Asian Bioethics Review

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 313–332 | Cite as

From a variety of ethics to the integrity and congruence of research on biodiversity conservation

  • Claire Lajaunie
Original Paper


This article aims to find the elements that are required for a common ethical approach that is suitable for the different perspectives adopted in integrative biodiversity conservation research. A general reflection on the integrity of research is a priority worldwide, with a common aim to promote good research practice. Beyond the relationship between researcher and research subject, the integrity of research is considered in a broader perspective which entails scientific integrity towards society. In research involving a variety of disciplines and a diversity of legal and ethical frameworks, there is a need of harmony between different sets of values. The notion of congruence (or more pragmatically, alignment) reflects the consistency of ethics in research within the biodiversity conservation’s community of researchers. It also bears on the coherence of values shared between the scientific community and society. We examine the notion of research integrity in a broad sense. This examination is to be conducted in relation to the goal of protecting ecological integrity, which is at the core of biodiversity conservation. The notion of integrity constraints should be investigated further to develop a pragmatic response to the need for integrity and congruence in research for biodiversity conservation.


Research integrity Ecological integrity Ethical congruence Values alignment Biodiversity conservation 



We are grateful to four anonymous reviewers who have made a significant contribution to improving this article. This study was presented at the 16th Annual Colloquium of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law “The Transformation of Environmental Law and Governance: Innovation, Risk and Resilience”, at the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law & Governance (SCELG), Strathclyde University, Glasgow, on 4-6 July 2018. It is a contribution to the ANR Project (2017-2021) N° ANR-17-CE35-0003-02 FutureHealthSEA “Predictive scenarios of health in Southeast Asia: linking land use and climate changes to infectious diseases”.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors’ declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. ALLEA - All European Academies and ESF - European Science Foundation. 2011. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Strasbourg: ALLEA - All European Academies and ESF- European Science Foundation. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  2. ALLEA - All European Academies. 2017. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, revised edition. Berlin: ALLEA - All European Academies Accessed 20 Dec 2018.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Michael, and Susan Leigh Anderson. 2011. Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balsamo, Anne, and Carl Mitcham. 2012. Interdisciplinarity in ethics and the ethics of interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 259–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, Nathan J., Lydia Teh, Yoshitaka Ota, Patrick Christie, Adam Ayers, Jon C. Day, Phil Franks, David Gill, Rebecca L. Gruby, John N. Kittinger, J. Zachary Koehn, Nai’a Lewis, John Parks, Marjo Vierros, Tara S. Whitty, Aulani Wilhelm, Kim Wright, Jaime A. Aburto, Elena M. Finkbeiner, Carlos F. Gaymer, Hugh Govan, Noella Gray, Rebecca M. Jarvis, Maery Kaplan-Hallam, and Terre Satterfield. 2017. An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation. Marine Policy 81: 411–418. Scholar
  6. Biasetti, Pierfrancesco, and Barbara De Mori. 2016. A framework of values: reasons for conserving biodiversity and natural environments. Ethics & Politics XVIII (3): 527–545.Google Scholar
  7. Bossi, Emilio. 2010. Scientific integrity, misconduct in science. Swiss Medical Weekly 140 (13–14): 183–186. Scholar
  8. Bosworth, Andrew, Napat Chaipraditkul, MingMing Cheng, Abhik Gupta, Kimberly Junmookda, Parag Kadam, Darryl Macer, Charlotte Millet, Jennifer Sangaroonthong, and Alexander Waller. 2011. Ethics and biodiversity. Bangkok: UNESCO Office Bangkok. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Brall, Caroline, Els Maeckelberghe, Rouven Porz, Jihad Makhoul, and Peter Schroeder-Baeck. 2017. Research Ethics 2.0: new perspectives on norms, values, and integrity in genomic research in times of even scarcer resources. Public Health Genomics 20 (1): 27–35. Scholar
  10. Carroll, Carlos, Brett Hartl, Gretchen T. Goldman, Daniel J. Rohlf, Adrian Treves, Jeremy T. Kerr, Euan G. Ritchie, Richard T. Kingsford, Katherine E. Gibbs, Martine Maron, and James E.M. Watson. 2017. Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes. Conservation Biology 31 (5): 967–975. Scholar
  11. Casetta, Elena. 2015. The values of biodiversity. An introduction. Rivista di Estetica 59: 3–13.Google Scholar
  12. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Conférence des Présidents d’Université (CPU). 2017. Integrity and responsibility in research practices: Guide. CNRS Ethics Committee (COMETS).
