The operating levy for the Lakota school district was voted down last November. The Lakota school district covers West Chester and Liberty Township, Ohio, in the suburbs of Cincinnati. The population in these two townships is mid to upper middle class and not exactly hurting for finances. For those who do not know, schools are financed via property taxes collected by the county on behalf of the school district, and limited funding comes from the State of Ohio, with next to nothing coming from the Federal Government.
For the last several years, there has been a concerted effort to defund the local school district. Why? Not sure, but it could be linked to a fringe Tea Party group. That faction insists that schools should not be supported by the public and that only parents should be paying for the privilege of educating their children. They've managed to sell the idea that the residents are Taxed Enough Already and shouldn't be taxed.
What has cost so much in the district? Lakota has won Most Excellent District with Distinction from the State of Ohio for the past several years. The schools have produced many young scholars, musicians and other artists. New elementary schools and new high schools were built to relieve the crowding from the growth of population in the area. I guess some are upset that administrating such a large district requires more and more funds.
With the reduction of operating dollars, budgets have been cut. Staff has been reduced and busing has been cut back. Academic programs are threatened and school athletics have been eliminated at the Junior High level. So with all those concerns, what are the local parents upset about? According to a first hand report I got from Junior High PTO meeting, a large portion of the parents were upset about Middle School football being cut and not the reduction of remedial Mathematics.
Unbelievable. These preppy, yuppy, over-achieving dreamers of parents are willing to sacrifice academics for athletics. What values do these parents hold? They are interested in family sports and activities, yes, but they hold these values over academics? My concern for our future has just been elevated further. I guess my new found interest in the Blues is fitting.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
French Connection
Just finished a long week with French colleagues in a good workshop. Two of our colleagues had traveled all the way from The Continent to work with us on technical details. The details aren't important for this venue, but it was extremely important for me to maintain a continuous presence in the workshop. I had, however, just a few weeks earlier arranged to take a half day off on Thursdays to be part of the honors lab for organic chemistry.
Last Wednesday had come and gone with me taking the time to attend my philosophy class. Arriving that Wednesday evening was a snow storm. The impending "white death" had closed the local public schools on Thursday morning, and I went into the office as usual, expecting to work until 1200 before heading to the University. I decided to wait to head to lab until 1300, so that I could squeeze in some additional work with the French at lunch.
Just before I went to lunch I had checked with the University and classes were still on schedule, even though the snow as starting to be excessive and the accumulations were slowly choking off freeway traffic. I spent most of lunch checking my watch and watching the snow. I finished off my lunch and bade my farewells to my colleagues. As I put on my coat and grabbed my laptop, I checked with the traffic conditions and with the University. And what did I find? University was closing!
What luck! How fortuitous! Here I was, desperate to continue work, yet committed to be at lab and class. Torn between conflicting commitments. And now, 'miracle of miracles', one commitment was canceled due to weather leaving me free to continue my close work with the French. Did some deity throw a favor my way, and inconvenienced hundreds of thousands on my behalf? I doubt it. The Universe does not work that way.
This is the Midwest in January. Several snowstorms had already hit the region. When the French had arrived earlier in the week, it was clear that a snow storm was going to hit at some point later in the week. Coincidences do happen and I was just fortunate that the University officials decided to play it safe with road conditions Thursday afternoon.
In the end, our colleagues postponed their departure by one day and we managed to complete our work. Expectations met, conflicting commitments resolved. This French Connection fell into place because of planning and work.
Last Wednesday had come and gone with me taking the time to attend my philosophy class. Arriving that Wednesday evening was a snow storm. The impending "white death" had closed the local public schools on Thursday morning, and I went into the office as usual, expecting to work until 1200 before heading to the University. I decided to wait to head to lab until 1300, so that I could squeeze in some additional work with the French at lunch.
Just before I went to lunch I had checked with the University and classes were still on schedule, even though the snow as starting to be excessive and the accumulations were slowly choking off freeway traffic. I spent most of lunch checking my watch and watching the snow. I finished off my lunch and bade my farewells to my colleagues. As I put on my coat and grabbed my laptop, I checked with the traffic conditions and with the University. And what did I find? University was closing!
What luck! How fortuitous! Here I was, desperate to continue work, yet committed to be at lab and class. Torn between conflicting commitments. And now, 'miracle of miracles', one commitment was canceled due to weather leaving me free to continue my close work with the French. Did some deity throw a favor my way, and inconvenienced hundreds of thousands on my behalf? I doubt it. The Universe does not work that way.
This is the Midwest in January. Several snowstorms had already hit the region. When the French had arrived earlier in the week, it was clear that a snow storm was going to hit at some point later in the week. Coincidences do happen and I was just fortunate that the University officials decided to play it safe with road conditions Thursday afternoon.
In the end, our colleagues postponed their departure by one day and we managed to complete our work. Expectations met, conflicting commitments resolved. This French Connection fell into place because of planning and work.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Politically Orthogonal
I'm really tired of the left / right political distinction that obsesses the simple minded American media. Therefore, in my usual contrarian way, I am staking the ground for Orthogonality. There are many dimensions to the political spectrum and I assert that I am at right angles to any and all of them.
Many in society today are crying out for an end to the politically charged atmosphere which some blame for the violent act perpetrated by a nut job gunman in Arizona. Yeah right.
Don't get me wrong. The shooting was a mindless and brutal act and done for political purposes. But what were those purposes? The perpetrator has not revealed his motives. The internet trail he left indicates many possible motives. But was it really due to the politically charged atmosphere? I don't think there is evidence to support that claim. I don't think it can be demonstrated that a causal link exists between the political atmosphere and that trigger finger. Does that mean we must stifle the language behind the politically charged atmosphere?
The problem with restricting that type of speech rests with the definition of what constitutes a dangerous, politically charged atmosphere. Given the definition by some on the Left the past few days, that would result in censoring Patrick Henry, John Adams and even Saul Alinsky. All of those were claimed to be dangerous and vitriolic. The Right doesn't get off easy. They point at the language of Jihad in the Qur'an and claim that the atmosphere created by some Imans led to the Fort Hood shootings, the 9/11 attack and even the existence of al Queda. Following their definition would lead to censoring Islamic services and, and to be consistent, Christian and Judaic services and speakers. (and nut jobs like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps)
Freedom of Expression is absolute but charged with responsibilities. However, the right to not be offended does not exist and there is no responsibility on the part of a speaker to respect any claim to such a right. There is a responsibility to not causally incite violence. (Charlie Manson causally incited violence by ordering that violence; screaming fire in a crowded theater causally creates a hazard) Civil penalties exist for demonstrated libel and slander. Political speech has contained blatant lies and misdirections since before the days of the Roman Republic and early Greek democracies. In that context it must always be taken with a grain a salt.
Freedom of Expression is central to my objection to any Blasphemy law. Blasphemy is a victimless, thought crime. If you think you are a victim of blasphemy, think again. You may be offended by what I may have said about your religion and that's just too bad. You can't demonstrate with statistically significant data that my denial of the existence of all of this planet's historical gods is wrong. Also, the demand to respect another person's religion is a violation of my Freedom of Association. You don't need to respect the claims of the Aztec that required tearing out a human heart each day. How is that different, in principle, from respecting any of today's religions?
So I'm orthogonal and off a 2D chart. To some, I appear to be right wing to others I appear liberal or socialist. I own firearms, including 2 pistols, but I think I should be licensed to own and carry and should be required to submit myself to physical and mental evaluation for possession and use of such dangerous machines in the same manner that I must be re-licensed to drive and must undergo physicals and biennials to fly. I am not red or blue; I am purple with a tinge of green, gray and white.
Many in society today are crying out for an end to the politically charged atmosphere which some blame for the violent act perpetrated by a nut job gunman in Arizona. Yeah right.
Don't get me wrong. The shooting was a mindless and brutal act and done for political purposes. But what were those purposes? The perpetrator has not revealed his motives. The internet trail he left indicates many possible motives. But was it really due to the politically charged atmosphere? I don't think there is evidence to support that claim. I don't think it can be demonstrated that a causal link exists between the political atmosphere and that trigger finger. Does that mean we must stifle the language behind the politically charged atmosphere?
