1. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 3, June 2008 15
Although specifically articulated ethics codes for research
are a relatively new phenomenon, they have a common
reference to the more ancient principles of ‘respect’,
‘beneficence’ and ‘justice’ (National Commission for
the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioural Research 1979, CIOMS 2002). In this article
we compare research ethics codes and guidelines specifi-
cally between the fields of biomedicine and anthropology.
It has become increasingly common for various disciplines
to engage in joint projects within or outside academia, and
there is therefore a pressing need for comparison between
ethics codes. As researchers based in an institution encom-
passing both biomedicine and anthropology, part of the
authors’ daily work involves negotiating between dif-
ferent disciplinary discourses. We believe that it would be
fruitful to engage in a dialogue with researchers from other
backgrounds to compare views of what we think is right in
research, and to seek inspiration.
The historical trajectories of the various disciplinary
codes are rather different given the unique intersections
between external political and economic forces to which
they have been exposed and the internal concerns and tra-
ditions of the practitioners in the individual disciplines or
sub-disciplines.
Concern about biomedical research ethics emerged
60 years ago at the Nuremberg trials, where Nazi doc-
tors were found guilty of ‘crimes against humanity’.
Subsequently, the Nuremberg Code has formed the basis
for international biomedical research ethics codes, ini-
tially aiming to ‘avoid harm’, later encompassing other
ethical issues. The Helsinki Declaration adopted by the
World Medical Association (WMA) in June 1964 marks
the determination of the medical profession to build on
the Nuremberg Code and, via a number of revisions (most
recently in 2004), develop guidance for medical research.
Major scandals over the years have given rise to the reali-
zation that, if medicine is to be trusted, it must develop
more specific codes of ethics. A particularly strong incen-
tive for developing ethics codes was provided by the infa-
mous Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-72), in which Black
subjects were denied access to treatment programmes that
used penicillin successfully from its invention in 1947.
The discovery and subsequent termination of the study in
1972, along with other instances of secretive experimenta-
tion such as the CIA’s MK-Ultra project, eventually led
to the Belmont report (1979), which resulted in the estab-
lishment of the National Human Investigation Board and
Institutional Review Boards. Since then, and in response
to scandals in other countries, the number of guidelines
and codes has multiplied rapidly.
Research ethics codes in anthropology developed along
different pathways from biomedicine. Fluehr‑Lobban
describes how ‘crisis events’ have from time to time trig-
gered debates about the involvement of anthropologists
in contested projects (2003a). In the USA these crises
clustered around landmark cases such as Boas’ 1919 pro-
test against four archaeologists who allegedly combined
intelligence-gathering and research during World War I,
We are grateful to Professor
Göran Sterky and Professor
Povl Riis, who served as
sources of inspiration,
and to Professor Carolyn
Fluehr‑Lobban and Dr George
Ulrich, as well as anonymous
AT reviewers who have given
valuable input.
Jens Aagaard-Hansen
is trained both as a
medical doctor and as an
anthropologist. He has been
engaged in research capacity
building in developing
countries for the past 15
years. His email is
jah@life.ku.dk.
Maria Vang Johansen is a
veterinarian with a PhD in
parasitology. She has been
involved in research capacity
building and research ethics
in developing countries for
nearly 20 years. Her
email is mvj@life.ku.dk.
Fig. 1. Biomedical field
research usually involves
clinical examination.
Mozambique, September
2007.
Research ethics across disciplines
Jens Aagaard-Hansen &
Maria Vang Johansen
MARIAVANGJOHANSEN

2. 16 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 3, June 2008
the Camelot Affair in the 1960s, where it was proposed
that social scientists be used for military purposes in Latin
America (which led to the AAA’s Statement on Problems
ofAnthropological Research and Ethics in 1967), and con-
cerns about military strategists seeking to involve anthro-
pologists in the Vietnam War (Fluehr‑Lobban 2003a).
