Compliance with National Ethics Requirements for Human-Subject Research in Non-biomedical Sciences in Brazil: A Changing Culture?

Ethics regulation for human-subject research (HSR) has been established for about 20 years in Brazil. However, compliance with this regulation is controversial for non-biomedical sciences, particularly for human and social sciences (HSS), the source of a recent debate at the National Commission for Research Ethics. We hypothesized that for these fields, formal requirements for compliance with HSR regulation in graduate programs, responsible for the greatest share of Brazilian science, would be small in number. We analyzed institutional documents (collected from June 2014 to May 2015) from 171 graduate programs at six prestigious Brazilian universities in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, the states that fund most of the science conducted in Brazil. Among these programs, 149 were in HSS. The results suggest that non-compliance with standard regulation seems to be the rule in most of these programs. The data may reflect not only a resistance from scientists in these fields to comply with standard regulations for ethics in HSR but also a disciplinary tradition that seems prevalent when it comes to research ethics in HSR. However, recent encounters between Brazilian biomedical and non-biomedical scientists for debates over ethics in HSR point to a changing culture in the approach to research ethics in the country.

Transnational policy migration, interdisciplinary policy transfer and decolonization: Tracing the patterns of research ethics regulation in Taiwan

Research ethics regulation in parts of the Global North has sometimes been initiated in the face of biomedical scandal. More recently, developing and recently developed countries have had additional reasons to regulate, doing so to attract international clinical trials and American research funding, publish in international journals, or to respond to broader social changes. In Taiwan, biomedical research ethics policy based on 'principlism' and committee-based review were imported from the United States. Professionalisation of research ethics displaced other longer-standing ways of conceiving ethics connected with Taiwanese cultural traditions. Subsequently, the model and its discursive practices were extended to other disciplines. Regulation was also shaped by decolonizing discourses associated with asserting Indigenous peoples' rights. Locating research ethics regulation within the language and practices of public policy formation and transfer as well as decolonization, allows analysis to move beyond the self-referential and attend to the social, economic and political context within which regulation operates.

Ethical Evaluation of Mental Health Social Research: Agreement Between Researchers and Ethics Committees

The objective of this article is to compare various ethical issues considered by social scientists and research ethics committees in the evaluation of mental health social research protocols. We contacted 47 social scientists and 10 members of ethics committees in Mexico with two electronic national surveys that requested information from both groups related to the application of ethical principles in mental health social research. The results showed no significant difference between these groups in the value placed on the ethical issues explored. Based on this finding, we make proposals to strengthen the collaboration between the two groups.

Caring for nanotechnology? Being an integrated social scientist

One of the most significant shifts in science policy of the past three decades is a concern with extending scientific practice to include a role for 'society'. Recently, this has led to legislative calls for the integration of the social sciences and humanities in publicly funded research and development initiatives. In nanotechnology--integration's primary field site--this policy has institutionalized the practice of hiring social scientists in technical facilities. Increasingly mainstream, the workings and results of this integration mechanism remain understudied. In this article, I build upon my three-year experience as the in-house social scientist at the Cornell NanoScale Facility and the United States' National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network to engage empirically and conceptually with this mode of governance in nanotechnology. From the vantage point of the integrated social scientist, I argue that in its current enactment, integration emerges as a particular kind of care work, with social scientists being fashioned as the main caretakers. Examining integration as a type of care practice and as a 'matter of care' allows me to highlight the often invisible, existential, epistemic, and affective costs of care as governance. Illuminating a framework where social scientists are called upon to observe but not disturb, to reify boundaries rather than blur them, this article serves as a word of caution against integration as a novel mode of governance that seemingly privileges situatedness, care, and entanglement, moving us toward an analytically skeptical (but not dismissive) perspective on integration.

Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines

Professional codes of ethics are social contracts among members of a professional group, which aim to instigate, encourage and nurture ethical behaviour and prevent professional misconduct, including research and publication. Despite the existence of codes of ethics, research misconduct remains a serious problem. A survey of codes of ethics from 795 professional organizations from the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Codes of Ethics Collection showed that 182 of them (23%) used research integrity and research ethics terminology in their codes, with differences across disciplines: while the terminology was common in professional organizations in social sciences (82%), mental health (71%), sciences (61%), other organizations had no statements (construction trades, fraternal social organizations, real estate) or a few of them (management, media, engineering). A subsample of 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terminology than the whole sample: an average of 10.4% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 research integrity/ethics terms compared to 3.3% (95% CI = 2.1–4.6%), respectively (P<0.001). Overall, 62% of all statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. Professional organizations should define research integrity and research ethics issues in their ethics codes and collaborate within and across disciplines to adequately address responsible conduct of research and meet contemporary needs of their communities.

Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines

Professional codes of ethics are social contracts among members of a professional group, which aim to instigate, encourage and nurture ethical behaviour and prevent professional misconduct, including research and publication. Despite the existence of codes of ethics, research misconduct remains a serious problem. A survey of codes of ethics from 795 professional organizations from the Illinois Institute of Technology's Codes of Ethics Collection showed that 182 of them (23%) used research integrity and research ethics terminology in their codes, with differences across disciplines: while the terminology was common in professional organizations in social sciences (82%), mental health (71%), sciences (61%), other organizations had no statements (construction trades, fraternal social organizations, real estate) or a few of them (management, media, engineering). A subsample of 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terminology than the whole sample: an average of 10.4% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 research integrity/ethics terms compared to 3.3% (95% CI = 2.1-4.6%), respectively (P<0.001). Overall, 62% of all statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. Professional organizations should define research integrity and research ethics issues in their ethics codes and collaborate within and across disciplines to adequately address responsible conduct of research and meet contemporary needs of their communities.

Individual and organizational predictors of the ethicality of graduate students' responses to research integrity issues

The development of effective means to enhance research integrity by universities requires baseline measures of individual, programmatic, and institutional factors known to contribute to ethical decision making and behavior. In the present study, master's thesis and Ph.D. students in the fields of biological, health and social sciences at a research extensive university completed a field appropriate measure of research ethical decision making and rated the seriousness of the research issue and importance for implementing the selection response. In addition they were asked to rate their perceptions of the institutional and departmental research climate and to complete a measure of utilitarian and formalistic predisposition. Female students were found to be more ethical in their decision making compared to male students. The research ethical decision measure was found to be related to participants' ethical predisposition and overall perception of organizational and departmental research climate; however, formalism was the only individual predictor to reach statistical significance and none of the individual subscales of the research climate measure were significantly correlated to ethicality. Participants' ratings of the seriousness of the issue were correlated with their ratings of the importance of carrying out their selected response but neither was significantly predictive of the ethicality of their responses. The implications of these findings for the development of more effective training programs and environments for graduate students in research ethics and integrity are discussed.

Ethical considerations when employing fake identities in online social networks for research

Online social networks (OSNs) have rapidly become a prominent and widely used service, offering a wealth of personal and sensitive information with significant security and privacy implications. Hence, OSNs are also an important--and popular--subject for research. To perform research based on real-life evidence, however, researchers may need to access OSN data, such as texts and files uploaded by users and connections among users. This raises significant ethical problems. Currently, there are no clear ethical guidelines, and researchers may end up (unintentionally) performing ethically questionable research, sometimes even when more ethical research alternatives exist. For example, several studies have employed "fake identities" to collect data from OSNs, but fake identities may be used for attacks and are considered a security issue. Is it legitimate to use fake identities for studying OSNs or for collecting OSN data for research? We present a taxonomy of the ethical challenges facing researchers of OSNs and compare different approaches. We demonstrate how ethical considerations have been taken into account in previous studies that used fake identities. In addition, several possible approaches are offered to reduce or avoid ethical misconducts. We hope this work will stimulate the development and use of ethical practices and methods in the research of online social networks.