The problem with restricting that type of speech rests with the definition of what constitutes a dangerous, politically charged atmosphere. Given the definition by some on the Left the past few days, that would result in censoring Patrick Henry, John Adams and even Saul Alinsky. All of those were claimed to be dangerous and vitriolic. The Right doesn't get off easy. They point at the language of Jihad in the Qur'an and claim that the atmosphere created by some Imans led to the Fort Hood shootings, the 9/11 attack and even the existence of al Queda. Following their definition would lead to censoring Islamic services and, and to be consistent, Christian and Judaic services and speakers. (and nut jobs like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps)
Freedom of Expression is absolute but charged with responsibilities. However, the right to not be offended does not exist and there is no responsibility on the part of a speaker to respect any claim to such a right. There is a responsibility to not causally incite violence. (Charlie Manson causally incited violence by ordering that violence; screaming fire in a crowded theater causally creates a hazard) Civil penalties exist for demonstrated libel and slander. Political speech has contained blatant lies and misdirections since before the days of the Roman Republic and early Greek democracies. In that context it must always be taken with a grain a salt.
Freedom of Expression is central to my objection to any Blasphemy law. Blasphemy is a victimless, thought crime. If you think you are a victim of blasphemy, think again. You may be offended by what I may have said about your religion and that's just too bad. You can't demonstrate with statistically significant data that my denial of the existence of all of this planet's historical gods is wrong. Also, the demand to respect another person's religion is a violation of my Freedom of Association. You don't need to respect the claims of the Aztec that required tearing out a human heart each day. How is that different, in principle, from respecting any of today's religions?
So I'm orthogonal and off a 2D chart. To some, I appear to be right wing to others I appear liberal or socialist. I own firearms, including 2 pistols, but I think I should be licensed to own and carry and should be required to submit myself to physical and mental evaluation for possession and use of such dangerous machines in the same manner that I must be re-licensed to drive and must undergo physicals and biennials to fly. I am not red or blue; I am purple with a tinge of green, gray and white.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Honors Lab
Soooooooo, I mentioned that I was now in the Organic Chemistry Honor's lab to my colleagues at work because I needed to explain why I would be adjusting my hours. One of my co-workers then says, "What does that get you? What will being in the Honor's lab do for your transcript?"
Now, are you kidding me? What is that supposed to mean?
Now, are you kidding me? What is that supposed to mean?
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Short Vacation
Back to classes. Two Organic Chemistry lectures, one Organic Chemistry lab and one Philosophy lecture. The philosophy class is Contemporary Moral Issues, so that should provide more material for me to write about here.
Now to finish the protocol write-up for the Organic Chem lab. Tonight we are synthesizing LUMINOL. Yes, that substance that is used on the TV shows to visualize trace amounts of blood. The lab's name is Chemiluminescence. Cool stuff
Now to finish the protocol write-up for the Organic Chem lab. Tonight we are synthesizing LUMINOL. Yes, that substance that is used on the TV shows to visualize trace amounts of blood. The lab's name is Chemiluminescence. Cool stuff
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Happy New Year. Welcome to 1140 AD
We just watched the TV adaptation of Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth, a romp through the period of The Anarchy in 12th Century England. I do love historical fiction and this one is set in the war of succession after King Henry I died. The rival heirs to the Crown and their armies fought each other and dealt with intrigue of their supporters and the church.
While watching the interplay between the rivals for the Crown and the aggressive representatives of the Church, it brought to mind a line I read from the book's sequel, World Without End. I had thought the following quote was completely and totally asinine:
"Mankind is fallible, so we should not rely on our own reasoning. We cannot hope to understand the world - all we can do is stand amazed at God's creation. True knowledge comes only from revelation. We should not question received wisdom."
- Father Prior Godwyn
Father Godwyn was correct in one sense. We should not rely solely on our own reasoning; we must trust empirical data, physical evidence. If the choice is between a beautiful, well thought out theory, and overwhelming physical data that contradicts that theory, then the data wins. True knowledge does not come from revelation, it comes from a complete, thorough and exhaustive investigation of the physical universe.
While watching the interplay between the rivals for the Crown and the aggressive representatives of the Church, it brought to mind a line I read from the book's sequel, World Without End. I had thought the following quote was completely and totally asinine:
"Mankind is fallible, so we should not rely on our own reasoning. We cannot hope to understand the world - all we can do is stand amazed at God's creation. True knowledge comes only from revelation. We should not question received wisdom."
- Father Prior Godwyn
Father Godwyn was correct in one sense. We should not rely solely on our own reasoning; we must trust empirical data, physical evidence. If the choice is between a beautiful, well thought out theory, and overwhelming physical data that contradicts that theory, then the data wins. True knowledge does not come from revelation, it comes from a complete, thorough and exhaustive investigation of the physical universe.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Are spirits only for drinking?
Isn't amazing that so much of Western religion depends on a single assumption: the existence of a soul or spirit.
Now, what do I mean by a soul? From an Abrahamic point of view, the soul is that immaterial entity that is supposed to be 'sitting' behind our eyes, driving our actions. This spirit interacts with our bodies and minds, and most remarkably, existed before birth and survives our death.
With these traits, the spirit must be physical in some manner and in principle, measurable. At what level does the soul interact with the brain? Does it interact at the sodium ion level in the neurons that are part of the neural signal process? Does it interact at the cell level? Or is it at the whole brain level? What is the mechanism? Or is the soul just the mind? The complex patterns of neurochemical signals make up the mind and in some sense, the mind is like computer software. If that's the case, the mechanisms of interaction can be found and are the subject of active neuroscience research.
But that mind depends on the physical properties of the brain. And without that brain, the mind has no place to run (at least until technology makes that possible). How can that survive death without some 'upload' process? And since that mind is information, a complex pattern, that depends on physical processes, how can that pattern exist without some physical container? Any entity that is not material, that is not measurable in any way, does not exist in our physical reality, and is in fact, immaterial.
So, does the soul exist? I think yes, if all that is meant is the mind; a mind that develops and grows through life, but disappears and disintegrates upon death. But if the soul is some ethereal entity that has no physical form or is not measurable, then I don't think that such a soul exists. And without an eternal soul, what meaning does religious salvation have? The threat of hell or the promise of paradise, which many contend are the hallmarks of Western Abrahamic religion, ends up being meaningless.
Now, what do I mean by a soul? From an Abrahamic point of view, the soul is that immaterial entity that is supposed to be 'sitting' behind our eyes, driving our actions. This spirit interacts with our bodies and minds, and most remarkably, existed before birth and survives our death.
With these traits, the spirit must be physical in some manner and in principle, measurable. At what level does the soul interact with the brain? Does it interact at the sodium ion level in the neurons that are part of the neural signal process? Does it interact at the cell level? Or is it at the whole brain level? What is the mechanism? Or is the soul just the mind? The complex patterns of neurochemical signals make up the mind and in some sense, the mind is like computer software. If that's the case, the mechanisms of interaction can be found and are the subject of active neuroscience research.
But that mind depends on the physical properties of the brain. And without that brain, the mind has no place to run (at least until technology makes that possible). How can that survive death without some 'upload' process? And since that mind is information, a complex pattern, that depends on physical processes, how can that pattern exist without some physical container? Any entity that is not material, that is not measurable in any way, does not exist in our physical reality, and is in fact, immaterial.
So, does the soul exist? I think yes, if all that is meant is the mind; a mind that develops and grows through life, but disappears and disintegrates upon death. But if the soul is some ethereal entity that has no physical form or is not measurable, then I don't think that such a soul exists. And without an eternal soul, what meaning does religious salvation have? The threat of hell or the promise of paradise, which many contend are the hallmarks of Western Abrahamic religion, ends up being meaningless.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
The MikeM Manifesto
As may be gathered by reading some of my other posts, I do have a few biases, which I will spell out. The first is that everything existing in the natural world can be explained by natural processes only. The second bias is derived from the first, and that is that anything outside of the natural world can not interact with the natural world unless it's through natural processes. The third bias is that the only way to know truth is via the scientific method. And the fourth bias, is that truth is approached asymptotically: certainty is impossible.
