Ethics

Science and Engineering Ethics (2003) 9, 159-170

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003 159

Keywords: ethics code, professional, research, practice, aspirational, educational

ABSTRACT: Ethics codes of a number of scientific societies across different disciplines promulgate ethical standards for responsible conduct in research and other professional activities. The content of these codes of ethics are compared on key dimensions of research, service or practice, and teaching in terms of the range and specificity of the activities these codes cover, and in the degree to which they are educational, aspirational or regulatory in purpose. The role of professional associations in educating, regulating, monitoring, and sanctioning their membership is also discussed.

Introduction

Ethical conduct in professional activities is an issue that occupies legislatures, regulatory agencies, educators, and professional societies across every discipline, whether focused on research, academia, industry or service. Most professional activities are covered under multiple levels of control. For example, there are principles and regulations specifying research/professional activities at the international level (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki1), the national level (e.g., the Common Rule2), the state level (e.g., licensing boards), and the institutional level (e.g., Institutional Review Boards), as well as from disciplinary societies (codes of ethics). Given the multiple layers of regulation, there are many ways in which disciplinary professional societies can promote ethical behavior—through their own ethics codes, through educational initiatives, or through subscription to codes or principles adopted by a more inclusive body.

Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes

Merry Bullock and Sangeeta Panicker American Psychological Association

* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the AAAS-Office of Research Integrity (ORI) meeting in Washington DC on the theme: “The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity” held on April 10-11, 2000. Address for correspondence: Merry Bullock, Ph.D., Associate Executive Director, Science Directorate, American Psychological Association, 750 First St. N.E., Washington D.C. 20002-4242, USA; email: [email protected]. Paper received, 11 May 2001; revised, 19 August 2002; accepted, 5 February 2003. 1353-3452 © 2003 Opragen Publications, POB 54, Guildford GU1 2YF, UK. http://www.opragen.co.uk

M. Bullock and S. Panicker

160 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003

In this contribution, we will review the ethics codes of a number of scientific societies to determine how different professional associations fulfill the role of fostering ethical behavior among their members. We will pay special attention to those policies that focus on scientific activities.

Ethics codes and policies, like scientific associations, come in many shapes and sizes, ranging from simple, one-page statements of principles, to long, detailed, manuals of conduct covering the many details of professional life. Which kind of code a discipline adopts, if it adopts a code at all, is a function of the different professional roles adopted by members of the association, the discipline’s perceived obligations and responsibilities, and the discipline’s own history.

To generate our remarks, we examined the ethics principles and codes of a wide variety of scientific associations, spanning the gamut of scientific disciplines, as listed in Tables 1 and 2. After a preliminary look at ethics codes across a number of associations and disciplines, it was clear to us that a categorization of an organization’s code on the basis of single or unidimensional criterion such as the type of discipline or the range of professional activities of its members was too simplistic. Thus, in this review, we examine how ethics codes vary across a number of dimensions and use the overview to raise questions about the purpose and value of scientific associations’ efforts to monitor and regulate the ethical conduct of their membership so as to promote integrity in research. Our remarks are intended to be descriptive of the entire range of association codes that were reviewed.

Table 1: Societies/Associations included in the survey

♦ Alberta Society of Professional Biologists

♦ American Anthropological Association

♦ American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists

♦ American Association of Petroleum Geologists

♦ American Chemical Society ♦ American College of Forensic

Examiners ♦ American Dental Association ♦ American Dietetic Association ♦ American Educational Research

Association ♦ American Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronautics ♦ American Institute of Chemists ♦ American Institute of Professional

Geologists ♦ American Mathematical Society ♦ American Medical Association ♦ American Meteorological Society ♦ American Physiological Society ♦ American Physical Society

♦ American Society of Civil Engineers ♦ American Society for Clinical

Laboratory Science ♦ American Society for Information

Science ♦ American Society of Mechanical

Engineers ♦ American Society for Nutritional

Sciences ♦ American Society for Photogrammetry

and Remote Sensing ♦ American Sociological Association ♦ American Speech, Language and

Hearing Association ♦ American Statistical Association ♦ Archeological Institute of America ♦ Association of Professional Engineers

and Geoscientists of British Columbia ♦ Australian Psychology Society, Ltd. ♦ Australian Society for Microbiology ♦ British Psychological Society ♦ Canadian Psychological Association ♦ Ecological Society of America ♦ Institute of Electrical and Electronic

