GLOBAL CODE
OF CONDUCTFOR RESEARCH IN
RESOURCE-POOR
SETTINGS

www.globalcodeofconduct.org/

GLOBAL CODE
OF CONDUCTFOR RESEARCH IN
RESOURCE-POOR
SETTINGS

Research partnerships between high-income and lower-income settings can behighly advantageous for both parties. Or they can lead to ethics dumping, thepractice of exporting unethical research practices to lower-income settings.
This Global Code of Conduct for Research in
Resource-Poor Settings counters ethics dumping by:• Providing guidance across all research disciplines• presenting clear, short statements in simple
language to achieve the highest possible
accessibility• focusing on research collaborations that entail
considerable imbalances of power, resources
and knowledge• using a new framework based on the values offairness, respect, care and honesty

FAIRNESS• offering a wide range of learning materials andaffiliated information to support the Code, and• complementing the European Code of Conduct
for Research Integrity through a particular focus
on research in resource-poor settings.
Those applying the Code oppose double standards
in research and support long-term equitable
research relationships between partners inlower-income and high-income settings basedon fairness, respect, care and honesty.

communities and research participants.
It should be provided in a way that ismeaningful, appropriate and readily
comprehended.

ARTICLE 1

Local relevance of research is essential
and should be determined in collaboration
with local partners. Research that is not
relevant in the location where it isundertaken imposes burdens without
benefits.

ARTICLE 4

Local researchers should be included,
wherever possible, throughout theresearch process, including in study
design, study implementation, dataownership, intellectual property andauthorship of publications.

ARTICLE 2

Local communities and research
participants should be included
throughout the research process,wherever possible, from planning throughto post-study feedback and evaluation,
to ensure that their perspectives are
fairly represented. This approach
represents Good Participatory
Practice.
ARTICLE 3

Feedback about the findings of theresearch must be given to local

ARTICLE 5

Access by researchers to any biologicalor agricultural resources, humanbiological materials, traditional knowledge,
cultural artefacts or non-renewable
resources such as minerals should be
subject to the free and prior informed
consent of the owners or custodians.
Formal agreements should govern thetransfer of any material or knowledge
to researchers, on terms that are
co-developed with resource custodiansor knowledge holders.

ARTICLE 6

Any research that uses biologicalmaterials and associated informationsuch as traditional knowledge or
genetic sequence data should clarify toparticipants the potential monetary andnon-monetary benefits that might arise.
A culturally appropriate plan to sharebenefits should be agreed to by all
relevant stakeholders, and reviewed
regularly as the research evolves.
Researchers from high-income settingsneed to be aware of the power andresource differentials in benefit-sharing
discussions, with sustained efforts tobring lower-capacity parties into thedialogue.
ARTICLE 7

It is essential to compensate local
research support systems, for instancetranslators, interpreters or local
coordinators, fairly for their contribution
to research projects.

RESPECT

agree on a way of undertaking theresearch that is acceptable to local
stakeholders, it should not take place.

ARTICLE 8ARTICLE 9

Potential cultural sensitivities should beexplored in advance of research with localcommunities, research participants andlocal researchers to avoid violating
customary practices. Research is a voluntary
exercise for research participants. It is
not a mission-driven exercise to impose
different ethical values. If researchers
from high-income settings cannot

Community assent should be obtained
through recognized local structures, ifrequired locally. While individual consent
must not be compromised, assent fromthe community may be an ethicalprerequisite and a sign of respect for theentire community. It is the responsibilityof the researcher to find out localrequirements.

CARE

If and when such exceptions are dealt
with, the internationally acknowledged
compliance commandment “comply orexplain” must be used, i.e. exceptions
agreed upon by the local stakeholders
and researchers must be explicitly andtransparently justified and made easily
accessible to interested parties.

ARTICLE 17

ARTICLE 15

ARTICLE 18

Where research involvement could lead tostigmatization (e.g. research on sexuallytransmitted diseases), incrimination(e.g. sex work), discrimination orindeterminate personal risk (e.g. researchon political beliefs), special measures
to ensure the safety and wellbeing ofresearch participants need to be agreed
with local partners.

In situations where environmental
protection and biorisk-related regulations
are inadequate or non-existent in thelocal setting compared with the countryof origin of the researcher, researchshould always be undertaken in line withthe higher standards of environmental
protection.

ARTICLE 12

Informed consent procedures should betailored to local requirements to achieve
genuine understanding and well-foundeddecision-making.
ARTICLE 13

A clear procedure for feedback,complaints or allegations of misconduct
must be offered that gives genuine andappropriate access to all research
participants and local partners to express
any concerns they may have with theresearch process. This procedure must
be agreed with local partners at theoutset of the research.

Research that would be severely
restricted or prohibited in a high-income
setting should not be carried out in alower-income setting. Exceptions might
be permissible in the context of specificlocal conditions (e.g. diseases notprevalent in high-income countries).

HONESTY
ARTICLE 20

A clear understanding should bereached among collaborators withregard to their roles, responsibilities
and conduct throughout the research
cycle, from study design through tostudy implementation, review anddissemination. Capacity-building plans
for local researchers should be part ofthese discussions.

Local ethics review should be sought
wherever possible. It is of vital importancethat research projects are approved bya research ethics committee in the hostcountry, wherever this exists, even if ethics
approval has already been obtained in
the high-income setting.
ARTICLE 11

Researchers from high-income settings
should show respect to host country
research ethics committees.

In situations where animal welfare
regulations are inadequate or non-existentin the local setting compared with thecountry of origin of the researcher,animal experimentation should always
be undertaken in line with the higher
standards of protection for animals.

ARTICLE 19
ARTICLE 16

ARTICLE 14

ARTICLE 10

Ahead of the research it should bedetermined whether local resources will
be depleted to provide staff or otherresources for the new project (e.g. nurses
or laboratory staff). If so, the implications
should be discussed in detail with localcommunities, partners and authorities
and monitored during the study.

Where research may involve health,safety or security risks for researchers
or expose researchers to conflicts ofconscience, tailored risk management
plans should be agreed in advance ofthe research between the researchteam, local partners and employers.

ARTICLE 21

ARTICLE 22

Lower educational standards, illiteracy
or language barriers can never be an
excuse for hiding information orproviding it incompletely. Informationmust always be presented honestly andas clearly as possible. Plain language
and a non-patronising style in theappropriate local languages should beadopted in communication withresearch participants who may havedifficulties comprehending theresearch process and requirements.

Corruption and bribery of any kindcannot be accepted or supported byresearchers from any countries.
ARTICLE 23

Lower local data protection standards orcompliance procedures can never be an
excuse to tolerate the potential for privacy
breaches. Special attention must be paid
to research participants who are at riskof stigmatization, discrimination orincrimination through the researchparticipation.

The code was drafted by the TRUST project under theleadership of Prof. Doris Schroeder. Existing guidelines haveplayed an important role in formulating the code.

The Ethics and Research Integrity Sector, Directorate Generalfor Research and Innovation, European Commission willpropose the Code as a reference document for funding
applications in the Framework Programme.

Please see the website for those we have taken substantial
inspiration from and for further information on authorshipand global engagement activities:
http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org.

TRUST CONSORTIUM MEMBERS

For further information:
Email: globalcodeofconduct@uclan.ac.uk
Website: www.globalcodeofconduct.org/

This project has received funding fromthe European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme
under grant agreement No 664771