Ethical codes of conduct exist in almost every profession. Field-specific codes of conduct have been around for decades, each articulating specific ethical and professional guidelines. However, there has been little empirical research on researchers’ perceptions of these codes of conduct. In the present study, we interviewed faculty members in six research disciplines and identified five themes bearing on the circumstances under which they use ethical guidelines and the underlying reasons for not adhering to such guidelines. We then identify problems with the manner in which codes of conduct in academia are constructed and offer solutions for overcoming these problems.
Keywords: guidelines, ethics, misconduct, codes of conductIn the summer of 1999, the Institute for Human Gene Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania was conducting experimental clinical gene therapy trials for OTC deficiency, a rare disorder characterized by an excess of ammonia and orotic acid in the blood, often leading to fatal outcomes. After weeks of uneventful trials, Jesse Gelsinger, an 18 year old with the disease, volunteered for the therapy in hopes of getting answers about his illness. Within hours of beginning the trial, Gelsinger suffered a chain reaction in which he developed a fever, a blood-clotting disorder, jaundice, and spiked ammonia levels, and suffered multiple-organ failure, before falling into a brain-dead coma. Gelsinger was dead less than four days after the trial began. A Federal Drug Administration investigation into the proceedings unveiled myriad violations of ethical guidelines and regulations. It was found that the university had failed to report serious side effects from the gene therapy experienced by two previous patients. Additionally, informed consent documents failed to disclose the deaths of monkeys from similar techniques in earlier animal trials. Finally, it was found that the principal investigators and the University of Pennsylvania held a patent for the clinical drug and had a stake in the company producing it, representing a conflict of interest. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Pennsylvania approved the study with the requirement that no documents be changed. The approved materials showed consent forms with information regarding the sickness and deaths of animals in prior trials, but the consent forms given to Gelsinger lacked such information (Wilson, 2010). Ultimately, investigation into the case led to major setbacks for scientists working on gene therapy research.
The case of Jesse Gelsinger provides an illustration of how poor ethical decisions such as failing to adhere to ethical guidelines and ethical codes of conduct can lead to severe consequences. Additionally, lapses in ethical judgment from prestigious, credible, and powerful corporate employees can undermine the credibility of their organizations or professions (Bayles, 1981; Frankel, 1989; Savan, 1989; Kerr & Smith, 1995). Indeed, ethical codes of conduct provide a valuable source of information for individuals engaged in ethical decision making (Neukrug, Lovell, & Parker, 1996). A code of ethics is a written, formal document consisting of moral standards and guidelines intended to help guide employee or corporate behavior (Schwartz, 2002; Stevens, 1994). Because of their presumed importance to organizations and research, codes of ethics are common. According to a 1992 study by the Center for Business Ethics, more than 90 percent of large corporations have codes of ethics in place, a substantial increase from the approximately 40 percent of large corporations reporting ethics codes in the 1950s (Fulmer, 1969). Gordon and Miyake (2001) suggest that such codes of conduct can be used to prevent and counteract unethical behavior (e.g. bribery).
Although codes of conduct and ethical guidelines play a critical role in corporate and business contexts, they may be of even more importance with regard to research settings. Each scientific field or discipline has its own set of ethical and professional guidelines or principles (Helton-Fauth et al., 2003; McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1996). Within these disciplines, ethical guidelines differ in detail and content. For example, the code of ethics for the American Society For Biochemistry and Molecular Biology consists of three brief subsections featuring various obligations to the public, other investigators, or trainees. On the other hand, the ethical principles and code of conduct for psychologists, a field consisting of both researchers and practitioners, contains a preamble, five general principles, and many specific ethical standards covering, in great detail, every aspect of the various psychological disciplines and jobs (American Psychological Association, 2002). The principles assume a largely interactional focus, with emphasis on respect for humans and their rights, integrity, justice and relational responsibility. Codes of conduct in the computer sciences are much more general and emphasize qualities such as professional competence, honoring of commitments, and respect for electronics (Association for Computing Machinery, 1992). With regard to the Gelsinger case presented earlier, the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (2013) offers a comprehensive array of guidelines and practices expected to be followed by researchers. Clear stipulations regarding informed consent and full disclosure of conflict of interest were disregarded in the Institute for Human Gene Therapy clinical trial.
In addition to cross-field differences in ethical guidelines, many subdisciplines have their own specialty guidelines and codes of conduct. For example, within the general field of engineering, mechanical engineering (American Society of Mechanical Engineering, 2012), civil engineering (Institution of Civil Engineers, 2008), chemical engineering (American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2003), and nuclear science (American Nuclear Society, 2003) each have their own set of specific guidelines or codes of conduct.
Codes of ethics and professional guidelines are established for a number of reasons. First, establishing codes and guidelines creates consistent normative standards for researchers of a particular field (Schwartz, 2002). Additionally, codes of conduct are created so as to avoid legal consequences of ethical breaches and to promote public image (Ethics Resource Center, 1990) or to ensure that members of a field maintain a higher standard of conduct than would be called for by law (Backof & Martin, 1991). Researchers create guidelines and formal ethics codes according to what issues are most prevalent as scientific advancements are made (Cressey & Moore, 1983; Lefebvre & Singh, 1992). Ethical codes and professional guidelines are enacted to assure outside parties, such as clients, colleagues, and the public, that integrity will be maintained and that high standards are of utmost priority (Ward, Ward, Deck, & Allen, 1993). Codes may be established with a goal of mediating disputes (Frankel, 1989) or forcing individuals to question their present values (Meyer, 1987).