What do I mean by the natural world? I equate it with physical reality defined by the 4 dimensional space-time that we humans experience in our lives. This leaves open the possibility of extra-dimensional entities interacting with our reality, although such interactions can only occur via the four primary physical forces. All natural processes are measurable in principle, although in practice, our technology may not be adequate to resolve all the details of these processes. Without modern technology, it would not be possible to measure or manipulate electric or magnetic fields, yet they have always been measurable in principle. Physical or Natural Laws are the interactions of these natural processes with physical reality, so as such it makes no sense to state that natural laws can be suspended. In the case that a physical law appears to have been suspended or 'violated', it would be more proper to state that we do not have all the details of the case in question and have not grasped the limitations of our understanding of the physical interactions.
An example of this would be the change in behavior of objects at extremely high velocities. The laws of physics appears to be violated. But this appeared as such because our understanding of the relationship of objects with velocity was not adequate with Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is what drops out, when the limit of the ratio of an object's velocity to the speed of light approaches zero. Special relativity becomes Newtonian physics at low velocities. Newtonian Physics has been used for the majority of the planet's civil and mechanical engineering projects and we have landed humans on the Moon and rovers on Mars using it. It is not complete, but we have a better understanding of its limitations for velocity. (and size, gravitational fields)
I admit that the statement "the only way to know truth is via the scientific method" seems absolute, but given the other options, I can't see any alternative, valid statement. There are 4 methods of knowing, or as Charles S Peirce puts it, "Fixating Beliefs": Tenacity, Authority, Reason, and Science. I will briefly go over each, although Peirce did a much better job in his essay, "The Fixation of Belief", .
The first method of knowing is Tenacity or the method of personal revelation. This method reduces down to a person fixating on a belief solely due to personal revelation (ideas which came to her out of the blue) and stubbornly holding on to that belief despite anything, usually evidence to the contrary.
The method of Authority depends on the supposed superiority of an outside agent to determine or settle truth. The agent can take the form of a person or meme. It depends on the ability of the authority to overcome disagreements as long as those subject to the authority remain subjected. The Bible and Qur'an are examples of agents of Authority.
The method of Reason relies solely on "what is agreeable to reason". This is an intellectual method, but is subject to whims of modes of thinking and paradigms. It can be logically based but not linked to evidence.
Lastly, there is Science. This method depends on empirical measurements, self testing, criticism and continuous improvement. Science is an algorithm, a process of learning that methodically approaches truth, and as such, it may never reach Truth.
So does this rule out a 'supernatural'? That depends on what is meant by the 'supernatural' If, as most claim, the supernatural is 'beyond nature' and not subject to natural laws, then I would submit whether or not a supernatural exists is immaterial. Anything that is claimed too be supernatural is beyond our knowledge or capability to know. All claims of a supernatural interacting with our world are therefore automatically suspect, and in fact, make no sense. Any claim of knowing the supernatural is also suspect. At best, those entities that appear at first glance to be supernatural are indeed natural: we just do not have the understanding of the physical processes. Isaac Asimov once said that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
TO BE CONTINUED (amended, edited, etc.)
Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly, vol. 12, pp. 1-15.
Charles S. Peirce, Selected Writings
Wikipedia Entry
What do I mean by the natural world? I equate it with physical reality defined by the 4 dimensional space-time that we humans experience in our lives. This leaves open the possibility of extra-dimensional entities interacting with our reality, although such interactions can only occur via the four primary physical forces. All natural processes are measurable in principle, although in practice, our technology may not be adequate to resolve all the details of these processes. Without modern technology, it would not be possible to measure or manipulate electric or magnetic fields, yet they have always been measurable in principle. Physical or Natural Laws are the interactions of these natural processes with physical reality, so as such it makes no sense to state that natural laws can be suspended. In the case that a physical law appears to have been suspended or 'violated', it would be more proper to state that we do not have all the details of the case in question and have not grasped the limitations of our understanding of the physical interactions.
An example of this would be the change in behavior of objects at extremely high velocities. The laws of physics appears to be violated. But this appeared as such because our understanding of the relationship of objects with velocity was not adequate with Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is what drops out, when the limit of the ratio of an object's velocity to the speed of light approaches zero. Special relativity becomes Newtonian physics at low velocities. Newtonian Physics has been used for the majority of the planet's civil and mechanical engineering projects and we have landed humans on the Moon and rovers on Mars using it. It is not complete, but we have a better understanding of its limitations for velocity. (and size, gravitational fields)
I admit that the statement "the only way to know truth is via the scientific method" seems absolute, but given the other options, I can't see any alternative, valid statement. There are 4 methods of knowing, or as Charles S Peirce puts it, "Fixating Beliefs": Tenacity, Authority, Reason, and Science. I will briefly go over each, although Peirce did a much better job in his essay, "The Fixation of Belief", .
The first method of knowing is Tenacity or the method of personal revelation. This method reduces down to a person fixating on a belief solely due to personal revelation (ideas which came to her out of the blue) and stubbornly holding on to that belief despite anything, usually evidence to the contrary.
The method of Authority depends on the supposed superiority of an outside agent to determine or settle truth. The agent can take the form of a person or meme. It depends on the ability of the authority to overcome disagreements as long as those subject to the authority remain subjected. The Bible and Qur'an are examples of agents of Authority.
The method of Reason relies solely on "what is agreeable to reason". This is an intellectual method, but is subject to whims of modes of thinking and paradigms. It can be logically based but not linked to evidence.
Lastly, there is Science. This method depends on empirical measurements, self testing, criticism and continuous improvement. Science is an algorithm, a process of learning that methodically approaches truth, and as such, it may never reach Truth.
So does this rule out a 'supernatural'? That depends on what is meant by the 'supernatural' If, as most claim, the supernatural is 'beyond nature' and not subject to natural laws, then I would submit whether or not a supernatural exists is immaterial. Anything that is claimed too be supernatural is beyond our knowledge or capability to know. All claims of a supernatural interacting with our world are therefore automatically suspect, and in fact, make no sense. Any claim of knowing the supernatural is also suspect. At best, those entities that appear at first glance to be supernatural are indeed natural: we just do not have the understanding of the physical processes. Isaac Asimov once said that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
TO BE CONTINUED (amended, edited, etc.)
Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly, vol. 12, pp. 1-15.
Charles S. Peirce, Selected Writings
Wikipedia Entry
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Addicted
I have been spending an obscene amount of time chatting on Yahoo chat in the Christian chatrooms (CC9 to be exact). Why is that? It's not because of my religion, since I have none. It seems that I like the conflict with the crack pot believers. I also enjoy reading their take on religious belief, current issues and events. I've saved umpteen hours of conversations and planned on editing that into a compilation of whacky ideas and beliefs. For the more sensitive out there, these chat rooms aren't populated by your typical, run of the mill believer. These true believers are impervious to evidence or contrary ideas, and most display their total ignorance of basic science, philosophy and history proudly. They proudly hit the ignore button on anyone who contradicts them, and strangely enough, broadcasts that action to everyone in the chatroom. It is something to be experienced.
Alas, despite my enjoyment, I must cut back on the time I spend in there. I'm not saying anything that makes a difference, and the other non-believers that I've gotten to know in the room, are only there fleetingly. The rooms also give a strong illusion of friendship and of knowing people, strictly from their thoughts typed onto the screen. I find that I lose interest in being in the rooms unless my 'friends' are there. This just tells me that I need to connect with my friends and make new friends, IN REAL LIFE.
So to my chatroom buddies that may be reading this, so long. I may be popping in here and there, just to whet my appetite, but I will endeavor to spend less time in the rooms. I am hardly perfect and I expect that I will break and join in. If I do, please remind me of this note and post.
Alas, despite my enjoyment, I must cut back on the time I spend in there. I'm not saying anything that makes a difference, and the other non-believers that I've gotten to know in the room, are only there fleetingly. The rooms also give a strong illusion of friendship and of knowing people, strictly from their thoughts typed onto the screen. I find that I lose interest in being in the rooms unless my 'friends' are there. This just tells me that I need to connect with my friends and make new friends, IN REAL LIFE.
