Research Ethics

The Ethical Standards of the Biblical Science Research Center

The Biblical Science Research Center is committed to research that honors God through truthfulness, intellectual integrity, academic responsibility, and love for one’s neighbor.
Scientific research is never merely technical.
Every act of observation, interpretation, calculation, publication, criticism, and communication involves moral responsibility. Researchers make decisions concerning what evidence to include, how data should be represented, how opposing views should be described, how uncertainty should be acknowledged, and how scientific knowledge should be used.
For this reason, research ethics cannot be separated from scientific methodology.
The Biblical Science Research Center believes that truth belongs to God. Falsehood, manipulation, plagiarism, exaggeration, concealment, and careless accusation are therefore not merely academic failures. They are moral failures before the God of truth.
Christian researchers are called not only to defend biblical truth, but also to embody truthfulness in the way research is conducted.
The following ethical principles govern the research, teaching, writing, publication, visual presentation, collaboration, and public communication of the Biblical Science Research Center.

Part I The Theological Foundation of Research Ethics

1. God Is the God of Truth

All research ethics begins with the character of God.
God is true.
He does not lie, deceive, manipulate, or misrepresent reality.
His Word is truth, and His works faithfully reveal His wisdom, power, and order.
Because human beings are created in the image of God, researchers are morally responsible to pursue and communicate truth.
Truthfulness is therefore not an optional professional virtue.
It is an obligation before God.

2. Research Is Conducted Coram Deo

All research is conducted before the face of God.
A researcher may work in private, but no research activity is hidden from the Creator.
God knows:
• the motives of the researcher;
• the origin of the data;
• the accuracy of the calculations;
• the treatment of sources;
• the omissions from the report;
• and the difference between honest error and deliberate deception.
The awareness that research is conducted before God should produce reverence, humility, diligence, and accountability.

3. The Researcher Is a Steward, Not an Owner of Truth

Researchers do not create truth and do not possess it as private property.
They receive abilities, opportunities, knowledge, resources, and evidence as gifts of divine providence.
Scientific knowledge should therefore be treated as a stewardship.
Researchers are responsible to use it faithfully for:
• the glory of God;
• the service of the church;
• the good of society;
• the protection of life;
• and the responsible care of creation.
Knowledge must not be used merely for personal prestige, institutional power, financial advantage, or ideological control.

4. The Fall Affects Scientific Practice

Human sin affects not only morality and religion, but also intellectual life.
Researchers may be tempted by:
• pride;
• ambition;
• fear;
• loyalty to a favored theory;
• desire for recognition;
• financial interest;
• institutional pressure;
• confirmation bias;
• and hostility toward criticism.
Christian researchers are not immune from these temptations.
A biblical research institution must therefore establish practices of transparency, correction, review, and accountability.
Commitment to Scripture does not guarantee that every scientific conclusion will be correct.
It should, however, produce a willingness to recognize and correct error.

5. Love of God and Neighbor Governs Research

The greatest commandments require love for God and love for one’s neighbor.
Research should therefore be evaluated not only according to whether it is technically possible, but also according to whether it is morally faithful and beneficial.
Scientific work should seek to:
• protect human dignity;
• reduce suffering;
• promote honest understanding;
• prevent harm;
• encourage responsible stewardship;
• and strengthen the church’s witness.
Research that is scientifically impressive but morally destructive cannot be considered faithful Christian scholarship.

Part II Truthfulness and Integrity

6. Data Must Never Be Fabricated

Researchers must never invent:
• measurements;
• experimental results;
• observations;
• interview responses;
• specimen records;
• survey results;
• citations;
• calculations;
• or historical evidence.
Fabrication is a deliberate creation of false evidence.
It violates the trust of readers, collaborators, institutions, and the public.
It also dishonors the God whose creation is being studied.
No apologetic objective, theological conviction, institutional pressure, or desire for publication can justify fabricated data.

7. Data Must Never Be Falsified

Researchers must not alter, suppress, distort, or selectively manipulate data in order to produce a desired conclusion.
Falsification may include:
• changing numerical values;
• removing inconvenient results without explanation;
• altering images deceptively;
• adjusting graphs to exaggerate differences;
• hiding failed trials;
• changing categories after seeing the results;
• or presenting selected evidence as though it represented the whole dataset.
Legitimate correction, calibration, filtering, or exclusion may be necessary, but the procedure and reason must be documented.

