The regulation of research by funding bodies : an emerging ethical issue for the alcohol and other drug sector?

The degree to which funding bodies can and do control the content and dissemination of research products raises important issues which need to be openly debated by the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. Current policies relating to censorship and other means of controlling research topics or output are explored alongside an examination of how some institutions, particularly some academic journals, deal with such issues. We argue that regulation of research by funding bodies clearly contravenes the scientific ideal of freedom of information and open access to knowledge. Using international ethical guidelines, we also demonstrate that regulation raises concerns in relation to the ethical concept of beneficence. A number of examples specific to harm reduction strategies are presented in order to demonstrate how censorship might conceivably increase the harms associated with drug use. The commentary closes with recommendations concerning the establishment the prevalence of censorship and other forms of control over research in the AOD sector, and the role that ethics committees, journal editorial boards and professional societies might play in resisting the imposition of unacceptable conditions on publication of findings.

Ethical relativism vs absolutism : research implications

Purpose – The constructs of relativism and absolutism have a significant role to play in the development of ethical theory; however, they are commonly simplified in their depictions and are philosophically more complex than we give them credit for. The purpose of this paper is to undertake an in-depth examination of ethical relativity and ethical absolutism before concluding with a discussion of which research implications warrant further investigation.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive, historical, anthological approach has been taken.
Findings – Ethical relativism is regrettably subject to a proliferation of related terminology and, in many instances with different meanings ascribed to similar terms. In addition, ethical relativity appears to attract different research perspectives that are heavily dependent on their academic origins. A clear distinction needs to be made between ethical and situational relativity. It is suggested that relativism is present in the process of moral justification and that ethical relativism should be analyzed from three levels: the individual level, the role and group level, and the cultural levels. The over-riding objection to ethical relativism rests on the consequences of accepting relativism, which undermines the existence and strength of global moral standards and the inherent positioning of ethical absolutism. Absolutism does not deny the existence of multiple moral practices evident around the world, but proposes that variations in ethical actions could still be rooted in common universal moral standards based on our requirements as human beings and the necessities of long-term survival.
Research limitations/implications – The ensuing discussions of relativism and absolutism open up a rich vein of research opportunities and suggest caution is required in regard to research methodologies. From a methodological perspective, care needs to be taken. For example, using hypothetical ethical dilemmas that are often unrelated to a specific industry or cultural setting has resulted in many researchers observing situational relativity rather than true ethical relativity.
Originality/value – This paper specifically examines whether there are differences in underlying and basic moral standards even though similarities in ethical behaviour have been determined, or whether differing ethical actions could, as the absolutists believe, originate from common universal standards despite apparent differences in perceptions and actions across cultures.

Ethical issues in forensic and correctional research

It is surprising that while the literature on ethical issues associated with social science research is burgeoning and becoming increasingly sophisticated very few papers have been written on the ethics of forensic or correctional research. The literature that exists is disappointingly narrow and superficial, and relies on professional ethical codes to a considerable degree. In this paper we present an ethical framework developed by Ward and Syversen to help with ethical decision making in research contexts. We then discuss some of the specific ethical challenges for researchers working in forensic and correctional domains, and consider how best to deal with ethical problems drawing from this framework. Our aim will be to provide researchers with some general ideas of how to proceed in certain situations rather than come up with a final set of answers to every conceivable problem.

Review of trust and machine ethics research: towards a bio-inspired computational model of ethical trust (CMET)

Recent advances in the fields of robotics, cyborg development, moral psychology, trust, multi agent-based systems and socionics have raised the need for a better understanding of ethics, moral reasoning, judgment and decision-making within the system of man and machines. Here we seek to understand key research questions concerning the interplay of ethical trust at the individual level and the social moral norms at the collective end. We review salient works in the fields of trust and machine ethics research, underscore the importance and the need for a deeper understanding of ethical trust at the individual level and the development of collective social moral norms. Drawing upon the recent findings from neural sciences on mirror-neuron system (MNS) and social cognition, we present a bio-inspired Computational Model of Ethical Trust (CMET) to allow investigations of the interplay of ethical trust and social moral norms.

Ethical considerations in synthesising research : whose representations?

Research syntheses play a powerful role in shaping further research, practice, policy and public perceptions. Accordingly, the ethical issues associated with how perspectives of different groups are included or censored in a research synthesis report must be paid adequate attention. Any research synthesis is inherently influenced by subjectivities associated with multiple layers of interpretation, selection and representation. In framing a research synthesis, it is vital that synthesists take into account: multiple interests and influences of different stakeholders; potential impact of the synthesis on different stakeholders; synthesists’ own multiple and shifting identities within the synthesis; synthesists’ methodological positioning within the synthesis; status accorded to authors and participants of the primary research studies included in the synthesis; influences of funding agencies; politics of who/what gets published; and biases introduced through common strategies for retrieving primary research studies. I have raised strategic questions and issues to structure and inform critical decision-making throughout a synthesis process. I hope this article will stimulate debate and discussion on various ethical considerations associated with the process of synthesising research.