More recent examples in related fields are (intellectual)
property rights contested between researchers and the
study population in the Human Genome Diversity Project
(HGDP), and the negotiation between science and ‘cultural
heritage’, where archaeology comes into conflict with the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(Fluehr‑Lobban 2003a, 2003c, Marks 2005). Today, use of
anthropology in the ‘war on terror’ has once again revived
concerns that security agencies are aiming to use data col-
lected by anthropologists for intervention in third coun-
tries, particularly in Iraq. It is of course also difficult to
shake off the history of use of anthropology in the colonies
of North European countries (see Pels 1999, Caplan 2003,
Fluehr‑Lobban 2003a and Mills 2003). These examples
serve to indicate how questions of ethics are necessarily
embedded in specific national contexts.
Research ethics codes inevitably reflect the basic values
and methodological best practices within the different dis-
ciplines or sub-disciplines. For example, anthropologists
normally take on and conduct research on an individual
basis, whilst biomedical research is normally conducted
in teams, involving major laboratory facilities and equip-
ment. Biomedical research is linked to a larger pharmaceu-
tical complex, involving experiments on subjects of major
commercial interest, whereas anthropologists chiefly col-
lect data by means of participant-observation, which need
not have any commercial dimension or interventional
impact on host populations. Anthropologists do not nor-
mally administer medicine or perform invasive surgery,
and so subjects are unlikely to face the kind of risks to life
and limb that are inherent in biomedicine. Notwithstanding
these different historical trajectories, changing external
political and economic forces, and specific internal values
and traditions, here we set out to explore whether some
common points of reference may be identified.
Codes of research ethics
From the many research ethical codes we picked the five
that are perhaps best known in the fields of biomedicine
and anthropology – three emerging from within national
traditions (one British and two US codes) plus two inter-
national codes. These five stand as key reference points
globally wherever these disciplines are practised. This
selection is biased towards ‘Western’, Anglophone, high-
income countries and is but a preliminary sketch that
awaits a more comprehensive review.
1. The first version of the World Medical Association’s
(WMA) Helsinki Declaration is currently the most widely
known research ethics code internationally. It has had a
strong impact on biomedical scientists’ concepts of and
respect for research ethics.
2. With regard to US codes, the US National Bioethics
Advisory Commission’s (NBAC) ‘Ethical and Policy
Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in
Developing Countries in 2002’ is of particular interest.
The NBAC was instituted in 1995 as a high-level national
advisory board focused on the protection of the rights and
welfare of human research subjects with particular regard
to the implications of management and use of genetic
information.
3. The Council for International Organisations of
Medical Sciences (CIOMS) has published a revised ver-
sion of its International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical
Research Involving Human Subjects (2002), which also
deals extensively with research in developing countries.
The CIOMS is an international, non-governmental organi-
zation, founded by UNESCO and the WHO in 1949, that
provides a global perspective.
4. The Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological
Association (AAA) has been revised several times – the
latest being compiled in 1998. A number of additional
documents are available at the AAA website (AAA 2006)
as part of an ongoing discussion on ethical issues within
the association. These seek to address the limitations and
rigidity of a code by introducing a number of illustrative
case studies and briefing papers.
5. The ‘Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice’
(1999) of the Association of Social Anthropologists of the
UK and the Commonwealth (ASA), besides addressing
the three key themes (informed consent, harm and benefits
to the study population), also deals with ethical aspects of
intellectual property rights. The ASA sees its role specifi-
cally as to debate and guide but not to judge on research
ethics issues.
There are some useful documents that are not codes in
their own right, but nevertheless provide valuable discus-
sionsandperspectivesonsomekeyissues.Amongtheseare
the reports of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Working
Party (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2002, 2004), which
focus on the imbalance between developing and developed
countries’ economic resources and health infrastructures
in relation to research ethics.
Comparisons and reflections
Whilst recognizing the different contexts in the way these
ethics codes were formulated, we focus here specifically
on the way they deal with key ideas such as ‘consent’,
‘avoidingharm’and‘providingbenefitstothestudypopula-
tion’. Furthermore, we reflect on the potential implications
of any differences as an inspiration for change. Before we
do this, however, we should note two useful sources com-
paring ethics codes, namely the second Nuffield report,
which relates purely to biomedicine and focuses chiefly
on ‘informed consent’ and ‘benefit’ (Nuffield Council on
Bioethics 2004), and Fluehr‑Lobban’s brief comparison of
codes from various social science disciplines (2003a).