8. Results Must Be Reported Honestly

Research reports should reflect what the evidence actually supports.
Researchers must not present:
• weak evidence as conclusive;
• correlation as causation;
• possibility as certainty;
• speculation as observation;
• simulation as direct evidence;
• or a preferred model as an established fact.
The strength of the language should correspond to the strength of the evidence.
Terms such as “demonstrates,” “proves,” “supports,” “suggests,” “is consistent with,” and “remains possible” should be used carefully.

9. Inconvenient Evidence Must Not Be Ignored

Researchers must not omit relevant evidence merely because it complicates or weakens their preferred interpretation.
Contrary evidence should be:
• acknowledged;
• examined;
• evaluated fairly;
• and incorporated into the discussion where relevant.
A research paper becomes stronger, not weaker, when it confronts serious objections honestly.

10. Uncertainty Must Be Acknowledged

Many scientific conclusions involve uncertainty.
Sources of uncertainty may include:
• measurement limitations;
• sample variation;
• unknown historical conditions;
• estimated dimensions;
• incomplete fossils;
• simplified models;
• uncertain coefficients;
• and limited experimental data.
Researchers should report reasonable ranges, limitations, confidence levels, and assumptions.
False precision should be avoided.

11. Honest Error Must Be Distinguished from Misconduct

Researchers can make mistakes without intending deception.
Examples include:
• arithmetic errors;
• incorrect citations;
• misunderstood terminology;
• flawed assumptions;
• software mistakes;
• and inaccurate transcription.
Honest mistakes should be corrected promptly.
Research misconduct involves intentional or reckless disregard for truth.
Both error and misconduct require response, but they should not be treated as morally identical.

Part III Evidence, Models, and Interpretation

12. Observation Must Be Distinguished from Interpretation

Research should clearly distinguish:
• what was directly observed;
• what was measured;
• what was calculated;
• what was inferred;
• what was reconstructed;
• and what was hypothesized.
For example, the existence of a fossil structure may be observed directly.
Its function, environment, age, and historical relationship to other organisms require interpretation.
Readers should be able to identify where evidence ends and reconstruction begins.

13. Scientific Models Must Be Presented as Models

A model is a structured representation of reality.
It is not identical with reality itself.
Researchers should state:
• the purpose of the model;
• its assumptions;
• its variables;
• its limitations;
• its boundary conditions;
• and the range within which it is applicable.
A conceptual diagram should not be presented as a direct picture of past reality.
A reconstructed environment should be labeled as a reconstruction.
A proposed mechanism should be identified as proposed.

14. Models Must Not Be Protected from Criticism

No scientific model developed by BSRC is infallible.
Models must remain open to:
• examination;
• testing;
• criticism;
• comparison;
• revision;
• and rejection.
A biblical commitment should not be confused with commitment to one particular scientific reconstruction.
Scripture is authoritative.
Human models are provisional.

15. Assumptions Must Be Transparent

Every calculation and model depends upon assumptions.
Researchers should disclose assumptions concerning:
• environmental conditions;
• initial conditions;
• geometry;
• material properties;
• rates;
• biological capacity;
• chronology;
• and equation applicability.
A conclusion should not appear more certain than the assumptions permit.

16. Negative Results Should Be Reported When Relevant

A failed experiment or unsupported hypothesis may still contribute valuable knowledge.
Negative results can:
• identify physical limits;
• expose incorrect assumptions;
• prevent duplication of failed approaches;
• refine future models;
• and clarify what the evidence does not support.
Researchers should not treat every unsuccessful result as something to hide.

Part IV Citation, Authorship, and Intellectual Property

17. Plagiarism Is Prohibited

Researchers must not present another person’s words, ideas, data, images, calculations, or research structure as their own.
Plagiarism includes:
• copying without citation;
• close paraphrasing without acknowledgment;
• translating another person’s work without attribution;
• reusing diagrams without permission or citation;
• and presenting another researcher’s interpretation as original.
Proper citation is both an academic requirement and an act of justice.

18. Sources Must Be Represented Accurately

A source must not be quoted in a manner that distorts its meaning.
Researchers should avoid:
• removing necessary context;
• selectively quoting only favorable sentences;
• attributing claims the author did not make;
• and misrepresenting the strength or purpose of the original argument.
Opposing sources should receive the same standard of accurate representation as supportive sources.

