Research ethics and computer science: An unconsummated marriage

ACM SIGDOC 2006 - Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 196-201

  Wright, David R ^a  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

Author keywords

codes of ethics; ethical dilemmas; research ethics; responsible conduct of research

Indexed keywords

CODES OF ETHICS; COMPUTER SCIENCE RESEARCH; COMPUTER SCIENTISTS; ETHICAL CONCERNS; ETHICAL DILEMMA; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESPONSIBLE CONDUCTS; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES;

COMMUNICATION; COMPUTER SCIENCE; RESEARCH;

PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

EID: 84889589869     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1166324.1166369     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. A. Abran and A. Sellami. Measurement and metrology requirements for empirical studies in software engineering. In Software Technology and Engineering Practice, 2002. STEP 2002. Proceedings. 10th International Workshop on, pages 185-192, Washington, DC, 2002. IEEE Computer Society.
2. ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices. Software engineering code of ethics and professional practice. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 24(1):10-14, Jan 1999.
3. American Medical Association (AMA). Principles of medical ethics. Web document, June 2001. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512. html, accessed 6/15/06.
4. I. Asimov. Robots and Empire. Ballantine Books, New York, 1985.
5. Association for Computing Machinery. ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. http://www.acm.org/constitution/code.html, Oct 1992. accessed 04/03/06.
6. D. Citron. MisSPECulation: partial and misleading use of SPEC CPU2000 in computer architecture conferences. In ISCA '03: Proceedings of the 30th annual international symposium on Computer architecture, pages 52-61, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM Press.
7. M. Davis. When is a volunteer not a volunteer? Empirical Software Engineering, 6:349-352, 2001.
8. K. El-Emam, S. Benlarbi, N. Goel, and S. N. Rai. The confounding effect of class size on the validity of object-oriented metrics. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(7):630-650, July 2001.
9. K. El-Eman. Ethics and open source. Empirical Software Engineering, 6:291-292, 2001.
10. P. A. Freeman. Effective computer science. ACM Comput. Surv., 27(1):27-29, 1995.
11. R. L. Glass, V. Ramesh, and I. Vessey. An analysis of research in computing disciplines. Commun. ACM, 47(6):89-94, 2004.
12. R. L. Glass, I. Vessey, and V. Ramesh. Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology, 44(8):491-506, Jun 2002.
13. S. T. Gurumani and A. Milenkovic. Execution characteristics of SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks: Intel C++ vs. Microsoft VC++. In ACM-SE 42: Proceedings of the 42nd annual Southeast regional conference, pages 261-266, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press.
14. J. Gustafson. Purpose-based benchmarks. Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl., 18(4):475-487, 2004.
15. T. Hall and V. Flynn. Ethical issues in software engineering research: A survey of current practice. Empirical Software Engineering, 6:305 - 317, 2001.
16. J. Hartmanis. Computing the future: committee to assess the scope and direction of computer science and technology for the national research council. Commun. ACM, 35(11):30-40, Nov 1992.
17. J. Hartmanis. Turing award lecture on computational complexity and the nature of computer science. Commun. ACM, 37(10):37-43, 1994.
18. J. Hennessy, D. Citron, D. Patterson, and G. Sohi. The use and abuse of SPEC: An ISCA panel. Micro, IEEE, 23(4):73-77, Jul-Aug 2003.
19. C. Jones. Software metrics: good, bad and missing. Computer, 27(9):98-100, Sep 1994.
20. G. L. Jr. Not teaching viruses and worms is harmful. Commun. ACM, 48(1):144, 2005.
21. N. G. Leveson. Software engineering: stretching the limits of complexity. Commun. ACM, 40(2):129-131, 1997.
22. H. M. Levy and D. W. Clark. On the use of benchmarks for measuring system performance. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, 10(6):5-8, 1982.
23. K. Popper. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, New York, 1959.
24. J. E. Sieber. Protecting research subjects, employees and researchers: Implications for software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 6:329-341, 2001.
25. S. E. Sim, S. Easterbrook, and R. C. Holt. Using benchmarking to advance research: a challenge to software engineering. In ICSE '03: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 74-83, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society.
26. J. Singer and N. Vinson. Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12):1171 - 1180, Dec 2002.
27. Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. CPU2000. http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/, 2000. accessed 04/03/2006.
28. N. F. Stewart. Science and computer science. ACM Comput. Surv., 27(1):39-41, 1995.
29. M. Storey, B. Phillips, and M. Maczewski. Is it ethical to evaluate web-based learning tools using students? Empirical Software Engineering, 6:343-348, 2001.
30. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The beginnings: Laboratory and animal studies. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/testtubetopatient/studies. html, Jan 2006. accessed 04/03/2006.
31. U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration. Inside clinical trials: Testing medical products in people. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/testtubetopatient/trials. html, Jan 2006. accessed 04/03/2006.
32. N. Vinson and J. Singer. Getting to the source of ethical issues. Empirical Software Engineering, 6:293-297, 2001.
33. C. B. Zilles. Benchmark health considered harmful. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, 29(3):4-5, 2001.
34. J. Zobel. Reliable research: Towards experimental standards for computer science. In J. Edwards, editor, Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Conference, pages 217-229, Perth, Western Australia, Feb 1998. Springer-Verlag.