Engineers

Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003 161

♦ American Political Science Association

♦ American Psychiatric Association ♦ American Psychological

Association ♦ American Oil Chemists’ Society ♦ American Registry of Radiologic

Technologists ♦ American Society of Agronomy ♦ American Society for Biochemistry

and Molecular Biology

♦ National Association of Applied Anthropology

♦ National Association for the Practice of Anthropology

♦ National Association of School Psychologists

♦ National Association of Social Workers ♦ Singapore Psychological Society

Table 2. Societies/Associations included in the survey categorized by membership activities

Research/ Service

♦ American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

♦ American Association of Petroleum Geologists

♦ American Chemical Society ♦ American College of Forensic

Examiners ♦ American Dental Association ♦ American Dietetic Association ♦ American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics ♦ American Institute of Chemists ♦ American Medical Association ♦ American Psychological

Association

♦ American Society of Civil Engineers

♦ American Society of Mechanical Engineers

♦ American Statistical Association ♦ Australian Psychological Limited ♦ British Psychological Society ♦ Canadian Psychological

Association ♦ National Association of Applied

Anthropology ♦ National Association of School

Psychologists ♦ Singapore Psychological

Society Service Delivery

♦ American Association of Petroleum Geologists

♦ American Institute of Professional Geologists

♦ American Registry of Radiologic Technologists

♦ American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

♦ American Speech, Language and Hearing Association

♦ Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia

♦ Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

♦ National Association for the Practice of Anthropology

♦ National Association of Social Workers

Research/ Application

♦ Alberta Society of Professional Biologists

♦ American Anthropological Association

♦ American Educational Research Association

♦ American Mathematical Society ♦ American Meteorological

Society ♦ American Physical Society ♦ American Physiological Society ♦ American Political Science

Association ♦ American Oil Chemists’ Society ♦ American Society of Agronomy

♦ American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

♦ American Society for Information Science

♦ American Society for Nutritional Sciences

♦ American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

♦ American Sociological Association

♦ Archeological Institute of America

♦ Australian Society for Microbiology

♦ Ecological Society of America

M. Bullock and S. Panicker

162 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003

The common underlying theme across all the ethics codes was encouragement of general good conduct by its membership. This could be briefly paraphrased as strictures to behave:

• Honestly and fairly (maintain integrity in conducting and reporting research, in giving expert consultation, in delivering service)

• Competently (remain within the boundaries of trained competence; follow all applicable rules, regulations, and procedures)

• Benignly (do no harm to the discipline, to research participants, to institutions, to clients, or to society)

These basic tenets apply across all disciplines and all activities—be it research, practice, teaching, consulting, or any other professional endeavor. However, the degree and manner in which these fundamental tenets are translated into codes of conduct and the extent to which there is an obligation to abide by, advocate for, and educate about such tenets varies considerably across organizations. The manner in which professional ethics codes vary can be described in terms of their scope: the breadth, depth, and stated or implied purpose of the code.

Categorization of Ethics Codes

BREADTH – The breadth of an association’s ethics code refers to the array of activities it attempts to cover. This may be determined by the nature and scope of the discipline, and the range of professional activities of its membership, i.e., the more diverse the discipline—ranging from basic research to delivery of services—the broader and perhaps more general the code. Looking across codes, there are wide differences in the definition of the constituencies to which members are held responsible. For instance, as shown in Table 3, the code of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), which focuses entirely on research, specifies responsibilities to: the field; research populations; educational institutions and the public; research sponsors; policy-makers and other consumers of research; and students and student researchers.3 The American Psychological Association (APA) ethics code, on the other hand, covers both practice and research activities and as such specifies responsibilities to patients or clients, students and supervisees, research participants and animals used in research as well as the public.4 In contrast to both AERA and APA, the American Dietetic Association code, which is devoted entirely to service/practice issues, specifies responsibilities primarily to the client, in a clinical as well as in a business setting.5

The nature of the subject matter of a discipline also affects the breadth of its ethics code. For example, disciplines in which research is performed on inanimate natural objects (e.g., geology, astronautics, physics, chemistry) focus more on the ethical actions of researchers vis-à-vis other researchers (i.e., giving due credit, publishing findings in a timely fashion, data sharing, etc.), and vis-à-vis the data (i.e., refraining from fabrication and falsification).6-9 In contrast, those disciplines in which research is performed on animate objects or on human artifacts include additional ethical strictures concerning the protection of research subjects or material (see Table 3). Examples

Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003 163

include the Code of Professional Standards of the Archeological Institute of America, which specifically addresses the archeologist’s responsibilities to the archeological record and to refrain from harming the cultural milieu,10 and the APA Code of Ethics which, in addition to maintaining research integrity, details psychological researchers’ responsibilities to research participants in terms of respecting individual autonomy, ensuring informed consent, and safeguarding their privacy and confidentiality.4

Table 3. A Sample of the Purview of Professional Responsibilities

ORGANIZATION CODE OF CONDUCT American College of Forensic Examiners

Responsibility to ensure justice is served – the case22

American Dietetic Association Responsibilities to the client (in different settings – business, clinic, culinary)5

American Educational Research Association

Responsibilities to the field, research populations, educational institutions, scholarship3

American Meteorological Society

Responsibilities to the profession, to colleagues, to clients and the general public23

American Psychological Association

Responsibilities to clients, research participants, the public4

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Obligations to the public, other investigators, trainees24

Archeological Institute of America

Responsibilities to the archeological record, the public, colleagues10

DEPTH – The depth of a code refers to its detail: whether it simply suggests ethical principles to follow in very general terms, or also complements these principles with detailed behaviors and actions, which aid in ensuring understanding and compliance. Although the depth of an ethics code may also be determined by the nature and range of professional activities of its membership, factors such as existing relevant legislation and whether other entities already regulate specific professional activities probably play a greater role.

As mentioned above, both the breadth and depth of professional ethics codes can vary considerably across disciplines. This, however, may also be true within a single discipline, across different cultures or societies. For instance, within the discipline of psychology, the ethics codes of the APA and the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) are both quite broad in scope because of their intended applicability to practice, applied, educational, and research contexts.4, 11 The APA code begins with a set of five general aspirational principles addressing beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, integrity, justice, and respect for people’s rights and dignity. It then follows with ten sections outlining standards for conduct. Issues relevant to research integrity are addressed within most of these ten sections to varying degrees, but the focus is on psychology as a broad field, not just on its scientific and research aspects, and the standards are written in general, broad terms.4

M. Bullock and S. Panicker

164 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003

In contrast, although the ethics code of the CPA is applied to professionals within the same range of activities as that of APA members, it is structured differently.11 It consists of four principles addressing respect for the dignity of persons, responsible caring, integrity in relationships, and responsibility to society. Each principle is followed by a value statement, which defines the principle, and by specific standards illustrating the application of the specific principle. The resulting code specifies particular actions much more precisely and in considerably more detail. For example, the definition (value statement) of Principle I: Respect for the dignity of persons is translated into specific ethical standards that psychologists are required to meet, which includes general respect. Specific actions that psychologists can engage in to live up to this standard include demonstrating appropriate respect for the knowledge, insight, experience, and areas of expertise of others; refraining from making degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, color, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation; striving to use language that conveys respect for the dignity of persons as much as possible in all written or oral communication; and abstaining from all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment.11

Other codes for psychologists provide yet other examples of the variation in ethics codes within a discipline. The British Psychological Association’s code sets forth the basic minimum standards for ethical conduct, with general recommendations for how those standards might be attained.12 The code is then supplemented by sets of statements that provide detailed guidance on a variety of specific areas of professional activity, which include research with humans and other animals. The Australian Psychological Society’s code of ethics identifies three general principles— responsibility, competence, and propriety—which take precedence over the following eight sections that address specific professional issues such as psychological assessment procedures, relationship with clients, teaching of psychology, supervision and training, research, reporting and publication of research results, public statements and advertisement, and members’ relationships with professionals.13

PURPOSE – The broad purview of a professional ethics code is to set out the standards of conduct that apply within a domain or discipline. This serves the function of creating a common set of standards that define norms of behavior for professionals within a domain or discipline, thus, safeguarding both the integrity as well as the reputation of the discipline. Within these broad constraints, though, associations differ in the specific purpose and use of an ethics code. For some, the purpose of the code is aspirational—to provide ideal goals, behaviors and perspectives that all members of the discipline should strive to attain. For others, the purpose of the code is to spell out common practice—to provide a set of guidelines or working rules that govern everyday professional activities. For yet others, the purpose may be not only aspirational or normative, but may also serve a regulatory and punitive function. That is, the code provides a set of rules or principles that must be followed, and non-compliance can result in, among other actions, expulsion from the association. Table 4 shows those associations that have binding and non-binding codes.

Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003 165

Table 4: Associations with enforceable vs. educational codes

ENFORCEABLE CODE NON-ENFORCED/EDUCATIONAL CODE American Association of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Alberta Society of Professional Biologists

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists

American Anthropological Association

American Association of Petroleum Geologists

American College of Forensic Examiners

American Dental Association American Dietetic Association American Medical Association American Educational Research

Association American Psychiatric Association American Institute of Professional

Geologists American Psychological Association American Mathematical Society American Sociological Association American Meteorological Society American Speech, Language Hearing Association

American Oil Chemists Society

American Statistical Association American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Canadian Psychological Association American Society for Nutritional Science National Association of Social Workers National Association for the Practice of

Anthropology Singapore Psychological Society The British Psychological Society

Whether a code is aspirational or regulatory depends in part on its enforceability. Only a relatively small number of associations supplement their ethics codes with detailed reporting or grievance procedures, provide information about procedures for handling allegations of misconduct or unethical behavior, or specify sanctions against those who violate the code. This is not surprising—many of the behaviors covered in ethics codes are regulated in other venues (e.g., at the federal, state or institutional level), and few associations have the necessary resources to ensure an adequate adjudication (due) process. However, it should be noted that of the nearly forty-five codes that we reviewed, only the American Anthropological Association (AAA) explicitly makes the case for education rather than adjudication.14 This is interesting, especially given the diversity of activities of its membership (research in different settings to different kinds of teaching, training, and applications). The AAA report contends that an educational document can and should apply across the intellectual breadth of the discipline.14

Societies vary in the extent to which they assign explicit obligations to members to strive to engage in ethical decision-making, or to incorporate ethical discussion into all professional activities. They also vary in the extent to which members are held responsible for reporting violations, or required to refrain from hindering such reporting by others. Regardless of whether a code is aspirational and educational,

M. Bullock and S. Panicker

166 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003

regulatory, or enforceable, and regardless of its place in the research-practice continuum, common issues covered in research ethics include:

• Honesty in conducting and reporting research (refrain from falsification, fabrication)

• Fairness and integrity in intellectual ownership and authorship • Respect and humane treatment for the research material, be it animate or

inanimate • Responsibilities to use public funds appropriately and to share publicly funded

materials and data • Open dissemination of research results • Responsibilities to preserve research records and artifacts • An obligation to avoid discrimination and harassment in all activities • An obligation as publisher to uphold integrity in reviewing and publishing

research (generally included when an association has a strong publishing function)

• An obligation to review the works of others Many of the codes also address the issue of credentials, which usually refers to the

precept that one must not overstate, exaggerate, or lie about one’s expertise or competence. Including strictures regarding competence and veracity of credentials in an ethics code may be a means of protecting both the integrity and reputation of the discipline as well as protecting the professional and his or her client/patient/research subject.

In addition to common elements, our overview across professional ethics codes showed a number of concerns that are not universal to all codes. These principles may reflect differences in the range of professional activities covered by a discipline, and may also reflect issues more specific to the particular discipline’s own history. Illustrative examples of more specific tenets include:

• Avoidance of research that is constrained in some way, for example, that is “secret” (Anthropology14); or that is proprietary (Chemistry9); or for private gain (Archeology10)

• An obligation to protect future research opportunities (Anthropology,14

AERA3) • An obligation to protect local culture or local artifacts (Anthropology14) • An obligation to decline additional funding from government agencies for

purposes that cannot be disclosed (applied to research abroad) (Political Science15)

• An explicit obligation to advance the profession (Chemistry,9 Aeronautics7) • Active attention to social responsibility by taking into consideration those who

benefit and those who are neglected by the research (Agronomy16) • An obligation not to permit publication or use of professional information (e.g.,

reports, maps) for illegitimate or unsound enterprises (Petroleum and Professional Geologists17, 6)

• A responsibility to challenge social injustice (Social work18)

Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003 167

• A responsibility to be informed and respectful of other disciplinary and professional perspectives and ethical requirements in cross-disciplinary work (Anthropology14, 19)

• A responsibility to contribute to the welfare of society by devoting a portion of professional activity for services with little or no financial return (Marriage & Family Therapy20)

• Refraining from knowingly engaging in research to produce or promote biological warfare agents (Microbiology21)

Summary

This very cursory look at some of the dimensions of ethics codes raises a number of issues for further discussion among disciplinary associations, and a number of questions to help clarify the role of scientific associations in the realm of research integrity.