19. Primary Sources Should Be Used Where Possible

When making significant claims, researchers should consult original sources whenever reasonably available.
These may include:
• original research papers;
• historical documents;
• technical reports;
• biblical-language texts;
• datasets;
• patents;
• and official records.
Secondary summaries may be helpful, but they should not replace primary evidence where accuracy is important.

20. Authorship Must Reflect Real Contribution

Authorship should be granted only to those who have made a substantial intellectual or practical contribution to the research.
Appropriate authorship contributions may include:
• developing the research question;
• designing the method;
• collecting or analyzing data;
• constructing the model;
• writing major sections;
• or taking responsibility for the final argument.
Honorary authorship is unethical.
A person should not be listed merely because of status, financial support, administrative authority, friendship, or institutional position.

21. Contributors Must Be Acknowledged Properly

Individuals who contribute without meeting the standard for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately.
These may include:
• technical reviewers;
• editors;
• translators;
• illustrators;
• laboratory assistants;
• data providers;
• software developers;
• and institutional supporters.
Acknowledgment should reflect the nature of the contribution accurately.

22. Authors Must Accept Responsibility

Every listed author should understand the central argument and accept responsibility for the integrity of the work.
Authors should review the final manuscript before publication.
No author should allow their name to be used on a paper they have not meaningfully examined.

23. Duplicate Publication Must Be Disclosed

Researchers should not publish substantially the same work in multiple venues while presenting each version as entirely original.
Earlier conference papers, website articles, preprints, translated editions, and revised publications should be disclosed when relevant.
Legitimate republication or adaptation is possible, but it should be transparent.

24. Copyright and Permissions Must Be Respected

Researchers must respect legal and ethical restrictions governing:
• images;
• figures;
• books;
• journal articles;
• maps;
• datasets;
• software;
• photographs;
• and audiovisual materials.
Permission should be obtained where required.
Fair use should not be assumed automatically.
Publicly available material is not necessarily free from copyright.

Part V Images, Figures, and Visual Communication

25. Visual Material Must Not Mislead

Figures and images can strongly influence readers.
They must therefore represent evidence honestly.
Researchers should not:
• alter scale deceptively;
• hide inconvenient features;
• exaggerate dimensions;
• combine unrelated images without disclosure;
• or use artistic reconstruction as though it were photographic evidence.

26. Photographs Must Be Distinguished from Reconstructions

Every image should be identified correctly as one of the following:
• photograph;
• microscopic image;
• technical drawing;
• computer simulation;
• conceptual diagram;
• data visualization;
• artistic reconstruction;
• or AI-generated illustration.
Readers should never be left uncertain about the status of an image.

27. Image Enhancement Must Be Disclosed

Adjustments for clarity may be legitimate.
These may include:
• cropping;
• brightness adjustment;
• contrast enhancement;
• color balancing;
• and removal of visual noise.
However, changes that affect interpretation must be disclosed.
No feature should be added, removed, enlarged, or altered in a way that creates false evidence.

28. Graphs Must Be Designed Honestly

Graphs should include:
• labeled axes;
• units;
• appropriate scales;
• data sources;
• relevant uncertainty;
• and clear legends.
Researchers should avoid:
• truncated axes that exaggerate small differences;
• inconsistent intervals;
• selective time ranges;
• and visual effects that overstate significance.
The purpose of a graph is to clarify evidence, not manipulate perception.

29. Scale and Proportion Must Be Accurate

Scientific illustrations should preserve scale whenever scale is relevant.
When a figure is not to scale, it should be labeled clearly.
Relative sizes, thicknesses, distances, forces, or environmental layers should not be illustrated in a manner that could mislead readers into assuming physical accuracy.

Part VI Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools

30. Artificial Intelligence May Assist but Must Not Replace Responsibility

Artificial intelligence may assist with:
• language editing;
• translation;
• literature organization;
• coding;
• data formatting;
• visualization;
• brainstorming;
• and preliminary analysis.
However, AI does not bear moral or academic responsibility for the final work.
The human researcher remains responsible for:
• accuracy;
• citation;
• interpretation;
• originality;
• factual verification;
• and ethical compliance.

31. AI-Generated Claims Must Be Verified

Artificial intelligence can produce:
• inaccurate facts;
• invented citations;
• incorrect calculations;
• false quotations;
• and plausible-sounding but unsupported interpretations.
No claim should be accepted merely because an AI system produced it.
Researchers must verify significant statements through reliable sources, primary data, or direct calculation.

