Should researchers all over the world try to abide by a universal code of ethics? Is it possible to get scientists and governments to agree on such a code and, if so, would it be a good idea? Are the societies they work in just too different?
In today's Education Guardian two academics, Professor Jonathan Wolff, head of philosophy at University College London, and Niall Scott, lecturer in ethics at the University of Central Lancashire, air their disagreements.
The idea of a global code of ethics for research has been promoted by Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, is response to the rise of globalised science where scientists are racing to get their results out first and firms can commission research wherever they choose. The suspicion that companies will be tempted to go to countries where there are lighter controls on, say, animal testing has been raised by universities in the UK.
The result was a Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal ethical code for scientists - which you can download, along with the responses, from the Council for Science and Technology (CST) website.
Do you think Sir David King's code is workable? If you're a researcher, how would it affect your area of work?
