Why values – not just rules – are needed to stop ethics dumping

In international research, formal ethical rules have proliferated, yet unethical practices continue to surface in new forms, especially in resource constrained settings. In this op-ed, Pamela Andanda argues that only a values-based approach can truly inspire researchers to act ethically across borders. 

In a global research landscape crowded with ethics codes, guidelines, and checklists, it would be easy to assume that we have done enough. Yet ethics dumping – the export of unethical research practices to low‑ and middle‑income countries and other resource‑constrained settings – continues to surface in new forms. The persistence of this problem raises an uncomfortable question for the research community: if we already have so many rules, what will it take to inspire people to act ethically? 

While we were developing the Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnerships (the TRUST Code), we found that equitable research thrives when there is trust among collaborating researchers and among the communities or participants involved in research. However, we also observed persistent problems that erode this trust and lead to inequitable research practices.  

If we already have so many rules, what will it actually take to inspire people to act ethically?

One such problem is the exportation of noncompliant research practices: research that raises sensitive ethical issues and would not be conducted in high income settings is being carried out in lower‑income or resource‑constrained contexts to evade ethical barriers.  

A second problem lies in inequitable research collaboration arrangements that negatively affect researchers and participants from such contexts, often rooted in significant power imbalances in international collaborative research. The TRUST Code was developed and promoted to counter these problems. Our aim was to promote a code based on values that inspire people to self-reflect and act ethically, irrespective of the context in which research is conducted. 

Why values matter 

The four values of the TRUST Code – fairness, respect, care and honesty – have since become closely associated with equitable research collaborations. Their importance was powerfully captured by one of our project colleagues from a low- and middle-income country, and co-author of the Code, at the TRUST project’s final event at the European Parliament in 2018. Addressing the research community, she said: ‘We want to be treated by researchers with fairness, respect, care and honesty. Is that too much to ask?’ This simple plea underscores how central these four values are.  

Drawing on my experience as an ethics reviewer for the European Research Council (ERC), I have found the uptake of these values to be impressive, partly because they are formulated in clear and accessible language that can be applied across disciplines. In many ERC proposals, recurring strengths appear when applicants plan research involving marginalised groups or partners in the Global South. These strengths are often reflected in the application of the spirit of articles 2 and 3 of the TRUST Code relating to good participatory practice and providing feedback, particularly through engagement with participating communities to determine what they consider to be fair benefit sharing arrangements.  

At the same time, recurring weaknesses often emerge when the practical arrangements for benefit-sharing do not correspond to the commitments described in the proposal. A common example is the promise to provide meaningful feedback on research findings to participating communities without allocating resources for translating those findings into local languages. 

From principles to practice 

Examples from ERC proposal assessments illustrate how the Code can provide practical guidance in ethically sensitive areas. In reviewing proposals, I have encountered projects that sought to draw on the intangible cultural heritage of participating local communities without specifying measures to protect participants’ intellectual property rights or to safeguard that heritage from inappropriate use or exploitation. 

In these cases, the TRUST Code provides a useful framework to ensure that there is no infringement or misappropriation of protected material. Article 5 of the Code is especially relevant in this context: it states that researchers’ access to biological or agricultural resources, human biological materials, traditional knowledge, cultural artefacts or non-renewable resources such as minerals should be subject to the free, prior and informed consent of their owners or custodians. Any transfer of material or knowledge to researchers should be governed by formal agreements, with terms co-developed with resource custodians or knowledge holders. 

There are also common misunderstandings about ethics and benefit sharing that still appear too often in applications. One recurring issue is the tendency to limit benefit sharing plans to co‑authorship or capacity building among collaborating researchers, while overlooking the inclusion of participating groups or communities.  

Another area of misunderstanding concerns data use. Some ERC proposals refer exclusively to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, without considering relevant national data protection laws or other conventions in non‑EU countries where research is conducted. Such omissions can be especially problematic where participants are at risk of stigmatisation, discrimination or incrimination. The TRUST Code anticipated these challenges, and Article 23 explicitly calls on researchers to pay special attention to participants who face such risks. 

A shared ethical language  

The TRUST Code was designed as a global framework, yet research is always embedded in specific legal, cultural and political contexts. Its distinctive strength lies in its values-based approach, which connects the Code with international standards and helps the research community translate broad principles into everyday practices that guide collaboration on the ground. 

This is also why the TRUST Code has been adopted and applied across different institutions, cultures and countries: it offers a shared ethical language that can inspire ethical behaviour in research.  

A code based on values can inspire people to self-reflect and act ethically, irrespective of the context in which research is conducted

For ERC applicants and grantees who want to take the Code seriously, the first practical step is to engage with it not as a box ticking exercise, but as a resource for reflection. Those working with marginalised communities or in resource constrained contexts should refer to the Code and reflect on their positionality and on questions of equality, diversity and inclusion. Applicants and grantees should let the TRUST Code guide them in thinking about who holds power, who benefits, and who bears the risks in their projects. 

The wish expressed by the authors of the TRUST Code remains highly relevant here: That research stakeholders ‘who are guided by values will hopefully be inspired and motivated by the [add link: Global Code of Conduct] and not just follow its rules reluctantly or grudgingly.’ When researchers internalise this aspiration, the Code becomes less of a checklist to satisfy funders and more a living resource that supports ethical imagination, social impact and service to the common good of the research community. 

Pamela Andanda is Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), Johannesburg, and has contributed extensively to the development and implementation of the TRUST Code and advises on ethics for European research programmes.