So to my chatroom buddies that may be reading this, so long. I may be popping in here and there, just to whet my appetite, but I will endeavor to spend less time in the rooms. I am hardly perfect and I expect that I will break and join in. If I do, please remind me of this note and post.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Ethics of Scientific Research - Final Exam Question 2
This was my answer to question #2 of the Ethics of Scientific Research Philosophy Class from Autumn Quarter 2009
What is the role of competition in scientific research? How does competition help research? How does competition hinder research? Discuss the effects of competition on the Human Genome Project and/or the events surrounding Rosalind Franklin and Photo 51.
Competition’s role in scientific research was clearly demonstrated in the Human Genome Project. In fact, many of the last century’s technological and scientific triumphs, from the development of nuclear energy (and weapons), the technological development of high speed, commercial air travel, the development of manned space flight leading to the landing on the moon by humans, and to the development of the personal computer, were positively driven by competition. Competition is a fact of life due to the limitation of resources and due to the human desire for recognition. Competition ultimately helps scientific research; however, competition also exposes the dark nature of humanity and in some instances actually hinders scientific research.
Resources are scarce. This single fact drives a race to gain a portion of those resources for one’s own use. This race, this competition, motivates individuals to work faster, to conserve resources and prevent waste. Competition drives individuals to form coalitions, to pool resources and efforts , to gather the best minds together to solve problems. Competition inspires dedication, innovation and the search for better ideas. The role of competition in scientific research is encompassed by the entire aforementioned elements. The nature of the competition could be between academic groups, between commercial groups, between public and private groups or between governments and/or nation states.
On large scale efforts that take man-years to finish can be accomplished quicker with pooled resources and efforts spurred by competition. Even on small scale projects, innovation and new ideas are spurred by competition. During the Second World War, the fatal competition between the Allies and Axis powers led to a perceived race to the development of the atomic bomb by the Manhattan Project. In a few short years, the dedication and innovation of the researchers led to advances in the knowledge of nuclear devices and in the subsidiary technologies involved in deploying those weapons. Regardless of the morality of nuclear weapons, the research involved was positively helped by the perceived competition. The less fatal competition between the Soviet Union and the United States led to the development of heavy launch vehicles that sent humans to outer space and to the surface of the moon. Those also led to the fantastic journeys of unmanned robotic probes to all of the planets of our solar system, all within 40 years of the first flight into orbit. Competition in this case was also positively helped by the competition.
Science is hindered by the breakdown of trust, by lack of communication, and by neglecting moral obligations. The ugly side of human nature is exposed in some competitions, and can hinder scientific research. The race to be first may tempt some to falsify data, steal data, plagiarize results, and to perpetuate outright fraud. This leads to the breakdown of trust necessary to the exchange and use of ideas in science. It also leads to problems with public acceptance and support of research. One case in point is the outright fraud surrounding Piltdown man. Despite the exposure of the fraud by scientific researchers employing better scientific techniques, the fraud instilled a distrust of evolutionary biology in the less educated segments of the general public that persists to this day.
Competition may lead some to withhold data and block the free flow of ideas. Science depends on the honest and free flow of information between investigators through both informal means and through peer reviewed publications. Competition may also tempt some to violate moral principles, such as the principle of inherent human dignity and worth, non-malfeasance, autonomy, beneficence and justice. The temptation to use people as mere means to an end may also be manifested. These failures of moral obligations also hinder scientific research through the breakdown of trust between researchers and between researchers and the public.
The Human Genome Project demonstrates many of the positive aspects of competition helping scientific research. The entrance of Craig Venter into the race to sequence the human genome spurred technological advances and innovation that ultimately led to the entire project being completed under budget and ahead of schedule. The rapid dissemination of ideas and data on the public portion of the project helped other members of the public portion as well as the private portion. Many public institutions got involved to ‘beat’ the private venture led by Venter. Advances in computer analysis and automation driven by Venter’s ideas and public institutional spending sped the completion of the project. Venter’s motivation was primarily commercial in nature, evidenced by his lucrative lifestyle and interests, but there also appears to be an element of pure scientific motives. As such, there was some hoarding of data to protect Venter’s company’s interests, but overall the competition helped this research project.
The discovery of the structure of DNA, while publicly attributed to Watson and Crick, is surrounded by events that serve as an example of the negative aspects of scientific competition. Rosalind Franklin’s work in crystallography and the images she took of DNA were essential in the discovery of its double helix nature. She had provided critical reviews of previous attempts to determine the structure of DNA and was a leader in the field of molecular structure determination. However, the conflict of interests of her supervisors and peers led to the outright plagiarism and theft of her work.
Her peers, Maurice Wilkin being one, were involved in the suspicious transfer of the critical DNA image, Photo 51, to Watson and Crick without her approval or knowledge. Wilkins appeared to have several conflicts of interest in his dealings with Ms. Franklin, one of which was that he was a personal friend of Dr. Crick. Her supervisor, the head of her department at Kings College in London, colluded with the head of Watson and Crick’s lab to ensure a favorable publication in Nature for Watson, Crick and Wilkins. In essence, Rosalind Franklin was used as a mere means to an end, a violation of a basic moral principle.
Competition hindered scientific research in this case due to moral failings of the principals involved. Even though in the end, the structure of DNA was discovered by these efforts, research may have proceeded at a better pace if all of the participants were aware that they were involved in a competition. Rosalind Franklin appears to not have been aware of the competition. If she had been asked to collaborate, she may not have concentrated on the ‘A’ form of DNA, while only giving a cursory effort on the ‘B’ form that ultimately provided the key clues to the molecular structure of DNA. She could have advanced the research by several months if not years if she had been more fully involved. In the end, her significant and vital contributions were ignored and forgotten by the public at large.
Competition is a prime driver of human innovation made necessary by the limitation of resources. And even though competition may expose the dark nature of humanity and tempt many into failing their moral obligations, it is extremely helpful in scientific research, and in general it helps more than it hinders.
What is the role of competition in scientific research? How does competition help research? How does competition hinder research? Discuss the effects of competition on the Human Genome Project and/or the events surrounding Rosalind Franklin and Photo 51.
Competition’s role in scientific research was clearly demonstrated in the Human Genome Project. In fact, many of the last century’s technological and scientific triumphs, from the development of nuclear energy (and weapons), the technological development of high speed, commercial air travel, the development of manned space flight leading to the landing on the moon by humans, and to the development of the personal computer, were positively driven by competition. Competition is a fact of life due to the limitation of resources and due to the human desire for recognition. Competition ultimately helps scientific research; however, competition also exposes the dark nature of humanity and in some instances actually hinders scientific research.
Resources are scarce. This single fact drives a race to gain a portion of those resources for one’s own use. This race, this competition, motivates individuals to work faster, to conserve resources and prevent waste. Competition drives individuals to form coalitions, to pool resources and efforts , to gather the best minds together to solve problems. Competition inspires dedication, innovation and the search for better ideas. The role of competition in scientific research is encompassed by the entire aforementioned elements. The nature of the competition could be between academic groups, between commercial groups, between public and private groups or between governments and/or nation states.
On large scale efforts that take man-years to finish can be accomplished quicker with pooled resources and efforts spurred by competition. Even on small scale projects, innovation and new ideas are spurred by competition. During the Second World War, the fatal competition between the Allies and Axis powers led to a perceived race to the development of the atomic bomb by the Manhattan Project. In a few short years, the dedication and innovation of the researchers led to advances in the knowledge of nuclear devices and in the subsidiary technologies involved in deploying those weapons. Regardless of the morality of nuclear weapons, the research involved was positively helped by the perceived competition. The less fatal competition between the Soviet Union and the United States led to the development of heavy launch vehicles that sent humans to outer space and to the surface of the moon. Those also led to the fantastic journeys of unmanned robotic probes to all of the planets of our solar system, all within 40 years of the first flight into orbit. Competition in this case was also positively helped by the competition.
Science is hindered by the breakdown of trust, by lack of communication, and by neglecting moral obligations. The ugly side of human nature is exposed in some competitions, and can hinder scientific research. The race to be first may tempt some to falsify data, steal data, plagiarize results, and to perpetuate outright fraud. This leads to the breakdown of trust necessary to the exchange and use of ideas in science. It also leads to problems with public acceptance and support of research. One case in point is the outright fraud surrounding Piltdown man. Despite the exposure of the fraud by scientific researchers employing better scientific techniques, the fraud instilled a distrust of evolutionary biology in the less educated segments of the general public that persists to this day.
Competition may lead some to withhold data and block the free flow of ideas. Science depends on the honest and free flow of information between investigators through both informal means and through peer reviewed publications. Competition may also tempt some to violate moral principles, such as the principle of inherent human dignity and worth, non-malfeasance, autonomy, beneficence and justice. The temptation to use people as mere means to an end may also be manifested. These failures of moral obligations also hinder scientific research through the breakdown of trust between researchers and between researchers and the public.
The Human Genome Project demonstrates many of the positive aspects of competition helping scientific research. The entrance of Craig Venter into the race to sequence the human genome spurred technological advances and innovation that ultimately led to the entire project being completed under budget and ahead of schedule. The rapid dissemination of ideas and data on the public portion of the project helped other members of the public portion as well as the private portion. Many public institutions got involved to ‘beat’ the private venture led by Venter. Advances in computer analysis and automation driven by Venter’s ideas and public institutional spending sped the completion of the project. Venter’s motivation was primarily commercial in nature, evidenced by his lucrative lifestyle and interests, but there also appears to be an element of pure scientific motives. As such, there was some hoarding of data to protect Venter’s company’s interests, but overall the competition helped this research project.
The discovery of the structure of DNA, while publicly attributed to Watson and Crick, is surrounded by events that serve as an example of the negative aspects of scientific competition. Rosalind Franklin’s work in crystallography and the images she took of DNA were essential in the discovery of its double helix nature. She had provided critical reviews of previous attempts to determine the structure of DNA and was a leader in the field of molecular structure determination. However, the conflict of interests of her supervisors and peers led to the outright plagiarism and theft of her work.
Her peers, Maurice Wilkin being one, were involved in the suspicious transfer of the critical DNA image, Photo 51, to Watson and Crick without her approval or knowledge. Wilkins appeared to have several conflicts of interest in his dealings with Ms. Franklin, one of which was that he was a personal friend of Dr. Crick. Her supervisor, the head of her department at Kings College in London, colluded with the head of Watson and Crick’s lab to ensure a favorable publication in Nature for Watson, Crick and Wilkins. In essence, Rosalind Franklin was used as a mere means to an end, a violation of a basic moral principle.
Competition hindered scientific research in this case due to moral failings of the principals involved. Even though in the end, the structure of DNA was discovered by these efforts, research may have proceeded at a better pace if all of the participants were aware that they were involved in a competition. Rosalind Franklin appears to not have been aware of the competition. If she had been asked to collaborate, she may not have concentrated on the ‘A’ form of DNA, while only giving a cursory effort on the ‘B’ form that ultimately provided the key clues to the molecular structure of DNA. She could have advanced the research by several months if not years if she had been more fully involved. In the end, her significant and vital contributions were ignored and forgotten by the public at large.
Competition is a prime driver of human innovation made necessary by the limitation of resources. And even though competition may expose the dark nature of humanity and tempt many into failing their moral obligations, it is extremely helpful in scientific research, and in general it helps more than it hinders.
Ethics of Scientific Research - Final Exam Question 1
This was my answer to question #1 of the Ethics of Scientific Research Philosophy Class from Autumn Quarter 2009
From the researcher’s perspective, is gene patenting a good thing? Articulate your stance on gene patenting and justify your thesis using either Kantian theory or utilitarianism. Discuss and respond to one possible objection to your argument.
The Human Genome Project advanced the technology involved in exploring the genetic code found within the human cell as well as all living beings. Gene patenting, a serious legal and ethical issue, arose from this advance in science and technology. Attitudes regarding the patenting of genes vary among the stakeholders, but from the researcher’s perspective, gene patenting is not a good thing. The ethical nature of gene patenting, however, is ultimately not subject to the perception of the stakeholders. The patenting of genes is not an ethically sound use of intellectual property laws and Kantian ethical theory supports this stance.
A gene is the sequence of nucleic bases, adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine (A, G, T, C) present in DNA that ultimately produces, via mRNA transcription, ribosome mRNA translation and tRNA assembly, a protein in a cell of a living entity. The technology and science of gene sequencing involves the extraction of DNA from an individual living being and the determination of the sequence of the nucleic bases in that DNA. Defining the particular sequences of nucleic bases that constitutes a gene involves determining what chromosome contains the gene, what portion of that chromosome contains the gene, and determining what protein the gene encodes. The genes and chromosomes are inherent in the total genome of an individual, whether that individual is a bacterium, a plant, or an animal, including humans. Human ingenuity is involved in these discoveries; however, the particular DNA sequence that defines a gene and the protein that it encodes was present within the population long before the advent of gene sequencing.
Patents are intellectual property rights conferred upon an inventor or assignees for a limited amount of time, usually 20 years from the time of filing an application for the patent. A patent guarantees exclusive rights to an inventor to prevent others from using the invention without the inventor’s permission. However, academic researchers have an exemption that allows for the production or use of the invention for research use only, without the permission of the patent holder.
Patents are awarded for an invention based on the following considerations: it is a product of human ingenuity, its novelty, its non-obviousness, its usefulness, and its reduction to practice. Prior to the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, living things were held to be unpatentable, since they appeared to fail the aforementioned considerations. However, that ruling changed the allowable items that can be patented to include living beings.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) involved the patenting of a genetically modified bacterium to clean up oil spills. The ruling, which awarded a patent to Dr Chakrabarty, set the legal precedence for all the subsequent biotechnology patents including genetic patents. The legal leap from a human defined, genetically modified bacterium, which in many ways has the characteristics of being a product of human ingenuity, to the patenting of portions of the genetic code inherent in all living beings, exposed several ethical issues. The legal details of the leap are not relevant to the ethical issues at hand, and will not be discussed further.
A patent on a gene guarantees the exclusive rights to the use of the genetic information and its associated protein. These rights confer on the researcher or assignee a monopoly on the gene and protein that may be present in all living organisms due to the genetic interconnectivity of all life on Earth. When applied to genes found in the human genome, this property right, to a part of all of our bodies, is conferred to a limited group of people. This essentially treats living beings and people as no more than assemblages of commercial products. This is the core of the ethical issue at hand.
In Kantian ethical theory, the respect of humanity version of the Categorical Imperative (CI) states that one should treat humanity always as an end in itself, never only as a means. Human beings have intrinsic moral dignity or worth, we should not abuse, manipulate, exploit, or deceive people in order to achieve specific goals. The universality version of the CI, that people should act in such a way that one's conduct could become a universal law for all people, is also relevant to this discussion. The concept and practice of gene patenting violates the ethical principle that human beings have intrinsic moral dignity or worth. A property right to parts of a body is different only in scale to a property right to the entire body. Property rights to an individual are a denial of the intrinsic moral worth of the individual. This violation of such an important ethical principle is not a practice that should become a universal law for all people, and therefore, the patenting of genes is not an ethically sound use of intellectual property laws.
Academic researchers are motivated by the “Publish or Perish” nature of academia and have a desire to monopolize information prior to publication. Tenure, promotions, further grants, and possibly reduction in teaching duties are rewards for being the first to publish and significantly contribute to a field. Ideally, academic researchers have no interest in patent protection, while their academic employers, while interested in institutional reputation, may be interested in the financial gain from the monopolization of intellectual property. Non-academic researchers while still motivated by the pure science involved are ultimately motivated by the financial rewards associated with success as well as the financial reward of continual employment. Their employers are interested in the return on the investment made and often insist on the complete ownership of all intellectual property created by the employees.
At first glance, the commercial operation and researcher have a vested interest in monopolizing the fruits of their efforts via patent protection. But researchers should be wary of this approach. Applying the universality version of the CI, they should act such that their behavior should become a universal law but the universality of such behavior would severely hinder further research. Due to the nature of the US Patent system, applications for a patent are not public knowledge, and research into a gene could be unwitting patent infringement. Fear of litigation being such a strong deterrent to action, research would grind to a halt. Hence, one of the prime arguments for gene patenting, that it promotes competition, is compromised by the squelching of all research.
