ETHICAL THEORY AND ETHICAL RESEARCH

David ArchardProfessor of Philosophy, Lancaster UniversityMember of the Lancaster University

Research Ethics CommitteeMember of the North-West Clinical Ethics

CommitteeDeputy Chair, Ethics and Law Advisory

Committee, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Chair, Licence Committee, HFEA

ESRC Research Ethics Framework

1.3.1 Research proposals involving human participants must normally be reviewed and approved by

a Research Ethics Committee (REC) which has been established and operates in accordance with

the standards and guidelines set out in this Research Ethics Framework.

Codes of ethics

The formulation, publication, and implementation of codes of ethics is the normal manner in which the ethical integrity of research is guaranteed

Codes of ethics are formal statements of moral principles of relevance to conduct of research

Such as: obtain informed consent of involved parties; respect confidentiality; preserve anonymity;

They should be clear and accessible

Principles or phronesis

To Aristotle is owed the idea that morality (and doing the right thing) is not a matter of following principles, but

Acquiring (or following the example of those who have)

Phronesis (practical wisdom)

And each situation requires its own particular appreciation

A contrast

There is thus in the history and theory of ethical thought a basic contrast between

Principle-based theory that is general in form, and

Can (and should) be applied to all situations in a consistent manner

AndMoral knowledge which tends to beParticularistic, andA matter of practical wisdom not the command of

a theory

A further contrast

Generally accepted that there are three broad moral theories that offer accounts of what is morally wrong (and why):

Consequentialism: concerned with the outcomes of actions

Deontology: concerned with the moral qualities of the actions

Virtue theory: concerned with the character or nature of the agents

Different moral theories may agree on what is moral

We should seek informed consent for anything involving another adult because:

Doing so promotes better consequences overall than not doing so

Each of us has a right to have our consent secured

Morally good persons ask for consent

Moral theory and commonsense morality

Ordinary commonsense moral judgements such as ‘Killing is wrong’ (or ‘Lying/breaking promises/cruelty/ is wrong’)

Moral theory: ‘Do whatever produces the most happiness’We may use our moral theory to improve (correct, refine,

modify) our ordinary judgments: ‘Killing innocent human beings is wrong’ (so the execution of murderers or the killing in combat of enemy soldiers is not)

Or we may use our ordinary judgements to correct (constrain, impose limits on, refine) our moral theory: ‘A moral theory - maximise happiness - which implies that killing any innocent human being is allowed cannot be correct’

Moral Expertise

‘At least one member must be knowledgeable in ethics’

Moral philosophers (‘ethicists’) do not have moral expertise in the sense that a judgment by a moral philosopher (‘Everyone ought to do x’) gives non-philosophers good (sufficient reason) to do x. Rather

Argumentative and conceptual ‘coaching’:This is what ‘informed consent’ meansThat argument is invalid (does not establish the

desired conclusion)It is inconsistent to claim ‘X is permissible’ and ‘Y is

impermissible’

What codes of ethics are not

They are not guarantors of morally exemplary research

They merely rule out what is morally impermissible

They are not guarantors of exemplary researchMorally permitted programmes of research may

be poorly designed, unoriginal and unproductiveThey are not equivalent to statements of what

the law requires (or prohibits)But no code of ethics should permit what the

law forbids

Reporting crime example

It is not legally required that one report a crime (although it is considered good citizenship to do so)

Should a code of ethics require those who engage in observational social science research in public places to do so?

Note: it is unlikely (or impossible) to secure consent to being observed

What codes of ethics are (or should be)

Publicly knownClear and unambiguousUniversal in scope and applicationConform to what we generally accept as

moral standardsEnforced impartiallyInterpreted consistently

Universal standards and cultural differences

A statement of universally applicable ethical standards should be sensitive to cultural differences

For instance, the requirement that informed consent be obtained should allow that

Consent may be obtained in various ways – written, verbal

But a sensitivity to cultural differences should not slip into moral relativism:

If culture A thinks something is morally permissible whereas culture B thinks it is morally impermissible they are somehow both right

Codes of practices are general statements which can be variously interpreted

‘Harm to research participants must be avoided’

A classic principle of non-maleficence. But,Significant or trivial harm?Harms of omission or only commission?Risks of harm?Physical, reputational, psychological,

emotional…….Harms that depend on moralised judgments

Codes of practice are applied by different committees

Committees that interpret and enforce codes of ethics will

Be constituted of different memberships with

Different ethical sensibilities

And different ethical commitments

Conclusion

Good ethical practice in research should be informed by good ethical theory

Even if this is indirectly by means of a code of ethics and a good process of ethical review

But good ethical theory does not yield determinate answers in all cases

And the role of theory in ethical reasoning is itself a matter of ongoing theoretical dispute