1. How should a society balance the roles of regulating member activities and educating members about the culture of the discipline and the “rules” of a professional role? If the primary goal is to educate new as well as current members of a discipline

about what is expected in a societal role or professional capacity, then an ethics code should have practical use. In other words, it should be capable of providing researchers or professionals with guidance on the correct course of action in particular cases. This can be accomplished in different forms—by stating principles and decision rules, by stating principles and describing examples of specific situations and actions, or by issuing opinions, comments and policy statements on specific issues as they arise. To be of maximum use, an ethics code should be “user-friendly”, specific and instructive. The form this takes may vary for disciplines whose members represent a narrow or broad mix of researchers and practitioners.

2. Who should regulate ethical behaviors? Who should sanction ethical violations? If a professional code is intended to be enforceable, it should include procedures

for handling allegations of misconduct or unethical behavior. This might be at the association level if the organization has the necessary resources to ensure adequate adjudication (due process), or it might be to specify other organizations with relevant authority, such as universities or governmental agencies.

Generally, those codes that are meant to be binding, that have teeth, belong to disciplines with a preponderance of members who might be involved in providing service of some sort or are practitioners—where membership in the association is important for licensure or other professional credentials. However, where this is not the case, as with disciplines with only academic or applied researchers, there may still be a need to enforce discipline-specific codes. For example, the stricture in anthropology to protect artifacts ensures the possibilities of future research,14 or in political science to avoid being influenced by partisan opinion.15

M. Bullock and S. Panicker

168 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003

3. Given the increase in cross-disciplinary research and international collaborations, how can associations best educate their membership on issues relating to the ethical conduct of research and protecting research integrity? Scientific associations differ in the extent to which their ethics codes reflect an

obligation to inform and instruct members about adherence to public laws and regulations. Some incorporate relevant public regulations into their codes, others endeavor to instruct and educate members about how federal codes of research practices and other governmental regulations applicable across all disciplines and settings apply to the specific discipline. The increase in cross-disciplinary research and the emergence of new fields of research (e.g., gene technology) suggest that a broad approach will be most fruitful.

With the increase in cross-disciplinary research, the emergence of new fields of study, and increasing international collaborations, the scientific research environment is rapidly changing. Other factors contributing to this change are the public’s perception of science, the call for greater accountability in scientific research, and the corresponding changes being proposed in the federal regulation of research. Thus, the time is ripe for associations to take stock and decide how they might best serve their membership as well as society at large.

REFERENCES

1. World Medical Association (2000) Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Ferney-Voltaire Cedex, France: Author. Retrieved March 6, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e.html

2. Office of Protection from Research Risks (1991, June 18) Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46 Subpart A: Basic HHS policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register, 56, 28012-28022.

3. American Educational Research Association (1992, June) Ethical standards of AERA. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aera.net/about/policy/ethics.htm

4. American Psychological Association (2002) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist 57(12), 1060-1073. (Also, retrieved March 10, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf)

5. American Dietetic Association (1997, October) Standards of professional practice for dietetics professionals. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.eatright.org/qm/standards.html

6. American Institute of Professional Geologists (1998, October 4) AIPG code of ethics. Westminster: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aipg.org/ScriptContent/Index.cfm

7. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (1978, February 10) AIAA code of ethics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aiaa.org/about/index.hfm?abo=73

8. American Physical Society (1991, November 3) Guidelines for professional conduct. College Park, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aps.org/exec/conduct.html

9. American Chemical Society (1994, June 3) The chemist’s code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.acs.org/portal/Chemistry?PID=acsdisplay.html&DOC=membership\conduct.html

10. Archeological Institute of America (Undated) Code of professional standards. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/AIA_Code_of_Professional_StandardsA5S.pdf

Ethics for All: Differences Across Scientific Society Codes

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003 169

11. Canadian Psychological Association (2000) Canadian code of ethics for psychologists. Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cpa.ca/ethics2000.html

12. The British Psychological Society (2000, January) Code of conduct, ethical principles, and guidelines. Leicester, UK: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.bps.org.uk/documents/Code.pdf

13. The Australian Psychological Society, Ltd. (1999, October 2) Code of ethics. Victoria, Australia: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.psychsociety.com.au/aps/ethics/Code_of_Ethics_2001.pdf