Despite the prevalence and importance of codes of conduct, studies examining their effectiveness with regard to behavior offer mixed results. Some studies have shown ethical codes to be effective; that is, they achieve their purpose. In an experimental study, Hegarty and Sims (1979) found that graduate student participants who were instructed to make decisions under conditions in which an organizational ethics policy was in place made more ethical decisions than those not consulting an ethics policy. Similarly, in another study, when participants were asked to react to scenarios, it was found that the condition featuring a code of ethics influenced the morality of participants’ actions (Laczniak & Inderrieden, 1987), indicating that unethical behavior can be controlled or mitigated through organizational practices and policies. A qualitative study bearing on computer ethics concluded that formal codes of computer ethics impact decision making and are thus important to have (Pierce & Henry, 1996), as long as the codes are effectively communicated throughout the organization and considered legitimate by members.
Given these potential moderators, it is not surprising that other researchers have found a weak or no relationship between these codes and ethical behavior, or otherwise argued against their effectiveness and utility. In their survey study of business students, Cleek and Leonard (1998) found that codes of ethics are not strong enough tools to influence ethical decision-making behavior. The presence of an organizational code of ethics did not correlate with research ethics judgments in a study examining judgments of marketing professionals about ethical issues in marketing research (Akaah & Riordan, 1989). Murphy, Smith, and Daley (1992) found a weak relationship between existence of ethical codes and ethical behavior, indicating that ethical codes, and leadership in particular, do not strongly affect ethical behavior, finding instead that attitudes and organizational size are better predictors of ethical behavior.
The increasing number and types of ethical misconduct violations occurring in scientific research (Van Noorden, 2011) suggests that ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines are not serving their purpose. How codes are perceived by researchers is important for better understanding their strengths and weaknesses. The ambiguous findings regarding the effectiveness of ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines led us to examine researchers’ awareness of and perceptions about ethical guidelines.
To investigate these research questions, a number of research professionals in various scientific disciplines were interviewed regarding their responses on a test of ethical decision making in the sciences. The content of these interviews was analyzed to identify themes in participants’ discussion of codes of conduct and professional guidelines in academic or research settings.
The sample of this study consisted of 64 faculty members at a large southwestern university. Of these, 37 were male and 27 were female. Additionally, 15 faculty members were assistant professors, 28 faculty members were associate professors, 20 faculty members were full professors, and one faculty member was an adjunct professor. Professors were recruited from six disciplines comprised of related fields of study: performance (e.g. drama, theatre, architecture) (n = 10), biological sciences (e.g. botany, biochemistry) (n = 6), health sciences (e.g. medicine, dentistry) (n = 22), humanities (e.g. history of science, philosophy) (n = 5), physical sciences (e.g. engineering, geology) (n = 7), and social sciences (e.g. sociology, economics) (n = 14). Faculty members were recruited to participate in a study of ethical decision making by the graduate liaisons of their departments following a presentation regarding the purpose of the study.
In order to identify researchers’ perspectives regarding ethical codes of conduct and professional guidelines, it was necessary to induce thinking regarding their decision making in ethically ambiguous situations. To do this, participants were asked to complete an ethical decision-making instrument developed by Mumford and colleagues (2006). This instrument presents participants with a number of field-relevant scenarios containing ethical dilemmas and asks them to choose how the main character in the scenarios should respond from a set of multiple response options. This approach was favored over an explicit interview about guidelines because it encouraged participants to discuss their perceptions of research guidelines within the context of ethically-loaded hypothetical scenarios, thus likely producing more honest, less socially desirable responses.
The creation of this instrument was guided by review and discussion of codes of conduct across fields of study, which led to the categorization of four broad dimensions of ethical behavior in the sciences: 1) data management, 2) study content, 3) professional practices, and 4) business practices. In order to tap these four dimensions, six equivalent measures were created with each measure intended to address a particular discipline of study (e.g. physical sciences, biological sciences, humanities, performance, health sciences, and social sciences). Although the scenarios differ in content based on field of study, they present test-takers with similar ethical situations.
Each measure consisted of between four and seven scenarios, each with approximately five follow-up questions. Each question in the instrument presented approximately eight response options and asks test-takers to select the two options that they believe represent the best ways to respond to the ethical dilemma presented in the scenario. An example scenario, question, and possible responses are shown in Table 1 . Each response was coded by experts as either low (1 pt.), medium (2 pts.), or high (3 pts.), with low responses representing poor responses and high representing good responses to the ethical dilemma featured in the scenario.
Example Ethical Decision-Making Measure Scenario and Questions
Livingston disagreed with the research protocol submitted with the initial proposal to the EPA’s Radiation Protection Program, but went along with the other principle investigator’s (PI) suggestions so they could meet the submission deadline. He believes that substantial revisions are needed to obtain more accurate data. The new protocol he suggests will address half of the originally proposed research questions and will enable a number of new questions to be examined. What action should Livingston take? Choose two from the following: