全国2009年4月高等教育自学考试管理学.pptVIP

The RESPECT Guidelines: Ethical, Cultural, and Meta-Ethical Considerations Charles Ess Chair, ethics working committee, Association of Internet Researchers; Committee for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, American Association for the Advancement of Science Interdisciplinary Studies, Drury University cmess@ /ess/ess.html Philosophical Prelude - Nietzsche Philosophical Prelude - Nietzsche Outline An ethicist’s approach Preliminary overview Deontology vs. utilitarian approaches + “other”/global ethics Initial overview of Guidelines in terms of deontology [D] / utilitarian [U] bases Where D / U approaches converge: 2 [4, 6,] Where D / U approaches conflict: 11[ 5] Where D / U approaches are distinct: 1 [U] / 15-18 [D] ? possible tensions in Guidelines? 2. Convergences / Divergences in Inter/national law: 2 3. Cultural Perspectives: 3, 5 4. Meta-ethical concluding questions [5. Suggestions for a Global Research Ethics] 1. An Ethicist’s First Perspective The guidelines can be helpfully understood to be divided as follows: Utilitarian starting point: research must balance benefits and costs (1) Professional ethics - especially as oriented towards deontological / basic rights / respects perspectives, 2 - 5 Professional Ethics - especially as concomitant with basic research methodology and the professional ethics codes of specific disciplines (sociology, anthropology, etc.), 6 - 14 Human Subjects Protections (basic - deontological - values /rights emphasized in post-WWII Western research ethics codes), 15 - 18 1. An Ethicist’s First Perspective Human Subjects Protections: post-WWII Western research ethics codes, e.g. Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health, Department Of Health And Human Services. 1991. Code of Federal Regulations. 1991. Title 45, Part 46, “Protection of Human Subjects.” /mpa/45cfr46.php3.  Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Natural Sciences and Engineering Resarch Council o