Setting up spaces for collaboration in industry between researchers from the natural and social sciences

Policy makers call upon researchers from the natural and social sciences to collaborate for the responsible development and deployment of innovations. Collaborations are projected to enhance both the technical quality of innovations, and the extent to which relevant social and ethical considerations are integrated into their development. This could make these innovations more socially robust and responsible, particularly in new and emerging scientific and technological fields, such as synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Some researchers from both fields have embarked on collaborative research activities, using various Technology Assessment approaches and Socio-Technical Integration Research activities such as Midstream Modulation. Still, practical experience of collaborations in industry is limited, while much may be expected from industry in terms of socially responsible innovation development. Experience in and guidelines on how to set up and manage such collaborations are not easily available. Having carried out various collaborative research activities in industry ourselves, we aim to share in this paper our experiences in setting up and working in such collaborations. We highlight the possibilities and boundaries in setting up and managing collaborations, and discuss how we have experienced the emergence of 'collaborative spaces.' Hopefully our findings can facilitate and encourage others to set up collaborative research endeavours.

Ethics in actor networks, or: what Latour could learn from Darwin and Dewey

In contemporary Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies, Bruno Latour's Actor Network Theory (ANT) is often used to study how social change arises from interaction between people and technologies. Though Latour's approach is rich in the sense of enabling scholars to appreciate the complexity of many relevant technological, environmental, and social factors in their studies, the approach is poor from an ethical point of view: the doings of things and people are couched in one and the same behaviorist (third person) vocabulary without giving due recognition to the ethical relevance of human intelligence, sympathy and reflection in making responsible choices. This article argues that two other naturalist projects, the non-teleological virtue ethics of Charles Darwin and the pragmatist instrumentalism of John Dewey can enrich ANT-based STS studies, both, in a descriptive and in a normative sense.

Reporting ethics committee approval in public administration research

While public administration research is thriving because of increased attention to social scientific rigor, lingering problems of methods and ethics remain. This article investigates the reporting of ethics approval within public administration publications. Beginning with an overview of ethics requirements regarding research with human participants, I turn to an examination of human participants protections for public administration research. Next, I present the findings of my analysis of articles published in the top five public administration journals over the period from 2000 to 2012, noting the incidences of ethics approval reporting as well as funding reporting. In explicating the importance of ethics reporting for public administration research, as it relates to replication, reputation, and vulnerable populations, I conclude with recommendations for increasing ethics approval reporting in public administration research.

On the almost inconceivable misunderstandings concerning the subject of value-free social science

A value judgment says what is good or bad, and value-free social science simply means social science free of value judgments. Yet many sociologists regard value-free social science as undesirable or impossible and readily make value judgments in the name of sociology. Often they display confusion about such matters as the meaning of value-free social science, value judgments internal and external to social science, value judgments as a subject of social science, the relevance of objectivity for value-free social science, and the difference between the human significance of social science and value-free social science. But why so many sociologists are so value-involved - and generally so unscientific - is sociologically understandable: The closest and most distant subjects attract the least scientific ideas. And during the past century sociologists have become increasingly close to their human subject. The debate about value-free social science is also part of an epistemological counterrevolution of humanists (including many sociologists) against the more scientific social scientists who invaded and threatened to expropriate the human subject during the past century.

Constitutional moments in governing science and technology

Scholars in science and technology studies (STS) have recently been called upon to advise governments on the design of procedures for public engagement. Any such instrumental function should be carried out consistently with STS's interpretive and normative obligations as a social science discipline. This article illustrates how such threefold integration can be achieved by reviewing current US participatory politics against a 70-year backdrop of tacit constitutional developments in governing science and technology. Two broad cycles of constitutional adjustment are discerned: the first enlarging the scope of state action as well as public participation, with liberalized rules of access and sympathetic judicial review; the second cutting back on the role of the state, fostering the rise of an academic-industrial complex for technology transfer, and privatizing value debates through increasing delegation to professional ethicists. New rules for public engagement in the United Sates should take account of these historical developments and seek to counteract some of the anti-democratic tendencies observable in recent decades.