The protections offered by a patent on a gene may provide a motivation to finish first and to beat the competition. Without that protection of the intellectual property rights, the desire to invest resources to an endeavor that would not have guaranteed returns due to monopolization would not be present. The consequences from not competing could be waste of resources and even the avoidance of research. However, Kantian ethical theory is not concerned with consequences; it is concerned with the duty of moral agents to act morally. If all researchers patented a portion of the genome, then individual humans would in essence be parceled out into a mosaic of intellectual properties. Human beings have an intrinsic moral worth and gene patenting is a clear violation of that ethical principle.
From the researcher’s perspective, is gene patenting a good thing? Articulate your stance on gene patenting and justify your thesis using either Kantian theory or utilitarianism. Discuss and respond to one possible objection to your argument.
The Human Genome Project advanced the technology involved in exploring the genetic code found within the human cell as well as all living beings. Gene patenting, a serious legal and ethical issue, arose from this advance in science and technology. Attitudes regarding the patenting of genes vary among the stakeholders, but from the researcher’s perspective, gene patenting is not a good thing. The ethical nature of gene patenting, however, is ultimately not subject to the perception of the stakeholders. The patenting of genes is not an ethically sound use of intellectual property laws and Kantian ethical theory supports this stance.
A gene is the sequence of nucleic bases, adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine (A, G, T, C) present in DNA that ultimately produces, via mRNA transcription, ribosome mRNA translation and tRNA assembly, a protein in a cell of a living entity. The technology and science of gene sequencing involves the extraction of DNA from an individual living being and the determination of the sequence of the nucleic bases in that DNA. Defining the particular sequences of nucleic bases that constitutes a gene involves determining what chromosome contains the gene, what portion of that chromosome contains the gene, and determining what protein the gene encodes. The genes and chromosomes are inherent in the total genome of an individual, whether that individual is a bacterium, a plant, or an animal, including humans. Human ingenuity is involved in these discoveries; however, the particular DNA sequence that defines a gene and the protein that it encodes was present within the population long before the advent of gene sequencing.
Patents are intellectual property rights conferred upon an inventor or assignees for a limited amount of time, usually 20 years from the time of filing an application for the patent. A patent guarantees exclusive rights to an inventor to prevent others from using the invention without the inventor’s permission. However, academic researchers have an exemption that allows for the production or use of the invention for research use only, without the permission of the patent holder.
Patents are awarded for an invention based on the following considerations: it is a product of human ingenuity, its novelty, its non-obviousness, its usefulness, and its reduction to practice. Prior to the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, living things were held to be unpatentable, since they appeared to fail the aforementioned considerations. However, that ruling changed the allowable items that can be patented to include living beings.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) involved the patenting of a genetically modified bacterium to clean up oil spills. The ruling, which awarded a patent to Dr Chakrabarty, set the legal precedence for all the subsequent biotechnology patents including genetic patents. The legal leap from a human defined, genetically modified bacterium, which in many ways has the characteristics of being a product of human ingenuity, to the patenting of portions of the genetic code inherent in all living beings, exposed several ethical issues. The legal details of the leap are not relevant to the ethical issues at hand, and will not be discussed further.
A patent on a gene guarantees the exclusive rights to the use of the genetic information and its associated protein. These rights confer on the researcher or assignee a monopoly on the gene and protein that may be present in all living organisms due to the genetic interconnectivity of all life on Earth. When applied to genes found in the human genome, this property right, to a part of all of our bodies, is conferred to a limited group of people. This essentially treats living beings and people as no more than assemblages of commercial products. This is the core of the ethical issue at hand.
In Kantian ethical theory, the respect of humanity version of the Categorical Imperative (CI) states that one should treat humanity always as an end in itself, never only as a means. Human beings have intrinsic moral dignity or worth, we should not abuse, manipulate, exploit, or deceive people in order to achieve specific goals. The universality version of the CI, that people should act in such a way that one's conduct could become a universal law for all people, is also relevant to this discussion. The concept and practice of gene patenting violates the ethical principle that human beings have intrinsic moral dignity or worth. A property right to parts of a body is different only in scale to a property right to the entire body. Property rights to an individual are a denial of the intrinsic moral worth of the individual. This violation of such an important ethical principle is not a practice that should become a universal law for all people, and therefore, the patenting of genes is not an ethically sound use of intellectual property laws.
Academic researchers are motivated by the “Publish or Perish” nature of academia and have a desire to monopolize information prior to publication. Tenure, promotions, further grants, and possibly reduction in teaching duties are rewards for being the first to publish and significantly contribute to a field. Ideally, academic researchers have no interest in patent protection, while their academic employers, while interested in institutional reputation, may be interested in the financial gain from the monopolization of intellectual property. Non-academic researchers while still motivated by the pure science involved are ultimately motivated by the financial rewards associated with success as well as the financial reward of continual employment. Their employers are interested in the return on the investment made and often insist on the complete ownership of all intellectual property created by the employees.
At first glance, the commercial operation and researcher have a vested interest in monopolizing the fruits of their efforts via patent protection. But researchers should be wary of this approach. Applying the universality version of the CI, they should act such that their behavior should become a universal law but the universality of such behavior would severely hinder further research. Due to the nature of the US Patent system, applications for a patent are not public knowledge, and research into a gene could be unwitting patent infringement. Fear of litigation being such a strong deterrent to action, research would grind to a halt. Hence, one of the prime arguments for gene patenting, that it promotes competition, is compromised by the squelching of all research.
The protections offered by a patent on a gene may provide a motivation to finish first and to beat the competition. Without that protection of the intellectual property rights, the desire to invest resources to an endeavor that would not have guaranteed returns due to monopolization would not be present. The consequences from not competing could be waste of resources and even the avoidance of research. However, Kantian ethical theory is not concerned with consequences; it is concerned with the duty of moral agents to act morally. If all researchers patented a portion of the genome, then individual humans would in essence be parceled out into a mosaic of intellectual properties. Human beings have an intrinsic moral worth and gene patenting is a clear violation of that ethical principle.
Testing, Testing ... 1, 2, 3
To all my countless fans out there (countless since you can't really count zero), I have not given up the blog. Well, not yet.
But, as a test of the Emergency Time Cube alert, I will do the unspeakable. I will mention the name of
David Mabus aka Dennis Markuze
and see if what is said is true.
But, as a test of the Emergency Time Cube alert, I will do the unspeakable. I will mention the name of
David Mabus aka Dennis Markuze
and see if what is said is true.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Ethics of Scientific Research - Midterm Question #2
Assuming an otherwise adequate scientific design, what should be done with the data gathered/conclusions drawn during an experiment where human subjects have been misused or mistreated? Use either utilitarianism or Kantian theory to justify your response.
Human experimentation where the subjects have been mistreated and misused has occurred in the past and may well occur in the future. The most obvious and outrageous cases stem from studies done by researchers working for the Nazi regime during the Second World War; however, several examples occurred even in the postwar United States. Most such studies were not adequately designed for a proper scientific investigation; indeed most of the desired studies had no recognizable scientific goal. But some studies, such as the Nazi studies of wounds due to weapons, appear to have had an adequate scientific design. Improved medical treatments for trauma, better helmet designs and better ballistic shielding would benefit from examining and studying this data. However, I will show from Kantian theory why researchers should not use this data, and why that data should not be destroyed.
One of the key components of Kant’s Categorical Imperative is that human beings should not be used as mere means to an end. Consequences should not factor into the moral decision, however the means of how the data were obtained do matter. And the reason it matters is due to the inhumane treatment of the people in these experiments. In these cases, the human subjects were treated solely as means to an end.
Using people as mere means runs counter to the Categorical Imperative that commands that all humans must be treated with inherent moral dignity and they must not be harmed nor deceived. The misuse and mistreatment of people in any context is antithetical to the maxim that people must not be harmed and that people should be treated with moral dignity and respect. By choosing to use the data, we effectively place ourselves into the context of the original experiment, essentially becoming part of the extended research team. We effectively would be using the human subjects in the same inhuman manner as the initial researchers, even though, as in the case of the Nazi experiments, those subjects may be long dead.
Therefore using Kantian theory, we as moral agents are duty bound to follow the Categorical Imperative. We must not use the data or conclusions from any experiment where the human subject was not treated with dignity or respect, and where the human subject was intentionally harmed or killed. It isn’t future consequences of our decision that matter, despite any beneficial outcome from the use of the data. It is the respect for the subjects of the experiments that matter, whether or not they are currently alive to act as free moral agents.
