What Should You Do When Ethics Requirements Differ Between Countries?

What Happens When Two Countries Give You Different Ethics Rules?

International research becomes difficult when the problem is no longer obtaining approval but determining what to do with incompatible instructions. Your home institution may require written consent, while the host setting recognizes another documented process. One jurisdiction may impose particular privacy protections, while another regulates the same data differently. Two ethics committees may even request conflicting changes to the same protocol.

Which requirement should you follow? “Follow the local rules” is too simple. So is “use whichever standard is stricter.” The first task is to determine whether the requirements truly conflict, what each one governs, and whether the protocol can satisfy both.

Do Not Solve Differences by Choosing the Easier Rule

How to Reconcile Different Ethics Requirements

First Determine Whether You Have a Real Conflict

Two requirements can be different without being incompatible. Country A may require a particular disclosure in the consent form while Country B requires an additional privacy statement. The researchers may be able to satisfy both.

A genuine conflict occurs when complying with one applicable requirement would prevent compliance with another, or when two responsible ethics bodies demand incompatible procedures. That distinction matters because many apparent international “conflicts” are actually cumulative requirements.

Separate Law, Regulation, Ethics-Committee Conditions, and Ethical Principles

Researchers often call everything an “ethics requirement,” but several kinds of authority may be involved. A national law may impose a legal obligation. A regulator may establish requirements for a particular type of research. An institution may impose its own policy. An ethics committee may make approval conditional on a protocol change. An international guideline may articulate an ethical standard without itself functioning as domestic law.

These categories should not be treated as interchangeable. Before deciding which standard governs, document where each requirement comes from and whether it actually applies to the project.

International Guidance Recognizes Both Local Requirements and Minimum Protections

The 2024 Declaration of Helsinki requires research ethics committees to consider the ethical, legal, and regulatory norms and standards of the country or countries where medical research is performed as well as applicable international norms and standards. Crucially, it also states that these requirements must not be allowed to reduce or eliminate the protections for research participants established by the Declaration.

This creates an important distinction. Respect for local governance does not mean treating every locally permissible practice as ethically sufficient. Conversely, respecting international principles does not mean pretending that research can be designed without attention to local law and context.

“Use the Stricter Rule” Is Useful Only as a Starting Heuristic

Researchers are sometimes told to follow whichever rule is stricter. That may be sensible when one requirement simply provides greater protection and complying with it violates no other obligation. But “strictness” can be surprisingly difficult to rank.

Imagine that one ethics system strongly favors signed consent documentation while another recognizes that requiring a signature in a particular population could create risk by linking a participant's identity to sensitive research. The requirement that produces more paperwork is not necessarily the requirement that better protects the participant.

The correct question is therefore not merely which rule is more restrictive. Ask what ethical interest each requirement protects, how it operates in the local context, and whether the proposed solution maintains meaningful protections for participants.

Local Adaptation Is Not the Same as Lowering Ethical Standards

International research should be responsive to local social and cultural conditions. Consent processes may need different languages, explanations, formats, decision-making practices, or community engagement. Such adaptations can make ethical protections more meaningful rather than weaker.

The danger arises when “local context” becomes a justification for protections that researchers would consider unacceptable elsewhere simply because the host setting has fewer resources, weaker regulation, or less bargaining power. That problem is often described as ethics dumping.

The challenge is especially important when deciding what to do when the host country permits something the researcher's home institution does not.

Do Not Treat Cultural Difference as an Automatic Exception

A local practice can be ethically relevant without overriding fundamental participant interests. Researchers may need to adapt how autonomy, privacy, respect, or consent are operationalized, but cultural variation should not become a blanket reason to disregard them.

This distinction becomes particularly important when researchers consider whether they can apply their own country's ethical assumptions unchanged in another cultural setting. Ethical imperialism and ethical relativism are both poor substitutes for careful analysis.

Conflicting Committee Decisions Need Institutional Resolution

If two required ethics committees issue incompatible conditions, researchers should not quietly follow the decision they prefer. The conflict should be documented and returned to the committees or relevant institutional officials for resolution.

Possible outcomes include modifying the protocol so that both requirements can be met, developing site-specific procedures, clarifying that one requirement does not apply to a particular site, or determining that the research cannot proceed as currently designed.

CIOMS Guideline 23 notes that research ethics committees should have procedures through which researchers or sponsors can make legitimate appeals against committee decisions. The applicable process will depend on the institutions involved.

Sometimes the Ethical Answer Is Not to Conduct the Study

Researchers often assume that every regulatory conflict must have a procedural workaround. It may not. If an essential feature of the research is prohibited in one jurisdiction, if required participant protections cannot be reconciled, or if the responsible committees cannot approve an ethically acceptable common or site-specific approach, the affected research may need to be redesigned, relocated, or not conducted.

International collaboration does not create an entitlement to conduct the study exactly as originally planned.

How to Handle Two Different Consent Requirements

Common Mistakes When International Ethics Rules Differ

Resolve the Difference Before It Reaches the Field

International ethics planning should include a requirement-by-requirement comparison before recruitment begins. Waiting until two committees issue contradictory decisions makes an already difficult problem considerably harder.

If you have not yet established which committees should be involved, first determine whether the international project requires ethics review in more than one country. Conflict resolution only works once you know which requirements legitimately apply.

Before Resolving Different International Ethics Requirements

Questions About Conflicting International Ethics Requirements

Reconcile Requirements Without Shopping for the Easiest Standard

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.