32. AI Must Not Be Listed as an Author

Authorship requires responsibility, consent, accountability, and intellectual ownership.
An artificial intelligence system cannot fulfill these requirements.
AI tools should therefore not be listed as authors.
Their substantial use may be acknowledged according to the standards of the relevant publication or institution.

33. AI-Generated Images Must Be Labeled

Images generated or substantially modified by artificial intelligence should be identified clearly.
They must not be presented as:
• photographs;
• original fossil evidence;
• direct observations;
• or historically verified reconstructions.
AI-generated imagery may serve educational or conceptual purposes, but its evidential status must remain clear.

34. Confidential Information Must Not Be Entered Carelessly into AI Systems

Researchers should not upload confidential, unpublished, personal, medical, proprietary, or restricted information into digital systems without proper authorization and security review.
Privacy and intellectual property must be protected.

35. Automated Analysis Must Be Reproducible

When software, algorithms, or AI tools contribute substantially to analysis, researchers should document where appropriate:
• the software used;
• the relevant version;
• the input data;
• the processing steps;
• the parameters;
• and the method of verification.
A result should not depend upon an undocumented black-box process when reproducibility is reasonably possible.

Part VII Human Participants and Personal Data

36. Human Dignity Must Be Protected

Human Dignity Must Be Protected
All human beings bear the image of God.
Research involving human participants must therefore respect:
• dignity;
• life;
• bodily integrity;
• privacy;
• freedom;
• and informed decision-making.
Human beings must never be treated merely as instruments for scientific advancement.

37. Informed Consent Is Required

Where research involves human participation, individuals should receive understandable information concerning:
• the purpose of the study;
• the procedures;
• possible risks;
• possible benefits;
• use of data;
• confidentiality;
• and the right to withdraw.
Consent must be voluntary.
Coercion, deception, and abuse of authority are prohibited.

38. Vulnerable Persons Require Additional Protection

Special care is necessary when research involves:
• children;
• elderly persons;
• persons with cognitive limitations;
• patients;
• refugees;
• economically dependent persons;
• students under direct authority;
• and persons in crisis.
Consent and risk evaluation should reflect their vulnerability.

39. Personal Information Must Be Protected

Researchers should collect only the personal information necessary for the project.
Sensitive data should be:
• stored securely;
• accessed only by authorized persons;
• anonymized where appropriate;
• and retained only as long as necessary.
Personal information should not be published without permission unless legally and ethically justified.

40. Medical and Psychological Claims Require Special Caution

Health-related research can affect life, treatment, and personal decisions.
Researchers must not make medical or psychological claims beyond their competence or evidence.
Preliminary findings should not be presented as clinical advice.
Appropriate professional review is required where human health may be affected.

Part VIII Animals and the Created Order

41. Animals Must Be Treated Responsibly

Animals are creatures of God and should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering.
Research involving animals should consider:
• scientific necessity;
• alternative methods;
• pain reduction;
• humane care;
• and responsible supervision.
Animals do not possess the same status as human beings made in the image of God, but they remain part of God’s creation and must not be treated cruelly.

42. Specimens Must Be Obtained Legally and Ethically

Fossils, biological specimens, tissues, artifacts, and geological samples should be obtained through lawful and ethical means.
Researchers must respect:
• ownership;
• collection permits;
• protected areas;
• museum policies;
• export regulations;
• and cultural heritage requirements.
Scientific interest does not justify theft, illegal trade, or destruction of protected material.

43. Environmental Impact Must Be Minimized

The biblical mandate to exercise dominion does not justify reckless destruction.
Scientific and technological activity should seek responsible stewardship of land, water, air, biological resources, and ecosystems.
Creation belongs ultimately to God.
Human beings are accountable managers rather than absolute owners.

44. Stewardship Is Not Exploitation

Part IX Conflicts of Interest and Institutional Influence

45. Financial Conflicts Must Be Disclosed

Researchers should disclose financial relationships that could reasonably influence the research.
These may include:
• grants;
• sponsorships;
• consulting arrangements;
• product interests;
• patent ownership;
• and institutional funding.
Funding does not automatically invalidate research, but hidden financial influence undermines trust.

