Convergence in international business ethics? A comparative study of ethical philosophies, thinking style, and ethical decision-making between US and Korean managers

This study investigates the relationship among ethical philosophy, thinking style, and managerial ethical decision-making. Based on the premise that business ethics is a function of culture and time, we attempt to explore two important questions as to whether the national differences in managerial ethical philosophies remain over time and whether the relationship between thinking style and ethical decision-making is consistent across different national contexts. We conducted a survey on Korean managers’ ethical decision-making and thinking style and made a cross-cultural, cross-temporal comparison with the results presented by previous studies that surveyed Korean and US managers with the same questionnaire at different points in time. Our analysis revealed that Korean managers have become more reliant on rule utilitarianism for ethical decision-making over the last two decades, which is dominantly used by US managers, corroborating our convergence hypothesis built on social contracts theory. However, as opposed to previous research, we found that managers with a balanced linear and nonlinear thinking style do not necessarily make more ethical decisions compared to those with a predominantly linear or nonlinear thinking style. This study contributes to international business ethics literature by presenting a theoretical framework that may explain the convergence of ethical philosophies employed by managers in different national contexts over time, and that the relationship between thinking style and managerial ethical decision-making may not be universal, but contingent on contextual factors

Business Ethics: The Promise of Neuroscience

Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience research portend well for furthering understanding of many of the fundamental questions in the field of business ethics, both normative and empirical. This article provides an overview of neuroscience methodology and brain structures, and explores the areas in which neuroscience research has contributed findings of value to business ethics, as well as suggesting areas for future research. Neuroscience research is especially capable of providing insight into individual reactions to ethical issues, while also raising challenging normative questions about the nature of moral responsibility, autonomy, intent, and free will. This article also provides a brief summary of the papers included in this special issue, attesting to the richness of scholarly inquiry linking neuroscience and business ethics. We conclude that neuroscience offers considerable promise to the field of business ethics, but we caution against overpromise

Evaluation of rodent-only toxicology for early clinical trials with novel cancer therapeutics.

Preclinical toxicology studies are performed prior to phase I trials with novel cancer therapeutics to identify a safe clinical starting dose and potential human toxicities. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of rodent-only toxicology studies to identify a safe phase I trial starting dose. In addition, the ability of murine studies to predict the quantitative and qualitative human toxicology of cancer therapeutics was studied. Data for 25 cancer drugs were collated for which the preclinical and clinical routes and schedules of administration were either the same (22/25), or closely matched. The maximum tolerated dose/dose lethal to 10% of mice (MTD/LD10) was identified for 24 drugs, and in patients the maximum administered dose (MAD) was associated with dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in initial clinical trials with 20 compounds. In addition, for 13 agents, the toxicity of the drug at one-tenth the mouse MTD/LD10 was also investigated in rats, following repeated administration (20 doses). A phase I trial starting dose of one-tenth the mouse MTD/LD10 (mg m(-2)) was, or would have been, safe for all 25 compounds. With the exception of nausea and vomiting, which cannot be assessed in rodents, other common DLTs were accurately predicted by the murine studies (i.e. 7/7 haematological and 3/3 neurological DLTs). For two of the 13 drugs studied in rats, repeated administration of one-tenth the mouse MTD/LD10 was toxic, leading to a reduction in the phase I trial starting dose; however, one-tenth the mouse MTD/LD10 was subsequently tolerated in patients. For the 20 drugs where clinical DLT was reached, the median ratio of the human MAD to the mouse MTD/LD10 was 2.6 (range 0.2-16) and the median ratio of the clinical starting dose to the MAD was 35 (range 2.3-160). In contrast, in 13 subsequent phase I trials with 11 of the initial 25 drugs, the median ratio of the clinical starting dose to the MAD was 2.8 (range 1.6-56), emphasizing the value of early clinical data in rapidly defining the dose range for therapeutic studies. For all 25 drugs studied, rodent-only toxicology provided a safe and rapid means of identifying the phase I trial starting dose and predicting commonly encountered DLTs. This study has shown that the routine use of a non-rodent species in preclinical toxicology studies prior to initial clinical trials with cancer therapeutics is not necessary