What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab [corrected]: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory

In response to widespread policy prescriptions for responsible innovation, social scientists and engineering ethicists, among others, have sought to engage natural scientists and engineers at the 'midstream': building interdisciplinary collaborations to integrate social and ethical considerations with research and development processes. Two 'laboratory engagement studies' have explored how applying the framework of midstream modulation could enhance the reflections of natural scientists on the socio-ethical context of their work. The results of these interdisciplinary collaborations confirm the utility of midstream modulation in encouraging both first- and second-order reflective learning. The potential for second-order reflective learning, in which underlying value systems become the object of reflection, is particularly significant with respect to addressing social responsibility in research practices. Midstream modulation served to render the socio-ethical context of research visible in the laboratory and helped enable research participants to more critically reflect on this broader context. While lab-based collaborations would benefit from being carried out in concert with activities at institutional and policy levels, midstream modulation could prove a valuable asset in the toolbox of interdisciplinary methods aimed at responsible innovation.

Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: historical reflections on current practices

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants' protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association's standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author's ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association's ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.

Collecting biomeasures in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: ethical and legal concerns

As social surveys like the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) consider adding biomeasures to their data collections, they will face complicated ethical, legal, and practical issues. Both fairly and not, research participants are likely to be more concerned about their biomeasures than about their social data. This heightened concern will force investigators to pay more attention to difficult issues such as the research participant's control over subsequent uses of the samples or data, the participant's right to withdraw from the project, protection of the research participant's privacy, return to the participant of important risk information gained through the research, some special issues involving children and families, and the process of informed consent. Investigators can navigate these issues successfully, but the effort will demand time, careful thought, and attention.

[Medical research-ethics applied to social sciences: relevance, limits, issues and necessary adjustments]

Social sciences are concretely concerned by the ethics of medical research when they deal with topics related to health, since they are subjected to clearance procedures specific to this field. This raises at least three questions: - Are principles and practices of medical research ethics and social science research compatible? - Are "research subjects" protected by medical research ethics when they participate in social science research projects? - What can social sciences provide to on-going debates and reflexion in this field? The analysis of the comments coming from ethics committees about social science research projects, and of the experience of implementation of these projects, shows that the application of international ethics standards by institutional review boards or ethics committees raises many problems in particular for researches in ethnology anthropology and sociology. These problems may produce an impoverishment of research, pervert its meaning, even hinder any research. They are not only related to different norms, but also to epistemological divergences. Moreover, in the case of studies in social sciences, the immediate and differed risks, the costs, as well as the benefits for subjects, are very different from those related to medical research. These considerations are presently a matter of debates in several countries such as Canada, Brasil, and USA. From another hand, ethics committees seem to have developed without resorting in any manner to the reflexion carried out within social sciences and more particularly in anthropology Still, the stakes of the ethical debates in anthropology show that many important and relevant issues have been discussed. Considering this debate would provide openings for the reflexion in ethics of health research. Ethnographic studies of medical research ethics principles and practices in various sociocultural contexts may also contribute to the advancement of medical ethics. A "mutual adjustment" between ethics of medical research and social sciences is presently necessary: it raises new questions open for debate.

Proposing modesty for informed consent

The extension of informed consent into social science research has met with considerable opposition. The history and concept of informed consent, however, is based on a substantive ethical notion of the research relationship as informed and voluntary that is appropriate for social science research relationships. Yet social science research might sometimes be different from health research in ways that justify a different approach to informed consent and research relationships. Social science research tends to have a lower magnitude of risk, usually does not need to disrupt the therapeutic assumption common in health research contexts or when researchers are health professionals, and recruitment is sometimes incremental and reflects a building of trust and development of the research participant's role. These differences may sometimes justify novel approaches to the research relationship and require case-by-case evaluation to determine their relevance to establishing the informed and voluntary nature of the relationship through the use of informed consent procedures. Ultimately, respect for research participants requires social research into practices that can support or replace informed consent. The institutional role of informed consent and the goal of informed and voluntary research participation serve modest but important roles in health and social research. Their proper role in health and social research requires flexibility and experimentation, but does not justify abdication of informed consent or the notion of informed and voluntary participation.