However, despite the decision that we shouldn’t use the data or conclusions from such experiment, we must also respect the free choice of other current and future researchers. We must show other researchers respect and dignity and allow them to act as moral agents. The freedom to pursue our research and the freedom to make our own moral choices is what we want others to not act to constrain. Therefore, we should not destroy nor hide any data. We must allow other moral agents the freedom to make the appropriate moral choice on their own, and we should not act in any fashion that removes that freedom from them.
Human experimentation where the subjects have been mistreated and misused has occurred in the past and may well occur in the future. The most obvious and outrageous cases stem from studies done by researchers working for the Nazi regime during the Second World War; however, several examples occurred even in the postwar United States. Most such studies were not adequately designed for a proper scientific investigation; indeed most of the desired studies had no recognizable scientific goal. But some studies, such as the Nazi studies of wounds due to weapons, appear to have had an adequate scientific design. Improved medical treatments for trauma, better helmet designs and better ballistic shielding would benefit from examining and studying this data. However, I will show from Kantian theory why researchers should not use this data, and why that data should not be destroyed.
One of the key components of Kant’s Categorical Imperative is that human beings should not be used as mere means to an end. Consequences should not factor into the moral decision, however the means of how the data were obtained do matter. And the reason it matters is due to the inhumane treatment of the people in these experiments. In these cases, the human subjects were treated solely as means to an end.
Using people as mere means runs counter to the Categorical Imperative that commands that all humans must be treated with inherent moral dignity and they must not be harmed nor deceived. The misuse and mistreatment of people in any context is antithetical to the maxim that people must not be harmed and that people should be treated with moral dignity and respect. By choosing to use the data, we effectively place ourselves into the context of the original experiment, essentially becoming part of the extended research team. We effectively would be using the human subjects in the same inhuman manner as the initial researchers, even though, as in the case of the Nazi experiments, those subjects may be long dead.
Therefore using Kantian theory, we as moral agents are duty bound to follow the Categorical Imperative. We must not use the data or conclusions from any experiment where the human subject was not treated with dignity or respect, and where the human subject was intentionally harmed or killed. It isn’t future consequences of our decision that matter, despite any beneficial outcome from the use of the data. It is the respect for the subjects of the experiments that matter, whether or not they are currently alive to act as free moral agents.
However, despite the decision that we shouldn’t use the data or conclusions from such experiment, we must also respect the free choice of other current and future researchers. We must show other researchers respect and dignity and allow them to act as moral agents. The freedom to pursue our research and the freedom to make our own moral choices is what we want others to not act to constrain. Therefore, we should not destroy nor hide any data. We must allow other moral agents the freedom to make the appropriate moral choice on their own, and we should not act in any fashion that removes that freedom from them.
Ethics of Scientific Research - Midterm Question #1
There have been no cases of smallpox in the world for over a decade, but several labs have kept strains of the virus. It is not known whether any strains of the virus exist in countries with biological weapons programs. Assume there are only two possible actions: preserve the strains or destroy them. Explain how a utilitarian OR a Kantian (don't do both) would act and the reasons/justifications for choosing that action.
Several laboratories around the world have kept strains of the smallpox virus since the eradication of the virus from the human population many years ago. Preserving the existing strains is necessary for research, and much can be learned from studying the virus, but the capability also exists for the virus’ use as a biological weapon. The destruction of the existing stocks of the virus would prevent its use as a weapon, but would curtail non-weapons research. However, no nation with an active biological weapons program is known to have the virus. So should the existing strains of the virus be destroyed? A Kantian would respond that our duty is to preserve the existing strains of smallpox, and the reasons would be due to the demands of the Categorical Imperative.
According to Kantians, moral agents must act motivated by duty and follow universal and absolute laws embodied in the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative demands that our duty is to act in such a way that our conduct could become a universal action. It also specifies that we treat all members of humanity as ends in themselves and not as mere means to an end and that all humans have inherent moral dignity and worth and should not be harmed or deceived.
If we were to order the destruction of all stocks of the virus, we would be acting in a way that would deny researchers now and in the future the opportunity to conduct research on the virus. It doesn’t matter what type of research would be conducted or would be possible, that research would never occur. Our command to destroy the virus would prevent other researchers from freely performing their duties, and would limit their ability to act as moral agents on their own right. We effectively show disrespect to these researchers and deny them their inherent moral dignity and worth. This is counter to the duties imposed by the Categorical Imperative.
The motivations for commanding the destruction of all strains of the virus would mostly be consequentialist: we would be concerned about all the potential uses of the virus, whether it is for weapons development by a nation state, or possibly stolen for use by terrorists. Kantians will not let consequences deter them from their duty; consequences do not factor into the moral decision. They must treat all potential users of the virus as moral agents and must not use those researchers as mere means to obtain any desired consequence, even if the consequence to be avoided is the construction of a weapon of mass destruction.
The decision to preserve the strains of the virus would be one that the Kantian would desire to have emulated universally. The decision made is not strictly the preservation of the virus; it is the decision to allow other researchers to make their own moral choices about how to conduct their research and how to use that virus. That is a decision that we would like other researchers to make. We want the freedom to pursue our research and the freedom to make our own moral choices and would want others to not act to constrain that freedom.
So in order to follow the duties of the Categorical Imperative, a Kantian must decide to preserve the existing strains of the smallpox virus. This preserves the ability of other current and future researchers to work with the virus and the Kantian trusts those researchers to act as moral agents and to make the proper choice of what they will do with the virus.
Several laboratories around the world have kept strains of the smallpox virus since the eradication of the virus from the human population many years ago. Preserving the existing strains is necessary for research, and much can be learned from studying the virus, but the capability also exists for the virus’ use as a biological weapon. The destruction of the existing stocks of the virus would prevent its use as a weapon, but would curtail non-weapons research. However, no nation with an active biological weapons program is known to have the virus. So should the existing strains of the virus be destroyed? A Kantian would respond that our duty is to preserve the existing strains of smallpox, and the reasons would be due to the demands of the Categorical Imperative.
According to Kantians, moral agents must act motivated by duty and follow universal and absolute laws embodied in the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative demands that our duty is to act in such a way that our conduct could become a universal action. It also specifies that we treat all members of humanity as ends in themselves and not as mere means to an end and that all humans have inherent moral dignity and worth and should not be harmed or deceived.
If we were to order the destruction of all stocks of the virus, we would be acting in a way that would deny researchers now and in the future the opportunity to conduct research on the virus. It doesn’t matter what type of research would be conducted or would be possible, that research would never occur. Our command to destroy the virus would prevent other researchers from freely performing their duties, and would limit their ability to act as moral agents on their own right. We effectively show disrespect to these researchers and deny them their inherent moral dignity and worth. This is counter to the duties imposed by the Categorical Imperative.
The motivations for commanding the destruction of all strains of the virus would mostly be consequentialist: we would be concerned about all the potential uses of the virus, whether it is for weapons development by a nation state, or possibly stolen for use by terrorists. Kantians will not let consequences deter them from their duty; consequences do not factor into the moral decision. They must treat all potential users of the virus as moral agents and must not use those researchers as mere means to obtain any desired consequence, even if the consequence to be avoided is the construction of a weapon of mass destruction.
The decision to preserve the strains of the virus would be one that the Kantian would desire to have emulated universally. The decision made is not strictly the preservation of the virus; it is the decision to allow other researchers to make their own moral choices about how to conduct their research and how to use that virus. That is a decision that we would like other researchers to make. We want the freedom to pursue our research and the freedom to make our own moral choices and would want others to not act to constrain that freedom.
So in order to follow the duties of the Categorical Imperative, a Kantian must decide to preserve the existing strains of the smallpox virus. This preserves the ability of other current and future researchers to work with the virus and the Kantian trusts those researchers to act as moral agents and to make the proper choice of what they will do with the virus.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Ethics of Scientific Research - Second question
Are the participants of the Manhattan Project morally responsible, partially responsible, or not at all responsible for the effects of the atomic bomb?
