As directors of the University of Delaware’s Disaster Research Center, we disagree with the call by J. C. Gaillard and Lori Peek for a code of conduct for disaster-zone research (Nature 575, 440–442; 2019).

In our view, such a customized code would be likely to create a compliance morass out of all proportion to any ostensible harm. For example, the authors apply too broad a brush in referring to ‘communities’ and ‘local priorities’. Communities are characterized by politics, power differences and stakeholders clamouring for attention. The authors suggest that research should align with community priorities. But rarely is there a single local priority, so whose priorities should take precedence, and why? Those priorities might even recreate the conditions that led to the disaster, or further marginalize other voices.

A disaster zone is not easy to define. The whole of Japan was affected by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, for example — even areas that were not physically hit. And, contrary to the authors’ implication, there is no evidence that ethical concerns in post-disaster research are more severe than in other research involving human participants.

Such research can be done badly if, for example, the researcher has not properly reviewed the vast literature on quick-response best practice. Imposing criteria set by the United Nations would not prevent that. Dissemination and refinement of best practices remain the most crucial goals.