Informed consent
The WMA dedicates paragraphs 20-26 of the Helsinki
Declaration to the various aspects of informed consent
(2004). Almost a full page is devoted to elaborating which
kinds of information are required as well as the special
aspects of ‘dependent relationships’ and research on indi-
viduals deemed ‘legally incompetent’ (e.g. minors).
The American NBAC states that ‘no one should par-
ticipate in research without giving voluntary informed
consent’, and continues: ‘[b]oth the information and the
way it is conveyed – while meeting the full disclosure
requirements – must be tailored to meet the needs of the
participants in the particular research context’ (2002: 4).
The NBAC code also deals with protection of vulnerable
individuals.
The CIOMS has extensive Guidelines (4-7) for informed
consent including directives for how to adapt informa-
tion conceptually, culturally and at the level of language
(2002). The specifications for informed consent are
extremely elaborate (Guideline 5), and include the topic
of inducement (Guideline 7). In addition, informed con-
sent is addressed in several other sections, e.g. ‘research
involving individuals who by reason of mental or behav-
ioural disorders are not capable of giving adequately
informed consent’ (Guideline 15, CIOMS 2002: 45-47).
More briefly, the AAA code of ethics demands that
‘[a]nthropological researchers should obtain in advance
the informed consent of persons being studied’. It adds

3. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 3, June 2008 17
the important observations that ‘[i]t is understood that the
informed consent process is dynamic and continuous’ and
that ‘it is the quality of the consent, not the format, that
is relevant’ (1998: 4). Issues of ‘vulnerable’ and ‘legally
incompetent’ study participants are not explicitly dealt
with.
The ASA addresses informed consent in some detail,
including content and ‘information collected from proxies’
(1999: 3). The issue of ‘legal capacity’ (i.e. whether
the individuals are ‘legally competent’) is only briefly
addressed.
All codes stress the importance of informed consent.
However, the three biomedical codes (especially WMA
and CIOMS) go into significantly more detail regarding
vulnerable groups such as children and the ‘legally
incompetent’. Categories of ‘vulnerable groups’ are not
addressed in the two anthropological sets of guidelines,
apart from the ASA’s paragraph on legal aspects of vulner-
ability. Informed consent is a new phenomenon in anthro-
pological codes (appearing for the first time in the AAA
codes in 1998; see Fluehr‑Lobban 2003b). In anthropology
the issue of informed consent is closely related to a contin-
uing debate within the discipline on ‘clandestine research’
and research methodology (Fluehr‑Lobban 2003c), and is
as topical as ever.
In terms of specifications concerning the form in which
consent is to be given, there is a tendency for the medical
codes to be more elaborate, almost always requiring the
signing of written forms. This may be due to the fact that
the legal implications of medical research are more sig-
nificant. By contrast, the anthropological codes put more
emphasis on the quality and the process of gaining consent
than on the formalities.
Avoiding harm
In three paragraphs the WMA sets out the need for ‘careful
assessment of predictable risks and burdens in comparison
with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others’ and
stipulates that ‘[m]edical research involving human sub-
jects should only be conducted if the importance of the
objective outweighs the inherent risks and burdens to the
subject’ (2004: 3, paragraphs 16-18).
The NBAC notes that: ‘[p]articipants should be pro-
tected from avoidable harm, whether the research is pub-
licly or privately financed’ (2002: 6). A separate section
addresses compensation in cases where harm is inflicted.
The CIOMS also deals specifically with the investiga-
tor’s obligation to ‘ensure that potential benefits and risks
are reasonably balanced and risks are minimized’ (2002:
29-31, Guideline 8). In addition, there is mention of
‘[s]pecial limitations on risk when research involves indi-
viduals who are not capable of giving informed consent’
(ibid.: 31-32, Guideline 9). Also addressed is the ‘[r]ight
of injured subjects to treatment and compensation’ (ibid.:
51-52, Guideline 19).