  13. Chandler, Mark, Linda See, Kyle Copas, Astrid M.Z. Bonde, Bernat C. López, Finn Danielsen, Jan Kristoffer Legind, Siro Masinde, Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, Greg Newman, Alyssa Rosemartin, and Eren Turak. 2017. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation 213: 280–294. Scholar
  14. Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European governance: a white paper. Brussels, 25 July 2001, COM(2001), 428 final.Google Scholar
  15. Convention on biodiversity. 2010. COP Xth, decision X/2 the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Nagoya, Japan.Google Scholar
  16. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. Tkarihwaie:Ri. Code of ethical conduct to ensure respect for the cultural and intellectual heritage of indigenous and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  17. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2018. Recommendation 22/4 Updated scientific assessment of progress towards selected Aichi Biodiversity Targets and options to accelerate progress, annex 2a. Montreal: Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  18. Costello, Mark J., Karen H. Beard, Richard T. Corlett, Graeme S. Cumming, Vincent Devictor, Rafael Loyola, Bea Maas, Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, Robin Pakeman, and Richard B. Primack. 2016. Field work ethics in biological research. Biological Conservation 203: 268–271. Scholar
  19. Davenport, Keith and Jim Collins. 2011. European code of conduct on pets and invasive alien species. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, T-PVS/Inf (2011) 1 rev. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  20. De Leo Giulio, A., and Simon Levin. 1997. The multifaceted aspects of ecosystem integrity. Conservation Ecology 1 (1): 3. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Earth Charter Initiative. 2000. The Earth Charter. Accessed 20 Dec 2018).
  22. Edwards, Jeffrey R., and Daniel M. Cable. 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (3):654-677.
  23. Elliott, Kevin C., and David B. Resnik. 2014. Science, policy, and the transparency of values. Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (7): 647–650. Scholar
  24. European Commission 2015. European Commission Decision C (2015)2453 of 17 April 2015, HORIZON 2020 Work Programme 2014-2015, 16. Science with and for Society. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  25. European Federation of Psychologists Associations. 2005. Meta-code of Ethics. Accepted by General Assembly in Athens, July 1995, Revised by General Assembly in Granada, July 2005, European Federation of Psychologists Associations. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  26. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. 2001. Ethical issues in food and agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  27. Friedman, Batya, Kahn Jr., Peter H., and Alan Borning. 2008. Value sensitive design and information systems. In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, edited by Kenneth Einar Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 69-101. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Garrard, Georgia E., Fiona Fidler, Bonnie C. Wintle, Yung E. Chee, and Sarah A. Bekessy. 2016. Beyond advocacy: making space for conservation scientists in public debate. Conservation Letters 9 (3): 208–221. Scholar
  29. Godfrey, Parke, John Grant, Jarek Gryz, and Jack Minker. 1998. Integrity constraints: semantics and applications. In Logics for databases and information systems, edited by Jan Chomicki and Gunter Saake, 265–306. Boston: Springer. Scholar
  30. Harte, John. 2001. Land use, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity: the challenge of preserving Earth’s life support system. Ecology Law Quarterly 27: 929–966. Scholar
  31. Hiney, Maura. 2015. Research integrity: what it means, why it is important and how we might protect it, D/2015/13.324/9. Science Europe. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  32. Horton, Cristi C., Tarla R. Peterson, Paulami Banerjee, and Marjus J. Peterson. 2016. Credibility and advocacy in conservation science. Conservation Biology 30 (1): 23–32.
