In my paper I'd like to share my perspective as a researcher in the field of Human-Computer Interaction, but also as a member of the general ethics committee at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW). The following reflections relate to the role of ethics, which occurs in a similar way in both scientific and political contexts. In the ongoing process of digital transformation in societies, there is a growing emphasis on ethics as a fundamental aspect of the social fabric, often referred to as the 'foundation' of this process. The aim is to provide reassurance and trust to the community regarding the applicable norms, values and legal foundations of coexistence in the context of datafication and algorithmisation. An examination of the role of current research ethics in the implementation of, for example, applied AI applications has to start with scientific guidelines like the "German Research Foundation" (DFG), the "German Informatics Society" (GI) and, of course, the "General Data Protection Regulation" (GDPR). In a global perspective, the ACM ("Association for Computing Machinery") and IEEE ("Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers") should be mentioned as crucial here. My starting point is the set of guidelines for "good scientific practice" by the DFG. These are designed with the aim of enhancing the quality and transparency of research. In particular, this pertains to paragraph 10, which concerns the legal and ethical framework conditions and rights of use. Beyond that, I take a comparative look at the professional ethical guidelines mentioned.

It is expected that ethics committees act as "collegiate negotiating agencies" for the purpose of ensuring the quality of research. Computer science occupies a distinctive position in comparison to classical life sciences such as medical science or psychology. It is still at the outset of the development of research ethics standards and procedures with regard to research on and with humans. Nevertheless, the German GI formulated its general ethical guidelines as early as 1994. However, as Schefe (2001) observed, these were more akin to an "immunisation strategy against ethics" than a comprehensive ethical framework. Further criticism of the mere "professional ethics of computer science" conveyed by the GI guidelines was formulated by Weber in 2002. Over the course of the subsequent decade, as machine learning became ubiquitous and the hype surrounding applied AI reached a crescendo, the importance of the ethical fringe has grown. This is evidenced by the GI's ethical case study collection, "Gewissensbits" for computer Science education. Nevertheless, the subject's interest in in-depth risk and technology assessment is more strategic and formal than serious in terms of content, despite its own increasingly society-shaping role.

References:
[1] DFG/Good Research Practice: https://www.dfg.de/en/basics-topics/basics-and-principles-of-funding/good-scientific-practice.
[2] GI/Ethical Guidelines: https://gi.de/ethicalguidelines.
[3] ACM/Ethical Guidelines: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics.
[4] IEEE/CoE: https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html
[5] "Gewissensbits", GI case study Collection: https://gewissensbits.gi.de/.
[6] Schefe, P. (2001): Ohnmacht der Ethik? Über professionelle Ethik als Immunisierungsstrategie. In: Informatik-Spektrum, S . 154-162, Ausgabe 3/24.06.2001.
[7] Weber, K. (2002): Grenzen von Ethik-Kodizes. In: KRITERION, Nr.15 (2002), pp. 3–12.

Keywords: Research Ethics, Computer Science, Digital Transformation of Society, Applied Artificial Intelligence.