ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author discusses the often made claim that 'bad science is bad ethics'. This claim is typically used by Research Ethics Committees to justify rejecting scientifically problematic research projects on ethical grounds. The author shows that while a piece of research being scientifically poor does make it ethically problematic, this is not always good grounds for an ethics committee to reject it. The author draws a distinction between morally bad and morally poor research and argues that the role of an ethics committee is to enforce morally satisfactory behaviour and encourage morally excellent behaviour. The author claims that ethics committees ought to reject morally bad research, but not reject morally poor research. The author addresses two questions: Whether scientifically bad research is morally bad or simply morally poor? What is the role of the Research Ethics Committee, and whether in particular it is required to enforce a standard of moral excellence or a moral minimum?
