ETHICS IN LABORATORIES, BUSINESS and LIFE

Is there a difference?

Speaker/Author: Steve Sidney HN Dip EE, MSAIEE

National Laboratory Association

P.O. Box 298, Persequor Park, Pretoria, South Africa, 0020.

Tel +2712 349 1500, Fax +2712 349 1501, email: steves@nla.org.za

Abstract

Given the need that exists for a high standard of ethical behaviour in all aspects that
surround the management and operation of the laboratory, there are disturbing signs
that what historically was an industry beyond reproach is now one where more and
more questions are being asked in terms of its conduct.

The author will explore whether there is more or less of an obligation by laboratories
to act in an ethical fashion than any other service provider and also whether there is a
fundamental difference between laboratory work and any other form of business
transaction.

In addition, reference will be made to the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation standard in

order to establish whether there is sufficient emphasis placed on ethical behaviour by
those organisations that are accredited to this standard, and whether more should or
could be done in this regard.

Finally, consideration will be given to a Code of Conduct implemented by a

stakeholder body such as the National Laboratory Association, and how it might be
executed in order to make a meaningful contribution.

1. Introduction

In sitting down to write this paper I found myself asking some very fundamental
questions. Not only how ethical are laboratories in the way that they conduct their
business, but also why is there such an interest in this subject, and why is there a need
for guidelines to be created in order to ensure good ethical behaviour.

It would seem obvious, or so one might think, that there should be no need for this to
be the case. On an individual basis we have all been affected by both good and bad
ethical behaviour so surely we know how to distinguish between the two.

If I walk into a shop and ask the storekeeper for 500g of sugar, I clearly have an
expectation that this is the quantity that I will receive. When I discover at some later
stage that this is not case, I feel cheated, both in terms of not receiving what I thought
I had purchased, but also in terms of the human interaction that I had. In other words I
usually ascribe some kind of blame or have a judgemental view on the person and the
company involved.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

In the above scenario one usually doesn’t try and establish the ‘why’s and wherefores’
of the situation and therefore even in this very simplistic scenario it is clear that there
are certain moral and ethical expectations that need to be met both by the storekeeper
as well as the supplier to the store.

In analysing the above, I was forced to try and answer what superficially appear to be
some very basic questions.

• What is constitutes good ethical behaviour for laboratories?

• Is there a difference between bad ethical behaviour and just not doing the
wrong thing; are they not one and the same?
• Is there a difference in terms of the environment that one operates within?
o Personal level
o Business level
o Laboratory level

Research labs

Routine testing & calibration labs
• Should there be controls?

Whilst the following paper may not provide all the answers to these questions, it is
hoped that it will encourage a deeper understanding of the issues at stake, as well as
some possible solutions. It is also hoped that it will invite vigorous debate in order to
enhance ethical behaviour in the laboratory community in general and the South
African community specifically.

2. Ethics in life and business

A good place to begin this journey of discovery is with the dictionary and some
definitions. Here is what the New Webster’s College Edition Dictionary has to say
about the word ‘ethic’;

‘A system or philosophy of conduct and principles practised by a person or

group’

and then in its plural form ‘ethics’ it says;

‘…..a particular ethical system; the rules of conduct recognised in respect to a

particular class of human actions’

and then gives an example

‘medical ethics’

These definitions, however, give rise to a number of problems. The first is that it
would appear that there is room for different people, or groups of people, to have
different views and/or ‘standards’ when it comes to ethics. Secondly, in the plural
form, it could mean that ‘ethics’ in one area may not be ‘ethics’ in another.

It would therefore seem that we have to share a common view, if we are to make any
progress in solving the problem.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

An obvious and immediate question then is who should decide? What in fact makes
someone an expert in this matter, and who is to say that their view is correct and mine
is incorrect or vice versa.

One can immediately see what type of problems one could encounter and I suppose it
is a testimony to mankind that after so many years we do have a code, one that is
more or less accepted by all.

Examples that I could think of, to illustrate this point are

• Lying. Most of us are quite comfortable with the fact that when asked to
report about a certain situation or event, we consider it unethical to blatantly
lie or distort the facts.
• Stealing. Once again, in this area most believe that it isn’t ethical to steal or
remove someone else’s property for one’s own benefit.