46. Personal and Institutional Interests Must Be Disclosed

Relevant nonfinancial conflicts may include:
• institutional loyalty;
• personal rivalry;
• leadership authority;
• family relationships;
• public advocacy;
• and prior commitment to a particular product or model.
Researchers should disclose conflicts when they could affect evaluation or public confidence.

47. Sponsors Must Not Control Results

A funding organization may support research, but it must not require a predetermined conclusion.
Researchers must retain the freedom to:
• report negative results;
• acknowledge uncertainty;
• publish contrary evidence;
• and correct earlier claims.
Financial support must not purchase scientific conclusions.

48. Institutional Reputation Must Not Override Truth

BSRC must not suppress correction merely to protect its public image.
An institution committed to truth should be willing to acknowledge mistakes openly.
Long-term credibility is strengthened by honesty, not by concealment.

Part X Collaboration and Workplace Conduct

49. Collaborators Must Be Treated with Respect

Research teams should be characterized by:
• honesty;
• patience;
• fairness;
• clear communication;
• and mutual respect.
Disagreement concerning interpretation should not become personal hostility.

50. Abuse of Authority Is Prohibited

Senior researchers, pastors, supervisors, directors, and professors must not misuse authority.
Prohibited conduct includes:
• coercion;
• intimidation;
• retaliation;
• exploitation of junior researchers;
• suppression of legitimate criticism;
• and appropriation of another person’s work.
Christian leadership should be expressed through service rather than domination.

51. Credit Must Be Distributed Fairly

The contributions of students, assistants, translators, illustrators, and technical staff should be recognized.
A senior researcher must not claim primary credit for work largely performed by others.

52. Disagreements Should Be Documented Constructively

Research teams may disagree concerning:
• calculations;
• interpretation;
• authorship;
• data quality;
• and publication.
Such disagreements should be addressed through:
• written clarification;
• review of evidence;
• consultation with qualified persons;
• and fair institutional procedures.

53. Retaliation Against Good-Faith Concern Is Prohibited

A person who raises a responsible concern regarding:
• data integrity;
• plagiarism;
• unsafe practice;
• misrepresentation;
• or ethical misconduct
should not be punished merely for raising the concern.
False or malicious accusations are themselves unethical, but good-faith reporting should be protected.

Part XI Peer Review and Criticism

54. Peer Review Is a Form of Accountability

Peer review helps identify:
• errors;
• weak assumptions;
• unclear language;
• unsupported claims;
• and methodological limitations.
BSRC values responsible criticism as a means of improving research.

55. Reviewers Must Be Fair and Confidential

A reviewer should evaluate a paper according to its evidence, reasoning, method, and clarity.
Reviewers must not:
• misuse confidential material;
• delay publication for personal advantage;
• attack the author personally;
• or reject work solely because it challenges a dominant paradigm.

56. Opposing Views Must Be Engaged in Their Strongest Form

Researchers should avoid caricature and straw-man argument.
A position should be represented in a way that informed proponents would recognize as fair.
Effective criticism requires accurate understanding.

57. Criticism Must Address Claims, Not Persons

Scientific and theological disagreement should focus on:
• evidence;
• assumptions;
• logic;
• exegesis;
• calculations;
• and conclusions.
Personal insult, mockery, and speculation about motives weaken serious scholarship.

58. Researchers Must Be Willing to Change Their Conclusions

A responsible researcher should be willing to revise a conclusion when:
• evidence is stronger than expected;
• a calculation is shown to be wrong;
• a biblical interpretation is corrected;
• or an alternative model explains the evidence better.
Changing one’s conclusion in response to truth is not weakness.
It is intellectual faithfulness.

Part XII Corrections, Retractions, and Misconduct

59. Errors Must Be Corrected Promptly

When a significant error is discovered, the researcher should evaluate:
• the nature of the error;
• its effect on the results;
• its effect on the conclusion;
• and the most appropriate form of correction.
Possible responses include:
• a minor correction;
• an updated figure;
• a revised article;
• a formal correction notice;
• or withdrawal of the work.

60. Retraction May Be Necessary

A paper should be withdrawn or retracted when its central conclusions are no longer reliable because of:
• fabricated data;
• serious falsification;
• major plagiarism;
• invalid calculation;
• unethical research;
• or foundational methodological failure.
Retraction protects the scientific record.
It should not be avoided merely because it may cause embarrassment.

61. Allegations Must Be Investigated Fairly

Accusations of misconduct should not be accepted or dismissed automatically.
An investigation should be:
• impartial;
• documented;
• confidential where appropriate;
• based upon evidence;
• and respectful of due process.
The accused person should have a reasonable opportunity to respond.

62. The Response Must Be Proportionate

Not every disagreement is misconduct.
Not every error requires retraction.
Not every incomplete citation constitutes deliberate plagiarism.
Institutional responses should distinguish among:
• honest error;
• negligence;
• reckless practice;
• and intentional deception.

63. Restoration Should Be Sought Where Possible

Christian ethics includes justice, repentance, forgiveness, and restoration.
Where misconduct has occurred, accountability is necessary.
Where genuine repentance and correction occur, the institution should also seek appropriate restoration without minimizing the seriousness of the offense.

Part XIII Public Communication

64. Public Claims Must Match the Research

Website articles, lectures, interviews, videos, sermons, conference presentations, and social-media posts should not exaggerate the conclusions of formal research.
Simplification may be necessary for general audiences, but simplification must not become distortion.

65. Sensationalism Must Be Avoided

Creation research can attract attention through dramatic claims.
However, researchers should avoid:
• exaggerated headlines;
• unsupported claims of discovery;
• false declarations that a theory has been completely disproved;
• and emotionally manipulative presentations.
Public interest is not more important than truth.

66. Preliminary Research Must Be Identified Clearly

Early-stage findings should be labeled as:
• preliminary;
• exploratory;
• hypothetical;
• or under review.
The public should not be led to assume that an initial calculation has already passed full scientific examination.

67. Scientific Disagreement Must Be Communicated Responsibly

Researchers should distinguish between:
• disagreement over data;
• disagreement over interpretation;
• disagreement over worldview;
• and disagreement over biblical exegesis.
These are related but not identical.
Clear distinctions help prevent unnecessary confusion.

68. Expertise Must Not Be Exaggerated

Researchers should speak within the limits of their training and evidence.
Interdisciplinary research is valuable, but it does not make one person an expert in every field.
Where specialist review is absent, this limitation should be acknowledged.

69. Public Apologetics Must Remain Truthful

A claim should not be used publicly merely because it appears to strengthen belief in creation.
Weak or false claims may harm Christian witness when they are later exposed.
The defense of Scripture must never depend upon misinformation.

Part XIV Publication Standards

70. Every Publication Should Identify Its Type

BSRC publications should be identified appropriately as:
• research article;
• review article;
• theological essay;
• technical report;
• conference paper;
• hypothesis paper;
• educational article;
• position statement;
• conceptual model;
• or preliminary research note.
This classification helps readers evaluate the scope and authority of the work.

71. Methods Must Be Described Clearly

A scientific publication should explain how the conclusion was reached.
Where relevant, it should include:
• data sources;
• equations;
• assumptions;
• software;
• methods;
• scenarios;
• limitations;
• and uncertainty.
A reader should be able to follow the reasoning.

72. References Must Be Complete and Verifiable

Citations should contain sufficient information for readers to locate the source.
Invented, incomplete, or unverifiable references must not be used.
When a source cannot be verified, the claim should be reconsidered.

73. Revised Versions Must Be Identified

When a publication is significantly updated, the version and date should be recorded.
A revision history may explain:
• corrected calculations;
• revised figures;
• added sources;
• changed conclusions;
• and responses to criticism.

74. Archived Versions Should Be Preserved When Appropriate

Where practical, earlier versions should be retained for transparency, especially when major conclusions have changed.
This allows readers to understand the development of the research.

75. Open Data Should Be Encouraged Where Possible

Data, calculations, diagrams, and code should be made available when legally, ethically, and practically possible.
Exceptions may include:
• personal information;
• restricted specimens;
• copyright limitations;
• security concerns;
• and legitimate proprietary restrictions.
Transparency strengthens verification and collaboration.

Part XV Ethical Evaluation of New Research Projects

Before a project begins, BSRC researchers should consider the following questions.
Truth
Is the project designed to discover truth, or primarily to defend a predetermined claim?
Evidence
Are the necessary data available and reliable?
Competence
Does the research team possess the necessary expertise?
Risk
Could the project harm persons, animals, communities, institutions, or the environment?
Consent
Does the project involve human participation or personal information requiring consent?
Transparency
Can the assumptions, methods, funding, and limitations be disclosed?
Stewardship
Is the proposed use of time, funding, specimens, and technology responsible?
Benefit
How may the research serve the church, science, education, or society?
Misuse
Could the results be applied in harmful or deceptive ways?
Glory of God
Can the project be pursued with integrity as an act of service and worship?

