This document contains a set of statements from existing codes of ethics (or missing from existing codes) that were raised as issues for discussion in the first workshop at ICTD 2016 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
We (Andy & Dorothea) are currently working to cluster these topics into a set of distinct areas. When that clustering is complete, we will create a discussion page for each cluster and link it from this page.
Priority topics for debate
Based on the Ann Arbor outputs, we have identified 6 topics that definitely require more detailed discussion. These are:
- Automatically capturing and analysing (big) data
- Striking balances between privacy, rights to anonymity, rights to acknowledgement, openness of data, maintenance of records for historical purposes and protecting participants
- The meaning and practicalities of genuinely informed consent
- Whether to recommend or mandate particular high level design principles (e.g. design for sustainability) and if so, which principles
- Ensuring ‘fair shares’ of the benefits from research and innovation activities (including rewards for innovative ideas, retaining rights over local knowledge, compensation to participants etc.)
- Promoting ethical practice and appropriate oversight in the research, practitioner and sponsor communities.
By prioritising the topics above for discussion, we are implicitly downgrading other topics that were highlighted by the Ann Arbor participants. For these other topics, we believe it will be feasible for us to draft a position that would receive widespread assent. These topics are listed on a separate page and we invite your comments in relation to these.
Other documents deal with statements that were:
- Endorsed: consisting of statements that were marked up in green or yellow indicating support from the reader.
- Proposed for rejection: a list of statements marked up in red indicating that the reader was concerned that these should not be included in a code of ethics for ICTD research.