However, and here is where one begins to run into problems, can the same be said in
the following example.

I have a business proposition that I believe will be very profitable, and in talking to a
third party I am overheard. This person then takes my idea and starts a business doing
what I had intended. Is this stealing? At what point is it stealing? Furthermore if he
makes some changes to my original idea, to what degree does it need to be different
for it not to be my idea, but his?

One can therefore see from what is a very simple example, there are a host of
questions and opinions that can surface before a common and shared view on ethical
behaviour can be defined.

Going back then to the definitions above, a simple table could be drawn that looks
like this;

Area Affected Group

Life Everyone
Business Business people
Medical Doctors
Laboratory Laboratory practioners

To what degree is this table in fact correct? It is interesting to note that in all four
cases in the table, everyone, you and I included, could also be affected.

So I am not at all convinced that there is, or should be any substantial differences. If,
for example one steals, surely it is irrelevant as to the degree. The value of the stolen
‘goods’ can only be assessed in context. For a poor person, stealing a revolutionary
business idea may be worthless, versus a loaf of bread which is their next meal. The
complete opposite may hold true for the business person. The fact however remains
that in both cases something has been stolen and we surely recognise this as immoral
or at least, not good ethical behaviour.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

Now let us move on into the world of laboratories.

3. Ethics in the world of the Laboratory

Before focussing on the laboratory world it is necessary to first consider whether or

not for certain groups that we have different expectations. What I mean is, don’t we,
rightly or wrongly, have a higher expectation that medical doctors will not practise
unethically, because in this case we are dealing with human life.

Of course we do, and one of the main reasons is that doctors themselves have
categorised themselves into an area where unethical behaviour is not considered
acceptable. In addition, and I will come back to this later, they have a signed and
agreed to abide by a ‘Code of Ethics’ which defines what is expected of them.

Now the real question to be asked is, does the same apply in the world of laboratories
and if not, should it?

For a moment let’s go back to the simple example at the beginning of this paper and
try and establish who is responsible for the store’s action.

If they are merely re-selling an item that was manufactured and measured/weighed by
another organisation, then that clearly represents one situation. If however, they have
their own scale and do the weighing themselves then this represents another.

In the former the manufacturer is responsible whereas in the latter the store is. Perhaps
however, the store is responsible in both cases, unless of course the manufacturer
makes some kind of claim about the weight indicated, and then the store should be
able to rely on the indicated weight.

It should however be clear that in either case, the measurement (in simple terms the
laboratory) is required to be established in an ethical manner. It is therefore in my
opinion easy to extrapolate from this very simple situation and argue that both inside
and outside the laboratory world there is a need for laboratories to conduct themselves
ethically.

In fact many years ago, more than 3000, guidelines were established which help us
even in this day age and the following quotes clearly illustrate this point.

‘…..you shall not commit a perversion in justice, in measures of length,

weight or volume. You shall have correct scales, correct weights, correct dry
measures and correct liquid measures..……’
Leviticus Ch 19, Verses 35 – 36 [2]

‘…you shall not have in your pouch a weight and a weight – a large one and a
small one. And you shall not have in your house a measure and a measure – a
large on and a small one. A perfect and honest weight shall you have, a perfect
and honest measure shall you have…..’
Deuteronomy Ch 25, Verses 13 – 15 [2]

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

It should be noted that the double reference to a ‘weight’ and a ‘measure’ in the
second quotation refers to two similar looking and marked items that have different
actual weights or measures. This prohibition relates to using the one when buying;
and the other when selling. In other words to the advantage of one party over the
other; clearly a practise that is unfair, unethical and dishonest.

It is also interesting to note that in the second quote in particular there is even a
prohibition against owning irregular weights and measures, in case one is tempted to
use them.

The above serves as a precursor to modern day users of laboratory services who have
an expectation that they can rely on the results produced for whatever purpose they
will ultimately be used, and since these users do not typically have the skills or
knowledge to define exactly what type of tests need to be conducted, nor how
appropriate one test is versus another, this responsibility rests firmly on the shoulders
of the laboratory.

