Developing a code of ethics for academics

This article discusses the possibilities and pitfalls of constructing a code of ethics for university professors. Professional, educational, legal, and policy questions regarding the goals, format, and content of an academic ethics code are raised and a series of aspirational principles and enforceable standards that might be included in such a document are presented for discussion and debate. Portions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, February 24–27, 2000 Washington, DC.     

Eighteen rules for writing a code of professional ethics

Most professional societies, scientific associations, and the like that undertake to write a code of ethics do so using other codes as models but without much (practical) guidance about how to do the work. The existing literature on codes is much more concerned with content than procedure. This paper adds to guidance already in the literature what I learned from participating in the writing of an important code of ethics. The guidance is given in the form of "rules" each of which is explained and (insofar as possible) justified. The emphasis is on procedure.     

Software engineering code of ethics and professional practice

The Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice, intended as a standard for teaching and practicing software engineering, documents the ethical and professional obligations of software engineers. The code should instruct practitioners about the standards society expects them to meet, about what their peers strive for, and about what to expect of one another. In addition, the code should also inform the public about the responsibilities that are important to the profession. Adopted in 2000 by the IEEE Computer Society and the ACM--two leading international computing societies--the code of ethics is intended as a guide for members of the evolving software engineering profession. The code was developed by a multinational task force with additional input from other professionals from industry, government posts, military installations, and educational professions.     

A code of ethics for the life sciences

The activities of the life sciences are essential to provide solutions for the future, for both individuals and society. Society has demanded growing accountability from the scientific community as implications of life science research rise in influence and there are concerns about the credibility, integrity and motives of science. While the scientific community has responded to concerns about its integrity in part by initiating training in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research, this approach is minimal. The scientific community justifies itself by appealing to the ethos of science, claiming academic freedom, self-direction, and self-regulation, but no comprehensive codification of this foundational ethos has been forthcoming. A review of the professional norms of science and a prototype code of ethics for the life sciences provide a framework to spur discussions within the scientific community to define scientific professionalism. A formalization of implicit principles can provide guidance for recognizing divergence from the norms, place these norms within a context that would enhance education of trainees, and provide a framework for discussing externally and internally applied pressures that are influencing the practice of science. The prototype code articulates the goal for life sciences research and the responsibilities associated with the freedom of exploration, the principles for the practice of science, and the virtues of the scientists themselves. The time is ripe for scientific communities to reinvigorate professionalism and define the basis of their social contract. Codifying the basis of the social contract between science and society will sustain public trust in the scientific enterprise.     

Teaching ethics: More than an honor code

An honor code is certainly a good place to start teaching engineering students about ethics, but teaching students to live honorably requires far more effort than memorizing a code of ethics statement or applying it just to academic performance. In the School of Engineering at Grand Valley State University, we have followed the model provided by the United States Military Academy at West Point. For our students this involves an introduction to the Honor Code as part of a larger Honor Concept at the very beginning of their studies and then making it an integral part of their preparation as engineers. The challenge is significant because the culture at large does not support living with an Honor Concept. This paper will begin with a discussion of the cultural context in which we must teach, because that context has changed significantly in the years since many faculty members were students themselves. The rest of the paper will detail the approach that we have taken to teach ethics as an engineer’s way of life. “The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world is to be in reality what we would appear to be. All human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice and experience of them.” Plato An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2005 conference, Ethics and Social Responsibility in Engineering and Technology, Linking Workplace Ethics and Education, co-hosted by Gonzaga University and Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 9–10 June 2005.     

Implications of the 1992 ethics code for diverse groups

Previous renditions of the American Psychological Association's (APA's) code of ethics have clearly espoused psychologists' commitment to the ideal of having respect for the dignity and worth of the individual human being. The endorsement of the goal to protect fundamental human rights has always been highlighted in the Preambles of each revision of the code. The current code (APA, 1992) appears to have retreated from prioritizing this humanitarian stance. Ethnic minorities, women, gay men, and lesbians have reason to be apprehensive about the apparent downgrading in importance of psychologists' declaration of respect for the dignity and worth of the individual. All previous codes seemed to have been formulated from a perspective of protecting consumers. The new code appears to be driven by a need to protect psychologists. This article examines the possible impact of the shift in traditional priorities on diverse populations.     

A draft model aggregated code of ethics for bioethicists

Bioethicists function in an environment in which their peers--healthcare executives, lawyers, nurses, physicians--assert the integrity of their fields through codes of professional ethics. Is it time for bioethics to assert its integrity by developing a code of ethics? Answering in the affirmative, this paper lays out a case by reviewing the historical nature and function of professional codes of ethics. Arguing that professional codes are aggregative enterprises growing in response to a field's historical experiences, it asserts that bioethics now needs to assert its integrity and independence and has already developed a body of formal statements that could be aggregated to create a comprehensive code of ethics for bioethics. A Draft Model Aggregated Code of Ethics for Bioethicists is offered in the hope that analysis and criticism of this draft code will promote further discussion of the nature and content of a code of ethics for bioethicists.     

The commerce of professional psychology and the new ethics code

The 1992 version of the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct brings some changes in requirements and new specificity to the practice of psychology. The impact of the new code on therapeutic contracts, informed consent to psychological services, advertising, financial aspects of psychological practice, and other topics related to the commerce of professional psychology are discussed. The genesis of many new thrusts in the code is reviewed from the perspective of psychological service provider. Specific recommendations for improved attention to ethical matters in professional practice are made.     

Explicit ambiguity: the 1992 ethics code as an oxymoron

The author reviews the major themes emerging from commentators' reactions to the 1992 American Psychological Association ethics code and presents his own views as well. Commentators agreed that the 1992 code is improved by its increased breadth and specific attention to important issues not addressed in the previous code but criticized the code for its lack of clarity, its rampant qualifying language, and for seeming to protect the profession rather than the public. The author, finding the code overly long, detailed, and lawyered, recommends that those who revise the code in the 21st century adhere more closely to fundamental moral principles.     

Forensic standards in the American Psychological Association's new ethics code

The 1992 revision of the American Psychological Association's ethics code includes, for the first time, a section devoted to forensic issues. This article examines the adequacy with which the Forensic Activities section addresses fundamental ethical issues inherent in forensic practices (i.e., being competent in forensic practice, dealing with requests for service, providing informed consent, providing services, and reporting findings). We conclude that the ethics code modestly addresses important forensic ethical issues and that it too often is characterized by inconsistencies, insufficient information, omissions, and the inappropriate application of the term forensic to general standards not uniquely related to forensic practice.     

The science of ethics: Deception, the resilient self, and the APA code of ethics, 1966-1973

This paper has two aims. The first is to shed light on a remarkable archival source, namely survey responses from thousands of American psychologists during the 1960s in which they described their contemporary research practices and discussed whether the practices were "ethical." The second aim is to examine the process through which the American Psychological Association (APA) used these survey responses to create principles on how psychologists should treat human subjects. The paper focuses on debates over whether "deception" research was acceptable. It documents how members of the committee that wrote the principles refereed what was, in fact, a disagreement between two contemporary research orientations. The paper argues that the ethics committee ultimately built the model of "the resilient self" into the APA's 1973 ethics code. At the broadest level, the paper explores how prevailing understandings of human nature are written into seemingly universal and timeless codes of ethics.