Part XVI The BSRC Ethical Review Process

Where a research project involves significant ethical concerns, the following process should be used.

Step 1: Ethical Identification

Identify possible risks, conflicts, privacy issues, copyright concerns, and moral questions.

Step 2: Competence Review

Determine whether the project requires external specialists or professional supervision.

Step 3: Consent and Permission

Obtain necessary consent, licenses, institutional approval, collection permission, or copyright authorization.

Step 4: Data Protection

Establish procedures for storage, access, confidentiality, backup, and eventual deletion.

Step 5: Conflict Disclosure

Record relevant financial, institutional, theological, or personal conflicts.

Step 6: Methodological Review

Evaluate whether the research design is capable of answering the stated question without unnecessary risk or waste.

Step 7: Independent Review

Seek review from qualified persons who are not directly invested in the preferred result.

Step 8: Ongoing Monitoring

Reevaluate the project if new risks, errors, or ethical concerns arise.

Step 9: Publication Review

Before publication, verify citations, permissions, authorship, image labels, AI disclosure, limitations, and data integrity.

Step 10: Post-Publication Accountability

Respond responsibly to criticism, correction requests, newly discovered evidence, and legitimate allegations of error.

The BSRC Researcher’s Ethical Covenant

A researcher serving through the Biblical Science Research Center should be prepared to affirm the following commitments:
I will pursue truth rather than personal recognition.
I will submit my research to the authority of Scripture while distinguishing divine revelation from my own scientific interpretation.
I will not fabricate, falsify, manipulate, or conceal evidence.
I will report uncertainty and limitations honestly.
I will cite sources accurately and give proper credit to others.
I will treat opposing views fairly and avoid personal attack.
I will not use apologetic usefulness as an excuse for weak or false argument.
I will protect human dignity, personal privacy, animal welfare, and the created environment.
I will disclose conflicts of interest.
I will use artificial intelligence and digital tools responsibly and verify their output.
I will welcome responsible criticism.
I will correct significant errors openly.
I will distinguish photographs, observations, simulations, reconstructions, and artistic illustrations.
I will not claim more than the evidence supports.
I will use scientific knowledge in service to God and neighbor.
I will remember that every research act is performed before the face of God.

Our Ethical Commitments

The Biblical Science Research Center is committed to research that is:
Truthful
Free from fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and deliberate deception.
Transparent
Clear concerning evidence, assumptions, methods, funding, limitations, and conflicts.
Responsible
Attentive to human dignity, safety, privacy, animal welfare, and environmental stewardship.
Fair
Accurate in citation, authorship, criticism, review, and representation of opposing positions.
Correctable
Open to examination, revision, correction, and retraction where necessary.
Accountable
Conducted under appropriate personal, institutional, academic, and spiritual oversight.
Humble
Aware of the limits of human knowledge and the provisional character of scientific models.
Constructive
Directed toward the good of the church, the advancement of knowledge, and the service of society.
God-Glorifying
Practiced in reverence before the Creator and offered as an act of worship.

Conclusion

The credibility of biblical science depends not only upon the conclusions it defends, but also upon the character of the research by which those conclusions are reached.
A scientific argument cannot honor the God of truth if it depends upon false data.
An apologetic claim cannot defend Scripture faithfully if it misrepresents evidence.
A Christian institution cannot demand honesty from naturalistic science while excusing carelessness within its own work.
For this reason, the Biblical Science Research Center seeks to hold itself to a high ethical standard.
We do not claim that Christian researchers are free from error.
We affirm that they must be willing to confess, correct, and learn from error.
We do not claim that every BSRC model is final.
We affirm that every model must remain accountable to Scripture, evidence, logic, and responsible criticism.
We do not pursue scientific research merely to win debates.
We pursue truth because God is true.
We practice integrity because we work before His face.
We treat others fairly because they bear His image.
We care for creation because it belongs to Him.
We correct error because truth matters more than reputation.
We use knowledge in service because scientific ability is a stewardship.
Therefore, the ethical foundation of BSRC research may be summarized in five commitments:
Truth without manipulation.
Conviction without arrogance.
Inquiry without autonomy.
Criticism without hostility.
Knowledge offered in worship.
Science for the Glory of God.