During National Science and Engineering Week, the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, will be promoting a code of ethics for scientists.(1) Admirable though such codes are, how helpful are they in enabling professional scientific organisations to tackle specific questions? The British Psychological Society (BPS) is currently debating one such issue – the role of psychologists in torture – in the context of its new Code of Ethics and Conduct.(2) Here, Richard Kwiatkowski presents the BPS’s view, and Nimisha Patel explains why she finds it wanting.

Science and ethics underly our actions maintains Richard Kwiatkowski

Psychologists are interested in virtually every area of science and society. We carry out a vast range of research: from autism to management, cognition to criminality, and dementia to peak performance. Psychology covers a vast field – with deconstructivist qualitative researchers at one end, and clinical neurophysiologists at the other. It is in this context that the Code of Ethics and Conduct, introduced in March 2006, actually took eight years of design, debate and consultation to develop and agree.

Code for guidance

Before last March, the BPS had issued various statements concerned with ethics. This was helpful in bringing these issues to the attention of the public, and of reminding psychologists of their own ethical position and responsibilities.

The new Code significantly clarified the situation for psychologists, who now have a central reference document. However, it can only be a guide to thinking and subsequent action. Research comparing codes of ethics in the UK and US (where much more specific guidance exists for psychologists) indicates this could be counterproductive and lead to a legalistic mindset.

Principles and values

As well as the fundamental principles that psychologists have to uphold, the Code contains explicit statements of values. For example, the first ethical principle is respect, and the statement of values associated with it reads: ‘Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over clients, and with particular regard to people’s rights including those of privacy and self-determination.’

The Ethics Committee found it impossible to see how a psychologist could be involved in ‘forcible interrogation’ (or whatever the current unpleasant euphemism for torture is) and not contravene the four key principles laid out in the new Code, namely respect (as above), competence (including undertaking action in an ethical manner), responsibility (to clients) and integrity (including fairness). Transgressors could therefore be disciplined under the Code, though it might well be that other legal remedies would take precedence.

Internalising ethics

All members of the BPS have received the new Code, as the BPS believes that all psychologists should be personally engaged with ethics. Ethical behaviour is a core aspect of what it means to be a professional psychologist. Fundamentally, as we state in the Code, when considering professional behaviour, ‘Thinking is not optional’.

This position is sometimes hard to explain. It would be easier to reissue parts of the code as statements. However, that does not allow context to be considered, does not enhance learning and engagement, may present the illusion that dilemmas are easy to address, and without statutory registration of psychology, it may imply a formal authority to control psychologists (especially non¬members) that we do not have.

If it’s covered by the Code it’s the BPS position. Members asked to do anything unethical can point to the Code or take advice from the Society or the Ethics Committee.

Views, not opinions

The BPS is a learned society and a charity; it is, however, not designed to be a pressure group. As psychologists, we have community sanction to act and speak out in a specific domain because of the scientific basis of our discipline, and our ethics. We need to use that basis to support our positions; otherwise our views are simply opinions.

Torture is morally wrong and unacceptable. The extant scientific evidence suggests that it is ineffective. Finally, it is clearly against our Code. For all these reasons, no psychologist should be involved.

References

1. CST letter regarding code of ethics. See also Council for Science and Technology Universal ethical code for scientists, article in Science & Public Affairs March 2006.
2. Code of ethics for scientists.

Richard Kwiatkowski is a Chartered Psychologist and Senior Lecturer in Organisational Psychology at Cranfield University’s School of Management.  He Chairs the BPS’s Ethics Committee.