.Experience, ethics, planning and selection, ethic education, thought leaders.Protocols (4 mentions).Truthfulness, exclusion criteria, diagnostic criteria, treatment design, patient selection, patient follow-up.Sites (4 mentions).Certifications, requirements, screening by authorities, proceedings and operation.Declaration of Helsinki (4 mentions).Providing medication at the end of the study, giving patients information, benefits for individuals and the community.Others (3 mentions).Management and operation of health services \[*Authorities*\]. Intervention by specialists in philosophy of science \[*Justification in clinical research*\]. Data protection. \[*Ethics in a study evaluation, monitoring*\].

Q5 introduces the subject of "ethics dumping" with a brief definition. When asked whether this practice occurred in our country, nearly 50% of respondents agreed.

Q4 asked respondents to suggest areas that need improvement; the summarized answers are shown in Table [2](#Tab2){ref-type="table"}, which presents the answers to the first open ended question. Participants may contribute more than once. The categories with the greatest number of responses were the following: patients, committees, and consent.

General perception of ethics dumping in Mexico {#Sec5}
----------------------------------------------

Q6 to Q10 (Fig. [2](#Fig2){ref-type="fig"}) explore the general perception of the participants on ethics dumping in Mexico. Q6 elaborates on the topic of ethics dumping, asking whether this practice is common in our country. The answers are like those obtained in the previous question, with nearly 50% of respondents expressing agreement. Q7 asks about the severity and urgency of the situation. Again, the answers are similar: nearly 50% agree that the situation is serious and urgent; close to 20% do not believe this to be the case, and a third of respondents are unsure. Q8 elicits related examples, and in this case only 20% says they could provide an example of ethics dumping. When probed for knowledge of more tha