  33. Indigenous Partnership on Agrobiodiversity and Food Sovereignty. 2011. Code of ethics. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  34. International Labour Organization (ILO). 1989. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, C169, 27 June, C169. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  35. Irvine, Rob, Ian Kerridge, John McPhee, and Sonia Freeman. 2002. Interprofessionalism and ethics: consensus or clash of cultures? Journal of Interprofessional Care 16 (3): 199–210. Scholar
  36. IUCN Commission on Environmental Law. 2010. The biosphere ethics initiative: building global solidarity for the future of life. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  37. IUCN Biosphere Ethics Project Interim Coordinating Group. 2008. The biosphere ethics project: implementing the Bangkok world conservation congress resolution to draft and promote a code of ethics for biodiversity conservation. Gland: IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  38. Jolibert, Catherine., and Anna Wesselink. 2012. Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: the influence of stakeholder engagement. Environmental Science & Policy 22: 100–111. Scholar
  39. Karr, James R. 1993. Protecting ecological integrity: An urgent societal goal. Yale Journal of International Law 18 (1): 297–306. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.Google Scholar
  40. Komić, Dubravka, Stjepan Ljudevit Marušić, Ana Marušić. 2015. Research integrity and research ethics in professional codes of ethics: survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PLoS One 10 (7): e0133662.
  41. Lajaunie, Claire, and Calvin W.L. Ho. 2017. Pathogens collections, biobanks and related data in a one health legal and ethical perspective. Parasitology Journal 145 (5): 688–696. Scholar
  42. Lane, Joel A. 2012. The ethical implications of bartering for mental health services: examining interdisciplinary ethical standards. Counselor Education Faculty Publications and Presentations 36. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  43. Laurila-Pant, Mirka, Annukka Lehikoinen, Laura Uusitaloc, Riikka Venesjärvi. 2015. How to value biodiversity in environmental management? Ecological Indicators 55: 1–11.
  44. Liedtka, Jeane M. 1989. Value congruence: the interplay of individual and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics 8: 805–815. Scholar
  45. Lindsay, Geoff. 2011. Transnational ethical guidance and the development of the EFPA meta-code of ethics. European Psychologist 16: 121–131. Scholar
  46. Mackey, Brendan 2005. Ecological Integrity – A Commitment to Life on Earth. In The earth charter in action: toward a sustainable development, edited by Peter Blaze Corcoran, 65–68. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Macrina, Francis L. 2014. Scientific integrity: text and cases in responsible conduct of research. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press.Google Scholar
  48. Manuel-Navarrete, D., J.J. Kay, and D. Dolderman. 2004. Ecological integrity discourses: linking ecology with cultural transformation. Human Ecology Review 11 (3): 215–229. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.Google Scholar
  49. Masood, Ehsan. 2018. The battle for the soul of biodiversity. Nature 560: 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merriam-Webster. 2018. Online dictionary. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  51. Meyer, Judy L., Peter C. Frumhoff, Steven P. Hamburg, Carlos de la Rosa. 2010. Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 299–305. Scholar
  52. Miller, Thaddeus, Ben Minteer, Leon C. Malan. 2011. The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biological Conservation 144: 948–957.
  53. Minteer, Ben A., and James P. Collins. 2005a. Why we need an “ecological ethics”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 332–337.Google Scholar
  54. Minteer, Ben A., and James P. Collins. 2005b. Ecological ethics: building a new tool kit for ecologists and biodiversity managers. Conservation Biology 19: 1803–1812. Scholar
  55. Minteer, Ben A., and James P. Collins. 2010. Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change. Ecological Applications 20 (7): 1801–1804. Scholar
  56. Minteer, Ben A., and James P. Collins. 2013. Ecological ethics in captivity: balancing values and responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. ILAR Journal 54 (1): 41–51. Scholar
  57. Morand, Serge, and Claire Lajaunie. 2017. Ethics, Values and Responsibilities. In Biodiversity and health. Linking life, ecosystems and societies, 189-208. London: Elsevier ISTE Press.Google Scholar
  58. Murphy, Colleen. 2005. Lon Fuller and the Moral Value of the Rule of Law. Law and Philosophy 24: 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nancarrow, Susan A., Andrew Booth, Steven Ariss, Tony Smith, Pam Enderby and Alison Roots. 2013. Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Human Resources for Health 11 (19).
