Description
Social science research studying people—sometimes called “human subjects”—has grappled with how to ensure ethical research practice. Arguably universally, social science scholars have adopted the same ethical principles established to guide ethical practice in biomedical research: respect for persons, justice, and beneficence. Increasingly, around the world, these principles are applied through the practice of prospective review by a committee, typically called an “Institutional Review Board” (IRB) or “Research Ethics Committee” (REC). Despite this increasingly coherent institutional practice, research ethics in the social sciences continues to lack any substantive core. This means that scholars may hold fundamentally irreconcilable views as to what constitutes ethical practice that our existing ethical principles cannot resolve. These issues are further pronounced for research that occurs across borders and on politically sensitive subjects. Focusing on the principle of beneficence, this article examines several ethical “scandals” in the social sciences as key moments when scholars articulate and justify ethical principles within their scholarly community. Examining these debates reveals that the principle of beneficence is fundamentally indeterminate, such that there is no stable basis upon which to determine whether research achieves principled ethical aspiration. Instead, in the face of an empty principle, scholars continue to rely on background principles, norms and processes to litigate ethics.
