We have selected a few "rules and standards" that may be helpful guides in creating an ethical program of field research. The first four are discussed specifically by Taylor (1986), and we have included his exact description of three of these.

Noninterference "Under this rule fall two sorts of negative duties, one requiring us to refrain from placing restrictions on the freedom of individual organisms, the other requiring a general 'hands off' policy with regard to whole ecosystems and biotic communities, as well as to individual organisms." (Taylor 1986)

Fidelity "Under this rule fall the duties not to break a trust that a wild animal places in us (as shown by its behavior), not to deceive or mislead any animal capable of being deceived or misled, to uphold an animal's expectations, which it has formed on the basis of one's past actions with it, and to be true to one's intentions as made known to an animal when it has come to rely on one." (Taylor 1986)

Restitutive Justice "That any agent which has caused an evil to some natural entity that is a proper moral subject owes a duty to bring about a countervailing good, either to the moral subject in question or to some other moral subject." (Taylor 1986)

Nonmaleficence Failure to conduct field research in an ethical fashion can cause harm to human society, individual human beings, the natural environment, nonhuman species, and individual nonhuman organisms. To conduct field research in an ethical fashion is to avoid or minimize such harms, in keeping with the moral principle of nonmaleficence.

Respecting the Rights of Other Human Beings With specific reference to field work, our use of natural systems for research can infringe on the rights (or moral standing) of other individuals to use the same systems. For example, the presence of researchers in a natural area may disturb resident wildlife in such a way that makes the area less enjoyable for passive recreation (e.g., bird-watching) by non-researchers. Alteration of a natural system through a manipulation (such as the use of herbicides or removal of a particular species) might render that natural system unsuitable for use by other researchers. To the extent that conduct of field research may infringe on the rights of other human beings, these rights need to be taken into account when evaluating any proposed research project.

Respecting the Rights of Non-human Organisms While it is clear that human beings have rights (or moral standing), the case may be made that non-human organisms also have rights (e.g., Regan 2004). Various interpretations extend such rights only to sentient beings or to all living things. To the extent that conduct of field research may infringe on the rights of non-human organisms, these rights need to be taken into account when evaluating any proposed research project. Under this heading, we note that the "Gaia Hypothesis" of James Lovelock (1979) views the earth as a living system. If we subscribe to such a view, we will then afford the earth the same consideration as we would individual organisms.

Respecting the Integrity of Natural Systems In his famous essay on the "land ethic" in A Sand County Almanac (1949), Aldo Leopold clearly established a new paradigm for ethical behavior toward natural systems (A.C. Leopold 2004). This paradigm is well-represented by Aldo Leopold's (1949) statement: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Field researchers thus have an ethical responsibility toward the very natural systems they study.

Special Duties Special duties are in addition to other duties, such as non-discretionary and discretionary duties, and are often specified by codes of ethics developed by the various professions. For example, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) has developed a Code of Ethics for its members that includes the following: "Ecologists will conduct their research so as to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects of their presence and activities, and in compliance with legal requirements for protection of researchers, human subjects, or research organisms and systems." The ESA Code of Ethics states that researchers must "avoid or minimize" environmental effects, while complying with legal requirements. Implicit in this statement is the idea that researchers might be held to higher standards than ordinary citizens, who are expected only to comply with legal requirements. For example, researchers manipulating line-fishing in the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem were held to higher standards than ordinary citizens who were permitted to fish there legally (Marsh and Kenchington 2004).

Promoting the Welfare of the Profession Failure to conduct research in an ethical fashion may result in reduced respect by society for the conduct of field research. A profession that fails to regulate itself may come under increased scrutiny by society and the result may be lost opportunities, the result of restrictions on the conduct of field research, diminished public funding, and the like.

Students of ethics will find several of these rules to be quite familiar. For example, Shamoo and Resnik (2003) outline a similar set of rules that guide the responsible conduct of research. As anyone familiar with ecological research will quickly realize, the conduct of such research may be in conflict with some of these rules. How, then, are we to carry out field research while still being "good citizens" from the perspective of environmental ethics? We suggest that following a standard framework for evaluating and resolving ethical dilemmas will be helpful for those of us wishing to resolve the conflicting claims that may arise from the conduct of ecological research. Various normative ethical theories (e.g. utilitarianism) may also be brought to bear on such dilemmas.