What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists

PURPOSE

The authors examine training in the responsible conduct of research and mentoring in relation to behaviors that may compromise the integrity of science.

METHOD

The analysis is based on data from the authors' 2002 national survey of 4,160 early-career and 3,600 midcareer biomedical and social science researchers who received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The authors used logistic regression analysis to examine associations between receipt of separate or integrated training in research ethics, mentoring related to ethics and in general, and eight categories of ethically problematic behavior. Analyses controlled for gender, type of doctoral degree, international degree, and disciplinary field.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 1,479 early-career and 1,768 midcareer scientists, yielding adjusted response rates of 43% and 52%, respectively. Results for early-career researchers: Training in research ethics was positively associated with problematic behavior in the data category. Mentoring related to ethics and research, as well as personal mentoring, decreased the odds of researchers' engaging in problematic behaviors, but mentoring on financial issues and professional survival increased these odds. Results for midcareer researchers: Combined separate and integrated training in research ethics was associated with decreased odds of problematic behavior in the categories of policy, use of funds, and cutting corners. Ethics mentoring was associated with lowered odds of problematic behavior in the policy category.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of training in obviating problematic behavior is called into question. Mentoring has the potential to influence behavior in ways that both increase and decrease the likelihood of problematic behaviors.

No need to go! Workplace studies and the resources of the revised National Statement

In their article 'Unintended consequences of human research ethics committees: au revoir workplace studies?', Greg Bamber and Jennifer Sappey set out some real obstacles in the practices and attitudes of some Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), to research in the social sciences and particulalry in industrial sociology. They sheet home these attitudes and practices to the way in which various statements in the NHMRC's National Statement [1999] are implemented, which they say is often in 'conflict with an important stream of industrial sociological research' in Australia. They do not discuss the recently completed revision of the NS. We undertake to show that the revised National Statement meets their concerns about research in industrial sociology, and to draw attention to the resources of the revised National Statement that engage with those concerns. A more general aim is to display the greater scope, in the revised National Statement, for researchers to show to HRECs that their research is justified by virutue of its reflecting the established methodology and traditions of their discipline. The revised National Statement, we suggest, provides for a more flexible and responsive approach than its predecessor to the ethical review of many areas of research.

Unintended consequences of human research ethics committees: au revoir workplace studies?

To protect the welfare and rights of participants in research and to facilitate research that will be of benefit, as well as protect them against litigation, universities and research-funding agencies in Australia adopted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans (NHMRC 1999). In many other countries there are similar statements. However, the ways in which such statements are often implemented by Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are in conflict with an important stream of industrial sociological research. This stream seeks to deconstruct workplaces and de-layer management rhetoric to understand the realities and complexities of the social relations of production. There is a pluralist basis for much industrial sociology that challenges the unitarist view of the workplace as essentially harmonious. While views of workplaces as being conflictual and exploitative have to be tempered with an understanding of the accommodative and cooperative nature of workplace relations, there is nevertheless a general recognition of acts of resistance, as well as those of cooperation. The way in which the National Statement is typically implemented in Australia means that many HRECs require written, informed consent, which in the first instance will usually be that of management. An unintended consequence is a research focus on consensus, which is at best one-sided and at worst seriously misleading. It is unlikely that managerial consent will be granted unless there is a 'good news story' guaranteed. This article explores the ways in which HRECs may influence workplace research. The publication of the revised National Statement provides a valuable opportunity not to be missed by HRECs to implement more effective and efficient practices which would not have the unintended consequences of the earlier version. This would deserve the support of researchers in industrial sociology and other branches of the social sciences.

