsinki Declaration changed this by constructing a zone of protection out of several long-standing principles in law and medicine. In particular, from medical practice came injunctions like the doctor's “Do no harm.” And from jurisprudence came the notion that nonconsensual touching can amount to assault, and that those so treated might have valid claims for restitution.

...