NC State University Resource Guide in Research Ethics

July 1, 1998

I. Introduction: The Ethical Foundations of Exemplary Research Practice

A. Selected readings by prominent researchers in a wide diversity of disciplines on the importance of being able to identify and resolve ethical problems in research.  Some typical examples are enumerated below.

1. Biological sciences—

Medawar, Peter B. 1979. Aspects of scientific life and manners. Chap. 6 in Advice to a young scientist, 28–50. New York: BasicBooks.

2. Engineering—

Petroski, Henry. 1995. The iron ring. American Scientist 83 (3): 229–232.

3. Mathematical sciences—

Halmos, Paul R. 1985. I want to be a mathematician: An automathography, 97–98, 118–121, 253–279, 319–348, and 400–403. New York: Springer-Verlag.

                    4. Medical sciences—

Starzl, Thomas E. 1992. The puzzle people: Memoirs of a transplant surgeon, 231–242 and 334–339. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

                   5. Physical, behavioral, and social sciences—

Feynman, Richard P. 1985. Cargo cult science. In "Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a curious character, 308–317. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

6. General—

National Academy of Sciences. 1995. On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

B. Presentations by prominent researchers from the various colleges within NCSU as well as from other major research institutions.

II. Philosophical Frameworks for Handling Ethical Problems in Research

             A. Approach of the Dartmouth project

                    1. References

Gert, Bernard. 1997. Morality and scientific research. Chap. 2 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 20–30. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

Elliott, Deni, ed. 1996. Professional Ethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal 4 (3 & 4): 3–217.

Stern, Judy E., and Deni Elliott. 1997. The ethics of scientific research: A guidebook for course development. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

2. Requirements of a morally justified action

a) Impartiality—what counts as an adequate justification for one person must be an adequate justification for anyone else when all of the morally relevant features of the situation are the same.

          b) Rationality—

(1) A person acts irrationally when he acts in a way that he knows (justifiably believes), or should know, will significantly increase the probability that he will suffer any of the items on the following list: death, pain, disability, loss of freedom or loss of pleasure; and he does not have an adequate reason for so acting.

(2) A reason is a conscious belief that one’s action will help anyone, not merely oneself or those one cares about, avoid one of these harms, or gain some good, viz., ability, freedom, or pleasure, and this belief is not seen to be inconsistent with one’s other beliefs by almost everyone with similar knowledge and intelligence.

(3) A reason is adequate if any significant group of otherwise rational people regard the harm avoided or benefit gained as at least as important as the harm suffered. People are otherwise rational if they do not knowingly suffer any harm without some reason.

c) Universal permission (publicly allowed)—A public system has the following characteristics.

(1) All persons to whom it applies, those whose behavior is to be guided and judged by that system, understand it, i.e., know what behavior the system prohibits, requires, encourages, and allows.

(2) It is not irrational for any of these persons to accept being guided or judged by that system.

          3. Operative principle of a system of common moral rules—

Everyone is always to obey the rule unless an impartial rational person can advocate that violating it be publicly allowed. Anyone who violates the rule when no impartial rational person can advocate that such a violation be publicly allowed may be punished.

         4. Steps in moral analysis

           a) Determine the action(s) giving rise to ethical question(s).

           b) Determine any conflict(s) between the action(s) and relevant scientific              conventions.

c) Articulate any relevant social or professional responsibilities of the actor(s) in the situation.

d) Discuss what kinds of alternative actions would be morally prohibited and why they would not be acceptable.

e) Identify a series of alternative actions that would be morally permitted in the current case and discuss why they would be acceptable.

f) Identify which actions would be morally encouraged in the current case and discuss why certain actions are better than others.

          B. Approach of the Indiana University project

        1. References

    Bebeau, Muriel J., Kenneth D. Pimple, Karen M. T. Muskavitch, Sandra L. Borden, and David H. Smith. 1995. Moral reasoning in scientific research: Cases for teaching and assessment. Report, Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

    Schrag, Brian, ed. 1997. Research ethics: Cases and commentaries. 2 vols. Report, Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Bloomington, Indiana.

      2. Basic psychological processes required to behave morally in a given situation:

    a) Moral sensitivity—the person must be able to interpret the situation in terms of what actions are possible, who (including oneself) would be affected by each course of action, and how the interested parties would regard such effects on their welfare.

    b) Moral reasoning—the person must be able to make a judgment about which course of action is morally right (or fair or just or morally good), thus labeling one possible line of action as what a person (morally) ought to do.

    c) Moral commitment—the person must give priority to moral values above other personal values such that a decision is made to intend to do what is morally right.

    d) Moral perseverance—the person must have sufficient perseverance, ego strength, and implementation skills to be able to follow through on his/her intention to behave morally, to withstand fatigue and flagging will, and to overcome obstacles.

    3. Considerations in developing a well-reasoned response to a moral problem in          scientific research

    a) Does the response address each of the issues and points of ethical conflict in the problem?

    b) Are the interested parties’ legitimate expectations considered?

    c) Are the consequences of each act explicitly recognized, articulated, and incorporated into the decision?

    d) Are the duties and obligations of the interested parties grounded in moral considerations?

        C. Approach of the Texas A&M project

1. Reference

Harris, Charles E., Michael S. Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins. 1995. Introduction to moral thinking, Methods for moral problem solving, and Tests in moral problem solving. Chap. 4–6 in Engineering ethics: concepts and cases, 95–186. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

2. Basic tools for moral problem solving

                        a) The method of casuistry is appropriate for line-drawing problems.

(1) Formulate a spectrum (series) of related cases; at the extreme ends of the spectrum are the paradigm cases about which there is no moral disagreement.

    (a) The positive paradigm case is uncontroversially morally permissible.

    (b) The negative paradigm case is uncontroversially morally impermissible.

    (c) The problematic cases for which there is substantial controversy usually lie near the center of the spectrum.

    (d) The test case is the focus of the current analysis.

(2) The various cases must be compared with one another and with the two paradigm cases based on morally relevant similarities and dissimilarities in order to draw a line of demarcation between morally permissible and morally impermissible cases.

(3) The relevant professional codes of conduct or the relevant policies of one’s employer may help to draw the line of demarcation and to position the test case with respect to this line.

b) The method of resolving conflict problems is appropriate for          situations in which some of the rules of common morality give rise to conflicting obligations.

    (1) An easy choice occurs when one conflicting moral obligation clearly has higher priority than all others.

    (2) A creative middle way is a resolution of the problem that honors all of the conflicting moral obligations to some extent.

    (3) A hard choice is a resolution of the problem in which some important moral obligations cannot be honored satisfactorily.

                 c) The respect-for-persons (RP) method is based on the following moral standard:

Those rules or actions are right which, if followed, would accord equal respect to each person as a moral agent.

In evaluating a proposed resolution of a moral issue, the RP method involves the application of the following universalizability criterion:

To be ethically valid, the resolution to a moral issue must be one that would be universally acceptable if others resolved similar issues in similar ways.

Some well-known versions of the universalizability criterion are given below.

(1) The Golden Rule test (principle of reversibility) is based on the following question: "Would the actor still consent to the proposed action if the situations of the actor and the recipient of the action were reversed?"

(2) The self-defeating test is based on the following question: "If everyone else performed the same action in the same or similar circumstances, would this undermine one’s ability to perform the action?"

(3) The rights test involves the following steps.

(a) Analyze the action to determine what options are available or what rights are at stake.

(b) Determine the audience (moral community) consisting of those whose rights would be affected by the action.

(c) Evaluate the seriousness of the rights infringements that would occur with a given action and compare the infringements with those of the alternative courses of action.

(d) Choose the course of action that produces the least serious rights infringement.

                d) The utilitarian method is based on the following moral standard:

Those individual actions or rules that produce the greatest total amount of utility to those affected are right.

Some well-known tests based on the utilitarian standard are given below.

(1) The act-utilitarian test is based on the following question: "Will the proposed course of action produce more utility than any other alternative course of action that could be taken?"

(2) The cost/benefit test involves the following steps.

(a) Formulate the courses of action that are available.

(b) Assess the costs and the benefits (both measured in monetary terms) of each course of action with respect to the entire audience affected by the action.

(c) Choose the course of action that produces the greatest benefit relative to the cost.

           (3) The rule-utilitarian test is based on the following question:              "Would utility be maximized if everyone did the same thing in the              same circumstances?"

e) Resolving problems of divergence between the utilitarian and RP modes of analysis—

(1) When violations of individual rights are minimal or questionable, utilitarian or cost/benefit considerations may in some cases justifiably prevail.

(2) The methods of casuistry and resolving conflict problems may be useful here.

(3) When the violation of individual rights is serious, RP considerations must usually prevail.

III. Professional Conventions and Codes of Ethics

          A. Commonalities and differences in professional conventions and codes of ethics

B. Genesis of current professional conventions and codes of ethics for the disciplines in the current audience

C. Professional codes of ethics—The following online collections of codes of ethics cover almost all fields in which research is done at NCSU.

Case Western Reserve University. WWW Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. 1998. Ethical codes & guidelines [online]. Available via http://www.cwru.edu/affil/wwwethics/codes.html [accessed June 27, 1998].

Illinois Institute of Technology. Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions. 1998. Codes of ethics online: The index [online]. Available via http://csep.iit.edu/codes/codes.html [accessed June 27,1998].

University of British Columbia. Centre for Applied Ethics. 1998. Codes of professional ethics [online]. Available via http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/resources/professional/codes.html [accessed June 27, 1998].

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Department of Chemistry. 1998. Ethical codes-of-conduct [online]. Available via http://www.chem.vt.edu/ethics/vinny/ethxonline.html [accessed June 27, 1998].

        D. Definition of research misconduct—

1. fabrication;
2. falsification;
3. plagiarism; or
4. other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the research community for proposing, conducting, and reporting research.

E. References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1988. Science, technology, and society: Emerging relationships, 33–45 and 125–132. Publication no. 88-12, Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.). Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Standards of conduct. Appendix III in Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 269–271. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

Munck, Allan U. 1997. Examples of scientific misconduct. Chap. 3 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 31–68. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

IV. Relationships between Mentors and Students

A. Responsibilities of mentor to student

1. as academic adviser;
2. as professional (career) adviser;
3. as skills consultant;
4. as professional and personal role model;
5. as employer;
6. as collaborator; and
7. as friend.

B. Responsibilities of student to mentor

1. as academic advisee,
2. as novice in the profession,
3. as employee,
4. as collaborator, and
5. as friend.

C. References

Council of Graduate Schools. 1990. Research student and supervisor: An approach to good supervisory practice. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools.

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Mentoring. Chap. 2 in Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 15–40. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

National Academy of Sciences. 1997. Adviser, teacher, role model, friend: On being a mentor to students in science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

V. Relationships between Colleagues

A. Responsibilities of individual researcher to other colleagues—

1. with respect to professional conventions and codes of ethics

a) as professional associate,
b) as collaborator,
c) as competitor, and
d) as friend;

        2. with respect to handling questionable research practices of others

a) as professional associate,
b) as friend, and
c) as independent moral agent.

B. Dealing with misconduct in research

C. References

Berger, Edward, and Bernard Gert. 1997. Institutional responsibility. Chap. 7 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 197–245. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

Korenman, Stanley G., and Allan C. Shipp. 1994. Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study approach: A handbook for instructors, 105–130. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges.

VI. Responsible Use of Statistical Methods

A. Professor Sastry Pantula and Professor Sharon Lubkin (NCSU Department of Statistics) are developing this topic.

B. Some useful online references on professional ethics in the field of statistics not included in item III.C above are:

American Statistical Association. 1998. ASA ethics page [online]. Available via http://www.tcnj.edu/~asaethic/ [accessed June 27, 1998].

International Statistical Institute. 1985. Declaration on professional ethics [online]. Available as http://www.cbs.nl/isi/ethics.htm [accessed June 27, 1998].

VII. Stewardship of Records and Data

    A. Record keeping

    B. Ownership of and access to scientific data

             C. References

Korenman, Stanley G., and Allan C. Shipp. 1994. Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study approach: A handbook for instructors, 77–92. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 41–68 and 189–194. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

National Academy of Sciences. 1985. Sharing research data. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

VIII. Ownership of Ideas and Intellectual Property

  1. Trade secrets
  2. Copyrights
  3. Patents
  4. Reference

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 194–220. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

IX. Responsible Authorship

    A. Assignment of credit and responsibility for research publications

1. Order of authorship
2. Acknowledgment of prior work
3. Acknowledgment of contributors to one’s work
4. Division of labor and responsibility for multiauthor publications

            B. Full disclosure and honest evaluation of one’s research results

            C. References

Bulger, Ruth Ellen, Elizabeth Heitman, and Stanley Joel Reiser. 1993. The ethics of authorship and publication. Part V in The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences, 115–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, S. P. 1987. Taking and giving credit. Chap. 6 in Writing for your peers: The primary journal paper, 100–115. New York: Praeger.

Council of Biology Editors. 1990. Ethics and policy in scientific publication. Bethesda, Maryland: Council of Biology Editors.

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 69–82. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

X. Peer Review

            A. Refereeing archival articles

XI. Animal Agriculture and Experimentation

A. Philosophical issues
B. Practical constraints on researchers
C. References

Elliott, Deni, and Marilyn Brown. 1997. Animal experimentation and ethics. Chap. 8 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 246–285. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Use of animals in biomedical experimentation. Chap. 5 in Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 97–136. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

Regan, Tom. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

XII. Human Subjects in Experimentation

A. Informed consent
B. Expanded access to experimental drugs
C. Ethical issues in randomized clinical trials
D. Institutional Review Boards
E. References

Korenman, Stanley G., and Allan C. Shipp. 1994. Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study approach: A handbook for instructors, 143–164. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Stern, Judy E., and Karen Lomax. 1997. Human experimentation. Chap. 9 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 287–316. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

XIII. Genetic Research

A. Gene therapy
B. Genetic testing
C. Uses of genetic information
D. Reference

Korenman, Stanley G., and Allan C. Shipp. 1994. Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study approach: A handbook for instructors, 179–190. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges.

XIV. Ethical Issues in Biotechnology

A. Cloning
B. References

Trust and the bioethics industry. 1997. Nature, 16 October, 647.

Wadman, Meredith. 1997. Business booms for guides to biology’s moral maze. Nature, 16 October, 658–659.

XV. Conflicts of Interest, Effort, or Conscience

  1. Conflicts of interest
  2. Conflicts of effort (commitment)
  3. Conflicts of conscience
  4. References

Macrina, Francis L. 1995. Conflict of interest. Chap. 7 in Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases, 161–188. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.

Werhane, Patricia, and Jeffrey Doering. 1997. Conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment. Chap. 6 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 165–196. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

XVI. Institutional Responsibility and Whistle-blowing

                    A. Institutional and governmental policies and regulations

1. Safety regulations
2. Policies on misconduct in research
3. Policies on conflict of interes

B. Promulgation and enforcement of policies and regulations

1. Training faculty, staff, and students in research ethics
2. Mechanisms for handling cases of misconduct

a) Reporting misconduct
b) Respecting the interests of whistle-blowers
c) Respecting the interests of the accused
d) Adjudicating a misconduct case—managing evidence and record of the proceedings; maintaining continuity in the deliberations; arriving at a final recommendation; writing the final report

C. References

Berger, Edward, and Bernard Gert. 1997. Institutional responsibility. Chap. 7 in Research ethics: A reader, ed. Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern, 197–245. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, for the Institute for the Study of Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College.

Committee on Science, Education and Public Policy (U.S.). Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research 1992. Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

XVII. Ethical Issues in Extrainstitutional Partnerships

A. Academic-industrial partnerships
B. Academic-governmental partnerships

1. Classified research
2. Unclassified research

C. Partnerships with other universities and research institutes
D. Academic freedom and disclosure of research results
E. References

Blumenthal, David, Michael Gluck, Karen Seashore Louis, Michael A. Stoto, and David Wise. 1993. University-industry relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university. In The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences, ed. Ruth Ellen Bulger, Elizabeth Heitman, and Stanley Joel Reiser, 225–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blumenstyk, Goldie. 1998. Conflict-of-interest fears rise as universities chase industry support. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 May, A41–A43.

Rennie, Drummond. 1997. Thyroid storm. Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (15): 1238–1243.

XVIII. Ethical Issues Concerning Science and the Media

A. Whistle-blowing and the media
B. Peer review and the media
C. References

Amato, Ivan. 1992. Rustum Roy: PR is a better system than peer review. Science 258:736.

Huizenga, John R. 1993. The press and basic science. In Cold fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century, 232–234. New York: Oxford University Press

Nelkin, Dorothy. 1993. The high cost of hype. Chap. 33 in The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences, ed. Ruth Ellen Bulger, Elizabeth Heitman, and Stanley Joel Reiser, 270–277. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

XIX. Additional Sources for Case Studies

  1. Engineering

    2. Case Western Reserve University. WWW Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. 1998. The research ethics section [online]. Available via http://www.cwru.edu/ affil/wwwethics/research.html [accessed June 27, 1998].

    Harris, Charles E., Michael S. Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins. 1995. Engineering ethics: Concepts and cases. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Partially available online via http://www.ethics.tamu.edu [accessed June 27, 1998].

  2. Natural sciences, behavioral sciences, and humanities

    3. Case Western Reserve University. WWW Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. 1998. The research ethics section [online]. Available via http://www.cwru.edu/ affil/wwwethics/research.html [accessed June 27, 1998].

    Penslar, Robin Levin, ed. 1995. Research ethics: Cases and materials. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

  3. General

    4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1998. Conduct discussion groups: case scenarios [online]. Available via http://www.edoc.com/aaas [accessed June 27, 1998].

    Callahan, Joan C., ed. 1988. Ethical issues in professional life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Return to Research Ethics Home Page

Have you read the code of ethics for your graduate discipline?