Delimiting the concept of research: an ethical perspective

It is important to be able to offer an account of which activities count as scientific research, given our current interest in promoting research as a means to benefit humankind and in ethically regulating it. We attempt to offer such an account, arguing that we need to consider both the procedural and functional dimensions of an activity before we can establish whether it is a genuine instance of scientific research. By placing research in a broader schema of activities, the similarities and differences between research activities and other activities become visible. It is also easier to show why some activities that do not count as research can sometimes be confused with research and why some other activities can be regarded only partially as research. Although the concept of research is important to delimit a class of activities which we might be morally obliged to promote, we observe that the class of activities which are regarded as subject to ethical regulation is not exhausted by research activities. We argue that, whether they be research or not, all the activities that are likely to affect the rights and interests of the individuals involved and impact on the rights and interests of other individuals raise ethical issues and might be in need of ethical regulation.

Procedural misconceptions and informed consent: insights from empirical research on the clinical trials industry

This paper provides a simultaneously reflexive and analytical framework to think about obstacles to truly informed consent in social science and biomedical research. To do so, it argues that informed consent often goes awry due to procedural misconceptions built into the research context. The concept of procedural misconception is introduced to describe how individuals respond to what is familiar in research settings and overlook what is different. In the context of biomedical research, procedural misconceptions can be seen to function as root causes of therapeutic misconceptions.

Adjudicating entitlements: the emerging discourses of research ethics boards

Research ethics boards adjudicate between competing sacred discourses in the knowledge industries. The traditional rights of researchers to initiate and conduct enquiry, the rights of research subjects to have stewardship over their own experiential knowledge and the legal responsibilities of universities and other institutions often compete in the process of adjudication. The justification narrative leading to the establishment of boards is reviewed along with the governmental and institutional actions that have led to the ethics codes in existence. Also discussed is divisiveness between researchers and boards, changes brought about by shifting moral bases, trust and confidentiality, privacy, informed consent, the creation of cultures of research ethics and the unresolved issues awaiting future discussion.

Conflicting notions of research ethics

Tensions over ethics in research occasionally arise when anthropologists and other social scientists study health services in medical institutions. In order to resolve this type of conflict, and to facilitate mutual learning rather than mutual recrimination, we describe two general categories of research ethics framing: those of anthropology and those of medicine. The latter, we propose, has tended to focus on protection of the individual through preservation of autonomy-principally expressed through the requirement of informed consent-whereas the former has attended more to political implications. After providing few examples of concrete conflicts, we outline four issues that characterise the occasional clashes between social scientists and medical staff, and which deserve further consideration: (1) a discrepancy in the way anthropologists perceive patients and medical staff; (2) ambiguity concerning the role of medical staff in anthropological research; (3) impediments to informed consent in qualitative research projects; and (4) property rights in data. Our contention is that enhanced dialogue could serve to invigorate the ethical debate in both traditions.

The concept of vulnerability in disaster research

The concept of vulnerability in research derives from a specific set of historical circumstances relating to abuses in biomedical research. Now so many people and groups have been labeled vulnerable that the concept has lost much of its force. In disaster research, participants should not be automatically considered vulnerable unless they are legally designated as such, for example, children. Instead specific aspects of the research should be thoroughly examined. Examples are the potential for the participants to be pressured to participate in several protocols, political or social turmoil surrounding the disaster, and cognitive impairments or mental health problems. In addition to a careful consent process, there should be procedures in place to provide assistance to participants who experience serious distress.

A new approach to assessing ethical conduct in scientific work

The intent of the current article is to describe the development of a new approach to the study of ethical conduct in scientific research settings. The approach presented in this article has two main components. The first component entails the development of a taxonomy of ethical events as they occur across a broad range of scientific disciplines. The second involves the identification of proximate criteria that will allow systematic and objective evaluation of ethical behaviors through low-fidelity performance simulations. Two proposed measures based on the new approach are intended to identify and measure variations in the scientific environment that might predispose certain individuals to make unethical decisions.