TheAAAguidelines clearly state that ‘[a]nthropological
researchers must do everything in their power to ensure that
their research does not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy
of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or
perform other professional activities’, and that there are
equivalent obligations to any animals included in studies
(AAA 1998: 4). Elsewhere in the document it is stated
that ethical obligations include ‘[t]o avoid harm or wrong,
understanding that the development of knowledge can lead
to change which may be positive or negative for the people
or animals worked with or studied’ (ibid.:3).
The ASA addresses the issue of potential harm in its
Ethical Guidelines which relate to ‘anticipating harm’ as
well as ‘avoiding undue intrusion’ (Sections 2-3, ASA
1999: 2-3).
In the comparison of the two sets of codes, an interesting
difference appears. Whereas the biomedical codes gener-
ally focus on the potential harm that may occur through
data collection and the related interventions applied, the
anthropological equivalents emphasize the harm that may
result from the knowledge produced, i.e. events happening
after data collection.
In biomedical research, diagnostic procedures (e.g.
blood samples or biopsies) or the intervention being tested
(e.g. drugs or surgical procedures) may have unintended
side-effects. Whilst such interventions are uncommon in
anthropology, it could nevertheless be that anthropology
is not paying sufficient attention to the potential harm
of data collection (e.g. interviews regarding traumatic
experiences). Furthermore, some applied anthropological
projects may also include interventions which, though
planned with the purpose of improving a given situation,
may have negative and unforeseen effects.
Conversely, perhaps biomedical researchers should
pay attention not only to avoiding harm in relation to the
immediate effects of data collection, but also to any poten-
tial long-term consequences that might follow from the
knowledge produced from it.
Medical research and anthropology share the challenge
of ‘confidentiality’. Cases in which a project inadvertently
or deliberately allows inappropriate persons access to
information can cause major harm to the individual – irre-
spective of whether it is the result of a blood test or pri-
vate information yielded during an interview. Generally,
we find that the medical and anthropological codes are
equally concerned with the importance of confidentiality
(see e.g. CIOMS Guideline 18, 2002: 49-51 and Akeroyd
1984).
Providing benefits to the study population
The Helsinki Declaration states that ‘the populations in
which the research is carried out [must] stand to benefit’
(WMA2004: 3, para. 19). Further, ‘the benefits, risks, bur-
dens and effectiveness of a new method should be tested
against those of the best current prophylactic, diagnostic
and therapeutic methods’ (para. 29) and ‘at the conclusion
of the study, every patient entered into the study should be
assured of access to the best proven prophylactic, diag-
nostic and therapeutic methods identified by the study’
(WMA 2004: 4, para. 30).
The NBAC does not explicitly encourage provision of
benefits to the study population, but does find it essential
to ‘ensure that risks are reasonable in relation to potential
personal and societal benefits’ (2002: 3).
The CIOMS deals explicitly with this aspect and
devotes an entire paragraph to ‘[r]esearch in populations
and communities with limited resources’(Guideline 10). It
also recommends ensuring that ‘the research is responsive
to the health needs and the priorities of the population or
community in which it is to be carried out’ (2002: 32-34).
In a broader context it is emphasized that there should be
an ‘equitable distribution of burdens and benefits in the
selection of groups of subjects in research’ (ibid.: 40-41,
Guideline 12). Furthermore, it is stated that external spon-
sors are ethically obliged to ensure the availability of
‘health care services that are essential to the safe conduct
of the research’, ‘treatment for subjects who suffer injury
as a consequence of research interventions’ and the rather
vague ‘services that are a necessary part of the commitment
of a sponsor to make a beneficial intervention or product
developed as a result of the research reasonably available
to the population or community concerned’ (ibid.: 53-54,
Guideline 21).
The AAA’s guidelines are not particularly explicit when
it comes to rendition of services to the community studied.
Initially, it is stated that anthropologists are obliged ‘to
Agier, M. 1999. ‘Comment’
on Pels, P. (1999)
‘Professions of duplexity’.