I would therefore argue that there is no difference between ethical behaviour in the
laboratory environment when compared with other areas. Good ethical behaviour
remains just that in whatever context; there is a need for laboratories to recognise that
they are relied on for the services that they supply. One can categorise this in much
the same way as ‘doctors’ or any other professional group for that matter.

4. What’s changed and why the large emphasis on good Ethical behaviour

Whilst conducting the research for this paper I came to conclusion that there are a
number of reasons why we are faced to-day with questionable behaviour when it
comes to ethics.

• Firstly, if we look around us we are faced more and more with what could be
called questionable ethics. From situations such as the ‘Enron’ case a few
years ago, all the way through to politicians and business people who seem to
have no compunction behaving in a less than ethical fashion. In fact some
would see this general malaise as providing acceptability to unethical
behaviour.
• In addition, since we live in a world filled with materialism and self-
gratification, it is clear that individuals are placed under greater pressures both
real and imagined, which seems to have had a significant effect in terms of
their behaviour. In other words achieving their goals is placed above
everything else. The ‘ends’ justify the ‘means’.
• I would also suggest that in many industries, organisations have been quick to
see the advantage of downscaling, and that has usually has meant that there is
a younger and younger workforce, with less mentoring from those more
experienced and perhaps in a better position to provide a balance between the
business to be done and good ethical behaviour.

These may not be all the reasons, but I do think that it represents some of the key
problems that organisations and individuals are faced with on a daily basis.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

This all suggests that certain actions need to be taken in order to set the ‘ship of
ethics’ back on course.

5. Where to from here

In looking at what direction and possible solutions we might propose, a number of

tools were evaluated.

The first area to consider for the laboratory world is the necessity to separate
laboratories into two categories. On the one hand there are Research & Development
(R&D) laboratories and on the other there are routine testing & calibration
laboratories.

Since much has been written with regard to the area of scientific research, and the role
of the ethics in science [1], the following will be restricted to the second category and
one where far less attention has been focussed.

a) ISO/IEC 17025:2005 [3]

Many of the routine laboratory community, especially those who are accredited by the
South African National Accreditation System (SANAS), will be familiar with the
ISO/IEC standard ISO/IEC 17025. This standard is used to provide assessment bodies
such as SANAS with a standard to evaluate laboratories for competency. It is
interesting to note that whilst much attention is paid to areas such as equipment,
environment, personnel, methods, reporting etc very little is formally included in the
realm of ethical behaviour.

If one reviews the standard carefully one will find the following references to this
issue.

Clauses 4.1.4; 4.1.5 b), c) and d); 4.2.2 a) contain words such as ‘conflict of
interest’, ‘undue….pressures and influences’, ‘operational integrity’ and ‘good
professional practice’ and if read in context one will see that they provide a
framework for the laboratory to achieve good ethical behaviour in the way that
it operates.

In addition, Clause 4.4, which deals with Review of requests, tenders and
contracts, helps to ensure that laboratories are held accountable for the work
that they perform.

The question then arises, why is it that there still appears to be a gap between labs that
are accredited to this standard and the behaviour that is sometimes seen in reality.

Here are a few simple examples

• A laboratory advertises that it is accredited but fails to indicate to the

prospective customer exactly what the scope of the accreditation covers. In
other words they mislead the customer.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

 • A laboratory knowing full well that an item probably only needs to be
calibrated every 24 months, either blatantly indicates a shorter period, or fails
to help the customer correctly evaluate their own needs.
• A laboratory fails to invest in training its staff so that it has the appropriate
skills to correctly estimate the uncertainty of measurement for the certificate
provided resulting in potential problems for the customer.

There are many more and so the question is; are these clauses sufficient or are
assessors paying too little attention when reviewing how laboratories achieve these
goals?

It is the author’s opinion that ISO/IEC 17025:2005 was never intended to totally
evaluate the ethical behaviour of people within an organisation and in reality assessors
can only superficially evaluate this aspect.