Bioethics in a multicultural world: medicine and morality in pluralistic settings

Current approaches in bioethics largely overlook the multicultural social environment within which most contemporary ethical issues unfold. For example, principlists argue that the "common morality" of "society" supports four basic ethical principles. These principles, and the common morality more generally, are supposed to be a matter of shared "common sense." Defenders of case-based approaches to moral reasoning similarly assume that moral reasoning proceeds on the basis of common moral intuitions. Both of these approaches fail to recognize the existence of multiple cultural and religious traditions in contemporary multicultural societies. In multicultural settings, patients and their families bring many different cultural models of morality, health, illness, healing, and kinship to clinical encounters. Religious convictions and cultural norms play significant roles in the framing of moral issues. At present, mainstream bioethics fails to attend to the particular moral worlds of patients and their family members. A more anthropologically informed understanding of the ethical issues that emerge within health care facilities will need to better recognize the role of culture and religion in shaping modes of moral deliberation.

The dual imperative in refugee research: some methodological and ethical considerations in social science research on forced migration

Social scientists doing fieldwork in humanitarian situations often face a dual imperative: research should be both academically sound and policy relevant. We argue that much of the current research on forced migration is based on unsound methodology, and that the data and subsequent policy conclusions are often flawed or ethically suspect. This paper identifies some key methodological and ethical problems confronting social scientists studying forced migrants or their hosts. These problems include non-representativeness and bias, issues arising from working in unfamiliar contexts including translation and the use of local researchers, and ethical dilemmas including security and confidentiality issues and whether researchers are doing enough to 'do no harm'. The second part of the paper reviews the authors' own efforts to conduct research on urban refugees in Johannesburg. It concludes that while there is no single 'best practice' for refugee research, refugee studies would advance its academic and policy relevance by more seriously considering methodological and ethical concerns.

[Public health, genetics and ethics]

Genetics research has shown enormous developments in recent decades, although as yet with only limited clinical application. Bioethical analysis has been unable to deal with the vast problems of genetics because emphasis has been put on the principlism applied to both clinical and research bioethics. Genetics nevertheless poses its most complex moral dilemmas at the public level, where a social brand of ethics ought to supersede the essentially interpersonal perspective of principlism. A more social understanding of ethics in genetics is required to unravel issues such as research and clinical explorations, ownership and patents, genetic manipulation, and allocation of resources. All these issues require reflection based on the requirements of citizenry, consideration of common assets, and definition of public policies in regulating genetic endeavors and protecting the society as a whole Bioethics has privileged the approach to individual ethical issues derived from genetic intervention, thereby neglecting the more salient aspects of genetics and social ethics.

Social genomics: genomic inventions in society. The nature of what's to come

This paper identifies several kinds of intellectual mistakes that proponents of genetic engineering make, in defending their views and characterizing the views of their opponents. Results from research in the social sciences and humanities illuminate the nature of these mistakes. The mistakes themselves play a role in allowing proponents to gather support from other protagonists in the social controversies involving science and technology. Understanding the controversies requires understanding that innovations are components of complex and ill-structured social problems; the "right answer" does not follow from scientific or technological breakthroughs. If the problems are identified correctly, issues of non-economic or non-market values and political and individual rights will need to be addressed.

[The social sciences' other health-care discourse]

Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, concern over inadequate social conditions - which is what has truly hampered human development - has been focused on growth together with equity. If human development is a process which should steadily broaden human options, what place does this concept play in the discourse of the social sciences and politics as 'master' - whose major product today is greater poverty, overpopulation, and less options for people? How can this situation be reverted, so that people can enjoy a long, healthy life, receive an education, and have access to the resources that are needed if their life chances are to be greater than their death chances? What role does or should the social sciences play in devising an ethical discourse on health care? To what objectives will we need to return, if we are to refrain from using scientific knowledge to validate the unjust social inequalities espoused in the discourses of power and of the master?

The ethics of social science research

Ethical thinking about social science research is dominated by a biomedical model whose salient features are the assumption that only potential harms to subjects of research are relevant in the ethical evaluation of that research, and in the emphasis on securing informed consent in order to establish ethical proxy. A number of counter-examples are considered to the assumption, a number of defences against these counter-examples are examined, and an alternative model is proposed for the ethical evaluation of social science research: a model which can cope with the systemic harms (harms other than those to participants as participants) which have been identified. This model is based on John Rawls's idea of original position reasoning and treats social science research as an institutional feature of the basic structure of society.