Current Anthropology,
40(2): 114-115.
Akeroyd, A.V. 1984. Ethics
in relation to informants,
the profession and
governments. In: Ellen,
R.F. (ed.) Ethnographic
research: A guide to
general conduct, pp.133-
154. London: Academic
Press.
American Anthropological
Association 1998.
Code of ethics of the
American Anthropological
Association. http://www.
aaanet.org/committees/
ethics/ethcode.htm
— 2003. Commission
to Review the AAA
Statements on Ethics:
Final report. http://www.
aaanet.org/committees/
ethics/ethrpt.htm
Association of Social
Anthropologists of the UK
and the Commonwealth
1999. ‘Ethical guidelines
for good research
practice’. http://www.
asa.anthropology.ac.uk/
ethics2.html
Barnes, J.A. 1999. ‘Comment’
on Pels, P. (1999)
‘Professions of duplexity’.
Current Anthropology,
40(2): 116.

4. 18 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 3, June 2008
consult actively with the affected individuals and group(s),
with the goal of establishing a working relation that can
be beneficial to all parties involved’ (AAA 1998: 3). More
specifically, anthropologists ‘should recognize their debt
to the societies in which they work and their obligation
to reciprocate with people studied in appropriate ways’
(ibid.: 4). Furthermore, ‘anthropological researchers
should make the results of their research appropriately
available to sponsors, students, decision makers, and other
non-anthropologists’ (ibid.:5), and it is further noted that
‘anthropologists may choose to move beyond dissemi-
nating research results to a position of advocacy. This is
an individual decision, but not an ethical responsibility’
(ibid.: 5-6).
Special recommendations govern the work of ‘applied
anthropologists’ who ‘must intend and expect to utilize
the results of their work appropriately (i.e. publication,
teaching, program and policy development) within a rea-
sonable time’ (ibid.: 7). Interestingly, the Final Report of
the Commission to Review theAAAStatements on Ethics,
declares that ‘there ought to be no expectation that an
anthropological researcher must be an advocate for or be
expected to “promote the welfare” of a group or culture
studied’ (AAA 2003: 9).
The ASA does not address the issue of benefit explic-
itly, but makes the following reference: ‘research findings,
publications and, where feasible, data should be made
available in the country where the research took place’,
based on the assumption that available results will imply
(useful) change (ASA 1999: 7).
The biomedical discourse deals in a very concrete way
with the extent to which (medical) services should be pro-
vided to the various sub-categories of the study population.
It is a requirement in ethical biomedical research that the
diagnosis of a given disease entails the obligation to pro-
vide appropriate treatment – either immediately or with a
delay depending on the project design and the seriousness
of the ailment. If the study design includes control groups,
it is standard procedure to provide appropriate treatment
after the study.
However, the question of ‘standard of care’ is a key
issue (Nuffield Council on Bioethics 2002). There is an
ongoing debate within biomedical research as to whether
a health research project is obliged to render the best glo-
bally available treatment to the study population (ibid.) or
whether it is acceptable to provide services which are ade-
quate by local standards only. The issue of providing ben-
efits to the study population is given particular emphasis
in the Nuffield report, with separate sections on ‘standard
of care’ and the issue of ‘what happens once research is
over’. Thus, in most biomedical studies treatment is pro-
vided at least for the disease(s) under investigation; quite
often some kind of care is also given for other medical
emergencies.
By contrast, the anthropological codes are less focused
on the provision of benefits. Apart from some rather gen-
eral formulations concerning reciprocity, only the dissemi-
nation of results (ASA 1999) and optional advocacy (AAA
1998) are mentioned. Tangible benefits are not referred to
in any way. There may be several reasons. Partly, it may
be more ‘natural’ for biomedically trained researchers to
provide assistance in accordance with the Hippocratic
oath than for anthropologists, who have basically been
trained to ‘observe’ rather than ‘improve’. Partly, it may
be that provision of benefits risks profoundly influencing
the anthropological research, by shifting the image and
mindset of the researcher from that of neutral observer to
that of development worker.