In fact it is probably totally impractical for a standard to be written to achieve this

lofty ideal and other mechanisms might prove to be more useful.

b) Code of Conduct

Before introducing this idea, it should be mentioned that any organisation’s behaviour
can be attributed to the overall strategy and mission that its leaders portray. Much like
a child who usually emulates the behaviour of its parents; so will employees emulate
the behaviour of the CEO and senior executives. If the boss does not see a problem in
accepting a bribe, and this is known by the workers, then it is hard to see subordinates
being prepared to go out on a limb insisting on good ethical behaviour when
providing laboratory results. Since your job may be on the line, it will take a very
strong willed person to object and go against the tide.

Although the behaviour of the CEO is vital; another mechanism which could be
applied is for the company/organisation to subscribe to a ‘Code of Conduct? Since
this is in a sense self-policing, it is one which outsiders can be made aware of and is
also one which fellow workers can use to help steer the ethical ship when required.

The advantage of such a code is that, if accepted, it enables the customers to see what
actions the laboratory will hold itself accountable for, in terms of how it conducts its
business.

The other important benefit that arises is that not only will the laboratory personnel be
able to identify with the code but so will the customers of the laboratory and this will
provide the basis on which compliance can be achieved.

Since it is the intention that the membership of the National Laboratory Association
(NLA) to commit itself to such a code, it would then provide a mechanism for
members to forfeit their membership when the code is broken. There are two provisos
for this to work. The one is that it is accepted by the members and the second is that
the association is strong enough to ‘sell’ this concept to all concerned.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

An example of such a code is contained in Appendix A.

In studying this code one can see that it covers the following aspects

• How the laboratory deals with its customers and ensures that it provides the
correct tests and calibrations for the customers needs
• How the laboratory will behave in terms of all the services that it provides
• Defines the way that the laboratory and the laboratory practioners will
improve, learn and grow their skills
• Protects the laboratory community by having a shared vision of good ethical
behaviour

6) Conclusion

Clearly both the ISO/IEC 17025 standard as well as the proposed Code of Conduct
are both control mechanisms and can only go so far when trying to provide good
ethical behaviour.

It is vital that organisations embark on training in this area as well as recognising that
there is a competitive advantage if they practise in such a fashion. As Laurance Kuper
in his book ‘Ethics – The Leadership Edge’ [4] points out, a strategy built on good
ethical behaviour is not the soft option but rather one that can provide a strategic
advantage.

There are no simple solutions and when dealing with human behaviour one is also
faced with human frailty. Leadership from the top needs to be strong to weather the
storm and in so doing it will build a successful and sustainable business for all,
shareholders, employees and customers alike.

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

References

1) National Academy of Sciences, 1995. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct

in Research, Second Edition, National Academies Press
2) The Chumash (Pentateuch), 8th Ed 1997, Mesorah Publications Inc
3) ISO/IEC 17025:2005, 2005, General requirements for the competence of testing
and calibration laboratories, Standards South Africa
4) L.Kuper, 2006, Ethics – The Leadership Edge, Zebra Press
5) 2005, Code of Conduct, National Laboratory Association

2006 Test and Measurement Conference

Appendix A [5]
National Laboratory Association
Code of Conduct

We, the members of the NLA, in recognising the important role that our laboratories
play in performing tests and calibrations for industry and consumers in South Africa
and the SADC region in general, commit ourselves to the highest ethical and
professional standards and agree :

• to accept responsibility for the performance of the tests and calibrations

carried out on behalf of clients;

• to promptly advise clients of test results which indicate a potential or

inherent environmental, health or safety related risk with the product or
material submitted by the client;

• to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to

disclose them to the affected parties when they do exist;

• to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available

data;

• to reject bribery in all its forms;

• to improve the understanding of technology and the appropriate

application thereof together with any potential consequences;

• to maintain and improve technical competence and to undertake tasks only

if qualified by training or experience or after full disclosure of pertinent
limitations;

• to seek, accept and offer honest criticism of technical work performed and
to acknowledge, correct errors and to properly credit the contributions of
others;

• to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion,

gender, disability, age or national origin;

• to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation or employment by false

or malicious action;

• to assist colleagues and co-workers with their professional development;

• to protect and preserve the corporate image and reputation of the NLA;

• to protect and preserve the assets both physical and intellectual of the
NLA;

• to support all members of the NLA in following this code of conduct;

2006 Test and Measurement Conference