Page - 42 - in Radical Solutions and Open Science - An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education

44 D.Griffiths areas such asmanagement science and information systems, thismay be because its objects of study have not overlappedwith those of academic researchers.Once academics accept OR as ‘research’ in the full sense of the word, often working with human respondents, theymay assumewithout further reflection that ethical codes of practice drawn from the Nuremberg Code will be applicable to it, but this has not been the case at any point in the history of OR. The lack of ethical scrutiny inOR is not simply amatter of ignoranceor evasion.Anathlete cankeep records of their own performance, and use this data in optimising their diet and exercise regime, without the requirement for any ethical approval. Similarly, the organisation can be seen as ametaphorical (and, inmany cases, legal) person that owns itsowndata, andhas the freedomtodoas itwisheswith it tooptimise itsown performance.AsPicavetcomments“inoperationalresearch,efficiencyisnotusually viewed as somethingwhich conflictswith ethics.Quite simply, it does not refer to the same category of problems.” (Picavet, 2009, p. 1122).Moreover, themethods and processes which result from this research may bring significant competitive advantage to the organisation. It is therefore not surprising that opening up this research to ethical scrutiny is not only seen as unnecessary, but is also actively unwelcome, as it threatens the secrecy required to protect competitive advantage. TherehasbeenongoingdiscussionofethicswithintheORcommunityoveranumber ofyears,see,forexampleLeMenestrelandvanWassenhove(2009).However,where ethical codes forOR exist, theymake nomention of the key dispensations of the NurembergCode, inparticular thoseof informedconsentandofaright towithdraw. This is the case, for example in the ethical principles of theOperational Research Society (2019). I have argued for the continuity of thinkingon research ethics since theSecond WorldWar,but this thinkinghasalsoevolvedover time,principallyasaresultof the impactof technological change, as Inowdiscuss. 3.3 TheImpactofTechnologyonResearchEthics Themassiveexpansionoftheavailabilityofdataonhumaninteractionsgeneratedby theInternethashadaprofound impactonassumptionsabout theethicsofgathering data. To illustrate the nature of these changes it is sufficient to look back at the concernsaboutcomputingintheyearsbeforetheemergenceoftheInternet.Culman andSmith (1995)describe the furore that surroundedLotusMarketplace.Launched in 1990, this was a CD-ROM for sale at $695 containing information about 120 millionAmericans, includingname, address, age, gender,marital status, household income,andlifestyleandpurchasingpropensities.Softwarewasincludedtofacilitate creationofmailingliststhattargetedprospectivecustomers.30,000letterwritersand callerscontactedLotus,complainingthat theproductwasaviolationofprivacy.The CEOofLotusconcludedthatthecompany“wouldbeill-servedbyaprolongedbattle overconsumerprivacy”,andtheproductwascancelled inJanuary1991.Despite the reticenceofLotus,thatbattlehassincetakenplace,andhasresultedinanunqualified