Feedback of results to the study population (and when
relevant to local and national administration) in a suitable
form can be seen as a kind of benefit. Irrespective of the
discipline, we contend that researchers should be encour-
aged to do this. In the ASA’s Ethical Guidelines the con-
cept of benefit to the informants is given an interesting
twist through the introduction of a thorough discussion of
intellectual property rights.
The theme of benefits reveals the limitations of simply
analysing written ethical codes as an index for a discipline’s
activities. Within anthropology a number of researchers
have taken a strong stand on engaging practical problems
and attempting to make a difference (e.g. Berreman 1968,
Scheper-Hughes 1995, Farmer 1999).
A source of inspiration
Informed consent is a concern for all the five ethical codes
in question, though the biomedical address the aspects
of ‘vulnerability’ in much more detail. Biomedicine
may learn from the two points of the AAA code: that the
content matters more than the format (written or oral),
and that informed consent is a dynamic and continuous
process rather than a one-time dialogue leading to a sig-
nature. Akeroyd (1984) has questioned the usefulness of
written consent in anthropological research. The Nuffield
Council on Bioethics also advocates flexibility of the form
in which consent is sought and given, but is categorical
when it comes to ‘the view that the fundamental principle
of research for persons requires that participants who have
the capacity to consent to research should never be sub-
jected to research without such consent’ (2002: 77).
A comparison between these codes reveals that the bio-
medical focus is principally on the potential harm related
to data collection, whereas the anthropological codes
are more concerned with negative effects of the knowl-
edge produced after the fieldwork itself. Anthropologists
would benefit from making any potential negative effects
of fieldwork more explicit – in relation to both data col-
lection and in some cases ‘interventions’. Conversely,
biomedical researchers could usefully pay more atten-
tion to potential negative long-term effects of knowledge
production.
The anthropological codes are very vague regarding
provision of benefits. An anonymous reviewer of one of
our previous articles asked: ‘what are they [the anthropol-
ogists] going to do, teach a class on ethnography or give
a symposium on Weber?’ Our point is that a researcher
is not limited to providing benefits within his or her own
field. There is nothing preventing an anthropologist from
providing a water tank for the village in which the field-
work has been conducted. Neither, for that matter, is there
any reason why biomedical researchers’ services should
be limited to medicine. Furthermore, developing the skills
of local staff is always an option. In short, we contend that
both biomedicine and anthropology need to ‘think outside
the disciplinary box’ and take a broader view of the ben-
efits that may be provided.
We realize that the provision of benefits entails a poten-
tial conflict between the positions of researcher and devel-
opment worker. Furthermore, it would be easy to slide into
a situation where data is paid for, which at least in anthro-
pological research would likely be problematic. There is
a certain link between provision of benefits and informed
consent. Thus, the study participants may feel compelled
to join a study because they are tempted by the prospec-
tive services and because they are too impoverished to
refuse (National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research 1979,
CIOMS 2002). This issue is more likely to be relevant to
medical research, where rendition of services is more the
norm. However, we contend that it is equally important
to anthropology, though less explicitly dealt with in the
research ethics codes – a point that once again highlights
the issue of ‘vulnerability’.
Berreman, G. 1968. Is
anthropology alive? Social
responsibility in social
anthropology. Current
Anthropology 9(5): 391-
396.
Brenneis, D. 2005.
Documenting ethics. In:
Meskell, L. and Pels, P.
(eds) Embedding ethics,
pp.239-252. Oxford and
New York: Berg.
Caplan, P. 2003. Introduction:
Anthropology and ethicsI
In: Caplan, P. (ed.) The
ethics of anthropology:
Debates and dilemmas,
pp.1-33. London & New
York: Routledge.
Council for International
Organizations of Medical
Sciences (CIOMS) 2002.
International ethical
guidelines for biomedical
research involving
human subjects. Geneva:
Council for International
Organizations of Medical
Sciences (CIOMS).
Farmer, P. 1999. Infections
and inequalities. The
modern plagues. Berkeley:
University of California
Press.