14. American Anthropological Association (1998) Code of ethics of the American Anthropological Association. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved August 14, 2002 from the World Wide Web http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm

15. American Political Science Association (1998, September) A guide to professional ethics in political science. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apsanet.org/pubs/ethics.cfm

16. American Society of Agronomy (1992, November 1) Statement of ethics. Madison, WI: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.agronomy.org/ethics

17. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (2001, June 3) Code of ethics. Tulsa, OK: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aapg.org/business/codethic.html

18. National Association of Social Workers (1999) Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/default.asp

19. National Association for the Practice of Anthropology (1988, November) National Association for the Practice of Anthropology Ethical. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aaanet.org/napa/code.htm

20. American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (2001) AAMFT Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aamft.org/Resources/lrmplan/Ethics/ethicscode2001.htm

21. The Australian Society for Microbiology, Inc. (Undated) Code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.theasm.com.au/

22. American College of Forensic Examiners (Undated) ACFE Principles of professional practice. Springfield, MO: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.acfe.com/02.23.02/about_acfe-ethics.php

23. American Meteorological Society (1990) Constitution and bylaws for the AMS. Article XII: Guidelines for professional conduct. Boston, MA: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ametsoc.org/AMS/aboutams/organizationpdfs/constitution.pdf

24. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (1998, January) Code of ethics. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asbmb.org

25. Alberta Society of Professional Biologists (1977, January 21) Code of ethics for members of ASPB. Alberta, Canada: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aspb.ab.ca/ethics.htm

26. American Dental Association (2002) Principles of ethics and code of professional conduct. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/law/code/index.html

27. American Mathematical Society (1995, March 18) American Mathematical Society ethical guidelines. Providence, RI: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ams.org/secretary/ethics.html

28. American Medical Association (2001, June 17) Principles of medical ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ama-assn.org/ ama/pub/category/2512.html

29. American Nuclear Society (1984, July 1) Code of ethics. LaGrange Park, IL: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ans.org/about/codeofethics/

30. American Oil Chemists’ Association (1999, May) Code of ethics. Champaign, IL: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aocs.org/about/bylaws.htm

M. Bullock and S. Panicker

170 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003

31. American Psychiatric Association (2001) Principles of medical ethics: With annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.psych.org/apa_members/medicalethics2001_32901.pdf

32. American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (1993) Code of ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascls.org/about/ethics.htm

33. American Society for Information Science and Technology (1992, May 30) ASIST professional guidelines. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asis.org/AboutASIS/professional-guidelines.html

34. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, International (1998, June 10) Code of ethics of engineers. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asme.org/asme/policies/pdf/p-15.7.pdf

35. American Society for Nutritional Sciences (Undated) Code of professional responsibility for members of the American Society for Nutritional Sciences. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asns.org

36. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (Undated) Code of ethics. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asprs.org/asprs/society.html

37. American Sociological Association (1997) American Sociological Association code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asanet.org/members/ecoderev.html

38. American Speech, Language Hearing Association (2001, November 16) Code of ethics. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http:// http://professional.asha.org/resources/ethics/index.cfm

39. American Statistical Association (1999, August 7) Ethical guidelines for statistical practice. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.amstat.org/profession/ethicalstatistics.html

40. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (1998, December) APEGBC code of ethics. : Author. Retrieved August 12, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.apeg.bc.ca/library/library/act/act_bylaws_code.pdf

41. Ecological Society of America (2000, July) Ecological Society of America code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 14, 2002 Wide Web: http://esa.sdsc.edu/governance/codeofethics.htm

42. National Association of School Psychologists (2000, July 15) National Association for School Psychologists professional conduct manual: Principles for professional ethics: Guidelines for the provision of school psychological services. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.naspweb.org/pdf/PCM1100.pdf

43. Singapore Psychological Society (2000) Code of professional ethics. Newton Post Office, Singapore: Author. Retrieved August 13, 20002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/sps/ethics.html

44. The American Physiological Society (1989) Code of ethics. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.the- aps.org/about/opguide/appendix.html

45. The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (2002, July) Standards of ethics. St. Paul, MN: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.arrt.org.ethics.html

46. The American Society of Civil Engineers (1996, November 10) Code of ethics. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asce.org/pdf/ethics_manual.pdf

47. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (1990, August) Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 13, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/ whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl

Copyright of Science & Engineering Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.