Working with scientists from the Arab world improved my worldview, my career and my life. I urge you to collaborate with researchers from other cultures, too.
One reason to collaborate across cultures is that many global problems — environmental degradation, disease, conflict and inequity — cannot be addressed comprehensively without global partnerships.
Yet crafting empirically based solutions with colleagues around the world involves ethical issues that extend beyond those typically considered by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). That is, rewarding and successful cross-cultural collaboration demands that partners re-dedicate themselves to basic ethical principles that involve interactions with research participants and also interactions among researchers themselves.
Drawing from my own and others' experience (Emanuel et al., 2004; SCRPDC, 1998), I argue that an emphasis on respect, beneficence and justice can help researchers build successful collaborations that lead to lasting solutions.
How does respect for persons inform cross-cultural collaborations?
A key feature of respect for others involves recognizing and protecting autonomy: the capability to consider and act on personal goals (The Belmont Report, 1979). Researchers working across cultures need to recognize and protect their own and their partners' "cultural autonomy," or their societal goals, knowledge and values.
For example, when planning an IRB protocol for a project, one partner may expect that a signed informed consent document will be obtained. Written informed consent protects individual autonomy in some cultures, but providing a signature may not be appropriate in others. This divergence provides an opportunity for research partners to talk about ways to ensure that local norms as well as basic ethical principles are expressed and preserved. They can then work toward solutions that preserve cultural autonomy, including seeking IRB approval for a consent process in which the requirement for a signature is waived.
Another example involves working on a grant proposal, where all collaborators should have equal opportunity to contribute meaningfully to content and should also have an equitable share of the resulting funds and workload. At every stage, partners need to be able to interject their societal goals, knowledge and values into the project, contributing their own cultural perspectives throughout and with a priority on ensuring the cultural autonomy of the site where the research will be conducted. The earlier in the process such autonomy is recognized, the better. I have been at both ends of the spectrum on this point — regrettably in one case failing to share in the grant-writing and in others sharing responsibility equitably. The projects in which cultural autonomy was recognized and preserved led to better science, more lasting research capacity and stronger cultural bridges.
How does beneficence inform cross-cultural collaborations?
A key feature of the principle of beneficence involves maximizing possible benefits and minimizing harms (The Belmont Report, 1979). The concept of a risk/benefit ratio is especially applicable to collaborations where one culture is associated with the "capital" necessary for research (for example, the funding source) while another culture is associated with the "raw materials" for research (such as participants, staff, environment).
With respect to risk, the funding partners have a valued investment of time and money at stake, while partners supplying the "materials" may have at stake the well-being of participants, the reputation that scientific research holds in their community, and their own personal and professional status. These partners may be particularly interested in ensuring that research results are applied locally, so that potential community benefits help offset potential risks.
One example involves research conducted at the Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies, where all partners were interested in learning more about the prevalence and health effects of local tobacco use methods and also were committed to developing culturally relevant treatment programs for use in the region. More generally, some partners may want to move a research project forward now and worry about practical applications later, while others — especially those who work in a context where needs are great and service providers are few — may want to apply project results immediately. In such a case, it's important for partners to talk about their expectations early in the planning process.
How does justice inform cross-cultural collaborations?
A key feature of the principle of justice involves equitable sharing of research benefits and burdens (The Belmont Report, 1979). Researchers can reap many benefits from cross-cultural projects, including publications, promotions, prestige and grant funding. They can also shoulder many burdens to get there, such as writing proposals, protocols and manuscripts, and managing projects or interacting with administrative units.
To achieve justice in this context, collaborators need to talk about sharing these benefits and burdens at the beginning of the project. This dialogue can include an appreciation that, at this stage, some partners may have expertise that leads them to shoulder more of one burden — one might be better, for example, at writing grant proposals, while another might excel at developing culturally sensitive measures.
Such differences can benefit both researchers since they can help each partner improve on a weakness. One researcher may later want to develop a workshop on grant writing, while another can share his or her expertise in measure development. Such skill swaps can help each partner expand his or her abilities, enhance his or her career opportunities and gain new perspectives. This capacity building doesn't have to stop when the project does. For me, learning to conduct research in unfamiliar contexts while gaining a more global perspective was one of the most beneficial aspects of my collaborations, and it continues today.
The success we as scientists will have in helping to solve global problems may depend on our ability to collaborate with colleagues from other cultures. And in doing so ethically, we'll promote more and better science, increased capacity, empowered colleagues, personal growth, and a stronger and healthier global community.
Thomas Eissenberg, PhD, is a professor of biopsychology and health psychology and director of the Clinical Behavioral Pharmacology Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Author's note: I acknowledge the opportunities for growth provided by my friends and colleagues at the American University of Beirut, Jordan University of Science and Technology, King Hussein Cancer Center, Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies, and across the Arab world.
My research in the Arab world has been funded since 2002 by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Fogarty International Center, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Cancer Institute and now by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Center for Tobacco Products of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA.