Fluehr‑Lobban, C. 1999.
‘Comment’ on Pels,
P. (1999) ‘Professions
of duplexity’. Current
Anthropology, 40(2): 119.
— 2003a. Ethics and
anthropology 1890-2000:
A review of issues
and principles. In:
Fluehr‑Lobban, C. (ed.)
Ethics and the profession
of anthropology: Dialogue
for ethically conscious
practice (2nd edition),
pp.1-28. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press.
— 2003b. Informed consent
in anthropological
research: We are
not exempt. In:
Fluehr‑Lobban, C. (ed.)
Ethics and the profession
of anthropology: Dialogue
for ethically conscious
practice, (2nd edition),
pp.159-177. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press.
— 2003c. Dialogue for
ethically conscious
practice. In:
Fluehr‑Lobban C. (ed.)
Ethics and the profession
of anthropology: Dialogue
for ethically conscious
practice, (2nd edition),
pp.225-245. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press.
Geertz, C. 1983. Slide show:
Evans‑Pritchard’s African
transparencies. Raritan:
A Quarterly Review Fall:
62-80.
Marks, J. 2005. Your body,
my property: The problem
of colonial genetics in
a postcolonial world. In
Meskell, L. and Pels, P.
(eds) Embedding ethics,
pp.29-45. Oxford and New
York: Berg.
Meskell, L. and Pels, P. 2005.
Introduction: Embedding
ethics. In Meskell, L. and
Pels, P. (eds.) Embedding
ethics, pp.1-26. Oxford
and New York: Berg.

5. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 24 No 3, June 2008 19
Whereas the need for formal research ethics codes is
not questioned in biomedicine, dissent has been voiced in
anthropology. Critiques express a fear of ‘decontextualiza-
tion’ (Akeroyd 1984: 153, Caplan 2003: 3), an impression
of a ‘false consensus’ (Akeroyd 1984: 153) and ‘disem-
bedded ethics’ (Meskell and Pels 2005: 23). Pels observes
that: ‘the institutionalization of anthropological morals in
a written code is by no means necessary’– on the contrary,
it may even be harmful (Pels 1999: 113). He is backed
up by some colleagues (e.g. Agier 1999, Schrader 1999),
whereas others disagree (e.g. Fluehr‑Lobban 1999, Sluka
1999, Ulrich 1999). We find professional codes of ethics
necessary and will argue our case below.
Historically, the various versions of AAA ethical codes
have been (re-)formulated in reaction to crises of various
kinds. Pels (1999: 110) claims that their purpose is to ‘pro-
duce or maintain professional autonomy vis-à-vis the gov-
ernments by which anthropologists were employed’, or
more radically that ‘an anthropological code of ethics was
and is largely meant to create an image of the discipline for
those outside it’ (ibid.: 114).
Notwithstanding the importance of the relation-
ship between researcher and sponsor, this point of view
neglects any potential tensions between the researcher
and the study population. With all due respect for anthro-
pologists’ moral standards and abilities to adapt to local
circumstances, power differences here often work in
favour of the researcher. Anthropologists have mostly
focused on their ‘weak’ position in relation to commis-
sioning agencies, whereas their own ‘strong’ position vis-
à-vis study populations has been underplayed. The same
issue is reflected in the term coined by Nader (1976),
‘studying down’, and Sluka’s call for ‘an alternative code
of ethics that takes power into account’ (1999). We con-
tend that anthropologists need to face this issue and that
this should be reflected in the research ethics codes. The
fact that biomedical codes address this issue in consider-
able detail (expressed in the terminology of ‘vulnerable
groups’) could serve as a source of inspiration. And it adds
perspective to Pels’ comment about ‘doctors and lawyers,
who can treat their subjects in terms of the generalized
ideal of “health” or “justice”’ (Pels 1999: 114).
According to Barnes (1999), there are three general types
of research ethics codes: ‘regulatory’, which are backed up
by sanctions, ‘hortative’, which set up models for ideal
behaviour, and ‘educational’, which aim to point out eth-
ical hazards. The focus of the AAA ethics codes has varied
over time (the latest, 1998 version being educational)
(Fluehr‑Lobban 2003c). We do not propose to examine
this aspect of the codes in this article, but we believe that
the points raised are relevant in all three types.
Study populations are increasingly asking questions and
making demands that will force anthropologists to address
key ethical issues, just as relationships with sponsors
prompted discussions in the past. In fact this has already
started, as we noted above.
Conclusion
In this article, we have made a preliminary exploration
of some dimensions of research ethics as expressed in
five prominent biomedical and anthropological research
ethics codes. All five codes address the issue of informed
consent, though the three biomedical codes dwell more
on the particular challenges posed by vulnerable groups.
All codes mention the potential harmful effects of the
research on the study population, although the biomedical
codes focus on harm caused by data collection, whereas
anthropology codes assume that harm stems principally
from how data is subsequently (mis)used. The provision
of benefits is less explicit in anthropology when compared
with the biomedical codes. Biomedicine would gain from
a less technical and formal approach to research ethics
(which risk alienating study participants), and could give
more consideration to long-term effects of knowledge pro-
duction and the ethical implications of the relationship to
sponsors.
Ethical reviews are now standard procedure in biomed-
ical research, and are increasingly required for projects
involving anthropology (Fluehr‑Lobban 2003c, Brenneis
2005). Since there is increased focus on research ethics
from all quarters and many anthropologists now work in
cross-disciplinary programmes, the academic discipline’s
code of ethics is no longer a ‘housekeeping matter’ to be
dealt with at our own pace and convenience purely within
the discipline. What kinds of codes would best help in
judging the ethics of projects, for example, that straddle
the disciplines? How may we best seek inspiration from
the codes other disciplines have developed regarding
potential harm and provision of benefits? How might they
learn from our insights? To further this debate, we call
for more dialogue and comparison between ethical codes
across disciplines. l
Mills, D. 2003. ‘Like a horse
in blinkers’? A political
history of anthropology’s
research ethics. In: Caplan,
P. (ed.) The ethics of
anthropology: Debates
and dilemmas, pp.37-54.
London & New York:
Routledge.
Nader, L. 1976. Professional
standards and what we
study. In: Rynkiewich,
M.A. and Spradley,
J.P. (eds) Ethics and
anthropology, pp.167-182.
New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
National Bioethics Advisory
Commission (NBAC)
2002. Ethical and policy
issues in international
research: Clinical trials
in developing countries.
Summary. Bethesda,
Maryland: NBAC.
National Commission for
the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical
and Behavioural Research
1979. ‘Ethical principles
and guidelines for the
protection of human
subjects of research’ (the
Belmont Report). http://
ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/
belmont.html
Nuffield Council on
Bioethics 2002. The ethics
of research related to
healthcare in developing
countries. London:
Nuffield Foundation.
— 2004. The ethics of
research related to
healthcare in developing
countries: A follow-up
discussion paper based on
the workshop held in Cape
Town, South Africa 12-14
February 2004. London:
Nuffield Foundation.
Pels, P. 1999. Professions of
duplexity. A prehistory
of ethical codes in
anthropology. Current
Anthropology, 40(2):
101-136.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 1995.
The primacy of the ethical.
Positions for a militant
anthropology. Current
Anthropology 36(3): 409-
420.
Schrader, H. 1999.
‘Comment’ on Pels,
P. (1999) ‘Professions
of duplexity’. Current
Anthropology, 40(2): 123.
Sluka, J. 1999. ‘Comment’
on Pels, P. (1999)
‘Professions of duplexity’.
Current Anthropology,
40(2): 124-126.
Ulrich, G. 1999. ‘Comment’
on Pels, P. (1999)
‘Professions of duplexity’.
Current Anthropology,
40(2): 126-127.
World Medical Association
2004. The Helsinki
Declaration. 7th revision.
Tokyo: WMA. http://www.
wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm
Fig. 2. Benefits to the study
community can come in many
forms, such as a water pump.
Mozambique, September
2007.
MARIAVANGJOHANSEN