  60. Nash, James A. 1991. Loving Nature: ecological integrity and Christian responsibility. Nashville: Abingdon.Google Scholar
  61. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering integrity in research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Scholar
  62. Nolen, Amanda L., and Jim Vander Putten. 2007. Action research in education: addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher 36 (7): 401–407. Scholar
  63. Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760. Scholar
  64. Paproski, D. L., and Beth E. Haverkamp. 2000. Interdisciplinary collaboration: ethical issues and recommendations. Canadian Journal of Counselling 34 (2): 85–97.Google Scholar
  65. Pereira, Luís Moniz, and Ari Saptawijaya. 2011. Modeling morality with prospective logic. In Machine Ethics, edited by Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson, 398–421. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Resnik, David B. 2011. Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (3): 399–409. Scholar
  67. Resnik, David B., and Kevin C. Elliott. 2016. The ethical challenges of socially responsible science. Accountability in Research 23 (1): 31–46. Scholar
  68. Rodríguez Galván, Lilia Carolina, and Carlos Morán Dosta. 2015. A conceptual framework for ethical decisions making in organizations, a review of ethical triangle model. In Contemporary Issues Surrounding Ethical Research Methods and Practice, edited by Chi B. Anyansi-Archibong, 239–255. Hershey: IGI Global. Scholar
  69. Rodríguez, Hannot, Erik Fisher, and Daan Schuurbiers. 2013. Integrating science and society in European framework programmes: trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy 42: 1126–1137. Scholar
  70. Rogers, Carl Ransom. 1959. A Theory of Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships: As Developed in the Client-centered Framework. In Psychology: A Study of a Science, Study 1 Conceptual and Systematic, Volume III Formulations of the Person and the Social Context, edited by Sigmund Koch, 184–256. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  71. UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2005. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, 19 October 2005. Paris: UNESCO General Conference 33rd session.Google Scholar
  72. United Nations Convention on biological diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992 (entered into force on 29 December 1993).Google Scholar
  73. United Nations General Assembly. 1965. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 21 December 1965. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, 195. New-York: United Nations (UN) General Assembly.Google Scholar
  74. United Nations General Assembly. 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 16 December 1966. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, 171. New-York: United Nations (UN) General Assembly.Google Scholar
  75. Universities UK. 2012. The concordat to support research integrity. Universities UK. Accessed 20 Dec 2018.
  76. Watson, J.E.M., O. Venter, J. Lee, K.R. Jones, J.G. Robinson, H.P. Possingham, and J.R. Allan. 2018. Protect the last of the wild. Nature 563: 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weinstein, D. 2017. A pedagogy for integrating a value congruence and ethics connection into course work: the nine dots exercise. Business and Management Research 6 (3): 22–50. Scholar
  78. Weissman, H.N., and D. DeBow. 2003. Ethical principles and professional competencies. In Handbook of psychology. Volume 11, Forensic Psychology, ed. A.M. Goldstein. New York: Wiley. Scholar
  79. Westra, L. 1997. Post-normal science, the precautionary principle and the ethics of integrity. Foundations of Science 2: 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Winter, De. 2014. Defining scientific integrity. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 32 (3–4): 29–35. Scholar
  81. Wynne, B.E., and S. Mayer. 1993. How science fails the environment. New Scientist 139 (1876): 32–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.French National Institute of Health and Medical Research INSERM, Regional Office Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur et CorseMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG), Law SchoolStrathclyde UniversityGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations