1
Research Ethics Expertise

1.1. Introduction

Research ethics can cover very different types of problems: researchers conduct in their work, publication of their results, precautions to take against those involved in experiments, right up to results, reflected by the invention of new processes or technologies that may fundamentally alter societies or environments in which they will be transformed into innovations. Different ethical concepts shall therefore be applied according to the research activity considered, sections which are ever more complex and collective. We shall, for example, talk about integrity in research if we consider the individual conduct of researchers in their investigations and the publication of their results. We shall apply other conceptions, from bioethics with its lists of principles, to appraising a collective project in biomedical research in order to protect people and sick or healthy patients who are vulnerable or not. We may further expand the scope if we focus on good ethical practices relating to the use of nanotechnology.

If the emerging responsible research and innovation (RRI) conception is close to research ethics by the opening of scientific practice to stakeholders and anticipation on the use of research results, not just considered in the light of their commercial expectations, it should however not overshadow what already exists in ethics as expectations with regard to research practices. Indeed, to our knowledge, works on RRI are developed alongside, or in ignorance of ethical reviews (ER) which have nevertheless been required for several years now. In addition, they can be backed by a number of national European and even international legal texts.

It therefore seemed not only original for us to consider these ERs but fruitful to compare them with RRI. We shall therefore see in detail what constitute ERs, how they are organized and conducted. Their status with regard to ethics shall then be discussed. We shall indeed notice that they reside at the ethical threshold, or, at best, they are only a form of deontological ethics, bioethics inspiration, trying to ensure that a number of principles are observed. We shall briefly show that ethics not only exceed this very confined space, but lie at different levels (applied ethics, ethics of moral theories and meta-ethics). Moreover, we shall provide an overall pluralistic picture of the main normative foundations which are used to make moral justifications and judgments. The deontological theory is far from covering all of these foundations.

1.2. Several possible areas to identify ethical issues

Before going into the details of ERs, we shall indicate various possible areas where to focus attention when talking about ethics in research, or the observance of norms in broader terms. On the one hand, these areas are very different and, second, ERs, and especially RRI, are not entering an empty or unexplored field. Other fields of norms, to use this poly-semic image, already exist. The issue of their possible conflict is an important point which shall be discussed in the conclusion of the book, not least by the importance and attention that should be given to a particular group of norms for various research actors.

Research, just as with any professional activity, observes norms. Some of these norms are specific to disciplines and others are shared by all scientific communities.

For example, regarding specific norms, voting behaviors in political science are not analyzed in the same manner as fluid flows in process engineering. The methods, the background theories on which are based interpretations, the constraints and construction of scientific objects, the presentation of results, just to mention a few elements, help to identify and distinguish two examples as belonging to two specific and different scientific fields.

As concerns shared norms, we can mention the need for the researcher to be subject to peer review in order to be published in related peer-reviewed "refereed" journals. Researchers must demonstrate an effort to present their results which they make shareable and reproducible, in order not to bias them. With regard to the latter problem, we will notice that the standards are not just epistemic, with regard to knowledge and relating to the proper exercise of scientific practice, but that they are also normative, aimed at the expected ethical behavior of researchers. In fact, falsifying results is subject to punishment. These standards belonging to the normative area and different from the epistemic area can be legal and/or moral. If compliance with these two types of norms has always been somehow consubstantially committed to scientific activity, more recently, the concern to ensure the integrity of research required more explicit and rigorous forms of institutionalization1. There exist integrity codes in research. In Europe, we have The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity2 co-edited by the European Science Foundation (78 research institutions from 30 countries) and the All European Academy (53 academies from 40 countries) in 2011. Researchers must therefore comply with rules specific to their practices (epistemic norms) and ethical norms (e.g. integrity). They are thus entrusted with responsibilities. It would seem obvious in works on RRI, but this is rather not the case. This should equally be borne in mind.

Epistemic and normative standards are often linked within the aforementioned meaning. For example, falsifying results is as much detrimental to the progress of scientific knowledge as the damage that might be committed against colleagues who may be deceived if they considered such results for their own work. But these two types of standards are distinct. The harm done not only involves misleading colleagues, but also cheating and enjoying undue advantages (publication in good and prestigious journals including career advancement). These behaviors may also impact beyond the scientific community; for example, in the case of assessing the risk of a particular product or understanding environmental phenomena such as climate.

Without going into great detail here, what is expected from researchers is scientific as well as moral responsibility in the conduct of their work. Though these responsibilities are not actually treated in this book, perhaps because they are widely known, they are however crucial. They sometimes might have been problematic or forgotten since ethics committees' opinions only surfaced recently3, emanating from scientific institutions now discussing what appeared to be a prerequisite for proper operation of research.

We shall now decentralize our views to address more external ethical issues in scientific practice. In effect, research is not a solitary or autarkic activity. It needs society to develop and in turn impacts on the development of the latter. Even philosophy and mathematics require interaction with peers or instruments, be they accesses or computer applications. Though the main actors of research are researchers and most often teachers-researchers4, it is however accompanied by other professions (assistants, doctoral and post-doctoral students, administrative staff sometimes closely associated on account of their initial training of teachers-researchers). Moreover, in order to deploy, it involves institutions, funding and thus the choices that govern them. If it is to strive in good conditions, research must be protected, as much as possible, from other spheres of influence, economic or political; it is however not detached from these spheres and the entire society. With this tendency to consider the impact of research on society and the economy, job creation has become more and more prevalent. Accountability that is not strictly scientific is even more explicit when research funding is project based. European projects are amongst those that require the most regarding the popularization and provision of results to any interested citizen, stakeholder or any economic or political decision-maker.

Very often the works expected are assistance for the establishment of the European policy. This is the case with projects on the ethics of emerging technologies or on RRI. If one understands this solidarity between research, scientific policy and society, we can add that some research could permanently change social interactions, security, economy, the world of work as well as the environment. The fruits of research will initiate future uses that will extend, will be transformed and disseminated in society and sometimes over several generations. We often also expect such changes especially with the relationship between research and innovation. Utility, in various forms, economic, social or, to solve problems, following a common form of pragmatism, has long been featuring in tender arguments to fund projects. Proponents must demonstrate how their research could be useful, not only in advancing knowledge in their field, but also to other disciplines, for applications and economic benefits. Does the vulgate of scientific policy not consider that research is certainly there to solve problems and mainly to create jobs and stimulate growth?

Two problems arise, supporting the concern of a request for accountability with regard to scientific activity. The first is upstream of the research activity; the second is downstream. On the one hand, private or public funding resources are not unlimited, and on the other, developments from research will not only have positive effects. In addition, they could be diverted or accompanied by unexpected collateral...