2 of 12

Objectives

To compare the structure of the problem with the available procedure (1 slide)
To provide complementary perspectives on the substance of ethics in research (2 slides)
To present available the toolbox to reach the mission of promoting ethics in research (4 slides)

3 of 12

Structure of the problem

General moral background in society

Strong procedural relations

Authors, the scientific community

Funding agencies

Justice institutions

Media organizations

Research Ministry

CNECSDTI

Publishing houses

Journals

Research organizations

Ethics commisions

Week procedural relations

Education organizations

4 of 12

Complementary perspectives on the substance of ethics in research

Deontological ethics

(code of honor)

Utilitarianism

(ethics in research as a resource for knowledge production)

High and stable de jure standards

Realistic, adaptable de facto standards

Tensions with the general moral social background?

Tensions with available human resources in organizations?

Tensions with the deontological expectations?

Tensions with the evolved standards in developed countries?

5 of 12

Complementary perspectives: human resource formation

Deontological ethics

Teaching academic honor

Iordache (2004)

Utilitarianism

Knowledge production a deontological background

Competency #1	Competency #2	Competency #3	Competency #4	Competency #5
To select texts and organize them coherently	To partially rephrase the texts of other persons	To properly rephrase the texts of other persons	To have critical ideas about the knowledge communicated by other people	To have new, constructive ideas and produce new knowledge
Properly describing the knowledge communicated in articles, reviews, and monographs			Producing new knowledge at the methodological standards of the disciplinary field

6 of 12

The toolbox: Reactive, Proactive

Decisions

Recommandations

Guidelines
Trials

Procedure
Substance

Proactive communication:

Professional events
General public

7 of 12

The toolbox: examples of recommandations

To researches and the scientific community

8 of 12

The toolbox: examples of recommandations

To ethics commissions and research organisations

9 of 12

The toolbox: examples of recommendations

To publishing houses and funding agencies

10 of 12

Discussions: SWOT

High productivity of decisions Good media coverage High legal competence inside CNECSDTI High scientific competencies and moral standards Favorable decisions in justice	Weak support from the legal department of the Ministry Low incentives for researchers from the diaspora to join the team
New, improved regulations Decreasing the transaction costs for cooperating with other advisory bodies	Legal “war” on procedures, pressures on the CNECSDTI Political instrumentalization of cases General moral background in society

11 of 12

Conclusions: by objectives and general

O1: The structure of the problem is more complex than the CNECSDTI procedures can cover. There are external factors out of control.

O2: The substance of the ethics of research can be interpreted from a variety of perspectives, from deontological to utilitarian, to HR and the knowledge production process. A functional mix of approaches is the best solution.

O3: The mission of CNECSDTI is reached by reactive and proactive tools

General: Using the existing procedural framework, CNECSDTI produced substantial reactive and proactive results for the research system and the scientific community. Still, there are limitations to a larger impact, mainly due to the legal framework, pressures by legal “war”, and political instrumentalization of cases.

1 of 12