In order to determine whether the participants of the Manhattan Project were in any way responsible for the effects of the bomb, we need to provide some definitions. By participant, we mean the scientists and researchers involved in the research and development of the atomic bomb, and not the military or political leadership involved in the project. We also need to restrict the effects of the atomic bomb to the human toll resulting from dropping the nuclear devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both immediate and long term. With those definitions and qualifiers in place, the participants were not morally responsible for the effects of the bomb.
The moral responsibilities of scientists are no greater than those of the rest of society, and given the context and limitations of their research responsibilities, their moral responsibilities are limited to the decisions and course of actions available to them. Scientists and researchers are presumed to be autonomous moral agents, responsible for their own rational choices. The decision to deploy the nuclear weapon was not in the realm of responsibility of the participants of the project. The military and political leaders bear the responsibility for using the weapon on the city of Hiroshima and 3 days later on Nagasaki. However, those leaders would not have had the opportunity to use the bomb if the participants had not designed and built the device. So how far does the chain of responsibility extend?
As stated above, the moral responsibilities of the participants need to be examined in the context of the actions and decisions available to them. Examining their decision to continue the design and development of the bomb after VE day should be weighed against their holding to general moral principles. VE day celebrated the removal of the initial political reason for the development of the bomb. That political reason was officially tied to the threat posed by the prospective development of nuclear weapons by Nazi Germany.
In terms of the participant’s employment duties, the participants can be shown to generally follow the principles of non-malfeasance, beneficence, autonomy and justice. In the context of the Second World War, the researchers did not inflict unjustified harm. In fact, the direct actions and decisions made by the participants did not cause any immediate nor foreseen harm beyond that expected in war. The participants acted in a way that indicates that they intended to benefit not only society, but also science, given the limitation of what intelligence they possessed about the war situation. Along those lines, they also worked to promote justice in the world, by doing their best to contribute to a device that they believed would be used to bring the war to a rapid end. Lastly, they provided information and knowledge to the supposed rational individuals who would make the ultimate decision to deploy the destructive power of the weapon they designed and built. By continuing in their work, they did not deprive the individuals that they worked for of the autonomy to make their own informed and presumably responsible decisions.
Much can be said about the principle of autonomy. If the Manhattan Project participants had stopped their work, they would have deprived the military and political leaders of their autonomy to make a responsible decision. Another set of scientists also designed and built a different form of weapon of mass destruction, which fortunately had not been deployed in the war. The researchers who refined nerve agents and other deadly chemical weapons did not deprive their superiors of the autonomy to make responsible decisions. The rational choice made by the leaders was to not use those weapons, and there was no expectation that those same leaders would not make a rational choice with the atomic bomb. The chain of responsibility extends only to those that made the decision to use the bomb, to those that used the information and technology provided to them to cause actual harm, destruction and death.
In order to determine whether the participants of the Manhattan Project were in any way responsible for the effects of the bomb, we need to provide some definitions. By participant, we mean the scientists and researchers involved in the research and development of the atomic bomb, and not the military or political leadership involved in the project. We also need to restrict the effects of the atomic bomb to the human toll resulting from dropping the nuclear devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both immediate and long term. With those definitions and qualifiers in place, the participants were not morally responsible for the effects of the bomb.
The moral responsibilities of scientists are no greater than those of the rest of society, and given the context and limitations of their research responsibilities, their moral responsibilities are limited to the decisions and course of actions available to them. Scientists and researchers are presumed to be autonomous moral agents, responsible for their own rational choices. The decision to deploy the nuclear weapon was not in the realm of responsibility of the participants of the project. The military and political leaders bear the responsibility for using the weapon on the city of Hiroshima and 3 days later on Nagasaki. However, those leaders would not have had the opportunity to use the bomb if the participants had not designed and built the device. So how far does the chain of responsibility extend?
As stated above, the moral responsibilities of the participants need to be examined in the context of the actions and decisions available to them. Examining their decision to continue the design and development of the bomb after VE day should be weighed against their holding to general moral principles. VE day celebrated the removal of the initial political reason for the development of the bomb. That political reason was officially tied to the threat posed by the prospective development of nuclear weapons by Nazi Germany.
In terms of the participant’s employment duties, the participants can be shown to generally follow the principles of non-malfeasance, beneficence, autonomy and justice. In the context of the Second World War, the researchers did not inflict unjustified harm. In fact, the direct actions and decisions made by the participants did not cause any immediate nor foreseen harm beyond that expected in war. The participants acted in a way that indicates that they intended to benefit not only society, but also science, given the limitation of what intelligence they possessed about the war situation. Along those lines, they also worked to promote justice in the world, by doing their best to contribute to a device that they believed would be used to bring the war to a rapid end. Lastly, they provided information and knowledge to the supposed rational individuals who would make the ultimate decision to deploy the destructive power of the weapon they designed and built. By continuing in their work, they did not deprive the individuals that they worked for of the autonomy to make their own informed and presumably responsible decisions.
Much can be said about the principle of autonomy. If the Manhattan Project participants had stopped their work, they would have deprived the military and political leaders of their autonomy to make a responsible decision. Another set of scientists also designed and built a different form of weapon of mass destruction, which fortunately had not been deployed in the war. The researchers who refined nerve agents and other deadly chemical weapons did not deprive their superiors of the autonomy to make responsible decisions. The rational choice made by the leaders was to not use those weapons, and there was no expectation that those same leaders would not make a rational choice with the atomic bomb. The chain of responsibility extends only to those that made the decision to use the bomb, to those that used the information and technology provided to them to cause actual harm, destruction and death.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Ethics of Scientific Research - First question
Do researchers have ethical duties and/or responsibilities over and above the ethical obligations of the rest of society?
Ethical duties are the expectations on moral agents to act in the manner that they ought to act. Regardless of whatever ethical theory a moral agent subscribes to, the responsibility on that agent is to honor the duty to act ethically. Whomever the moral agent happens to be, the duty and responsibility to act ethically is the same. Scientists and researchers are no more ethically responsible than any other moral agent. They do not have ethical duties over and above the ethical duties of any other moral agent.
It is arguably the case that the social context and impact of the product of a scientist’s or researcher’s efforts is greater than that of many other human endeavors. Science, government, education, the media and other social institutions each have large and significant impacts on individual lives and on other social institutions. But what really determines which institution’s impact is more significant? By what metric do we measure that impact? Lives? Resources? Trust? In any case it can be argued that any one impact is greater or more significant than any other. However, one can not separate the impact of science from the impact of government which funds the research, nor from the impact of education which trains the researchers, nor from the media which informs the citizenry which supports the government. All of these institutions are interdependent, and no single one can be demonstrably shown to have a larger impact than any other.
But the impact of a moral agent’s actions does not necessarily correspond with the level of responsibility or duty to act ethically. There appears to be an underlying principle of equality which is seen in many ethical theories: all moral agents should be accorded the same respect. This equality of respect derives from the notion that all moral agents are rational individuals, each capable of determining a proper, ethical, course of action. Every rational individual is not only capable of determining ethical actions, but duty bound to act ethically. And with equality of respect comes equality of moral duty. In essence, the moral principles of beneficence, non malfeasance, justice and autonomy all have at their core the principle that all rational individuals are morally equal. Each rational individual should act in a manner that benefits society, does not cause unjustified harm, allows other rational individuals to make their own decisions, etc.. Despite the possibility that a particular moral agent X can impact society in a greater manner than moral agent Y, it does not necessarily follow that Y’s ethical duty and responsibility is less than X’s: they are both morally equal.
Given the principle of moral equality, it therefore becomes meaningless to assert that any specific, rational individual has a higher ethical duty or responsibility than any other rational individual. Scientists and researchers are by the nature of their actions deemed to be rational individuals. They do not have more or less moral stature than any other rational individual. These moral equivalencies do not aggregate to form a block of greater ethical duty based on the number of scientists and researchers versus the number of other moral agents either. Ethical choices and actions are made and performed by rational individuals, whether they are in a group or not. An individual moral agent can not surrender his or her ethical duties and responsibilities to the group or institution to which that agent belongs. Scientists and researchers do not have greater ethical duties or responsibilities than anyone else, and despite some protestations, they also do not have a moral free pass, either.
Ethical duties are the expectations on moral agents to act in the manner that they ought to act. Regardless of whatever ethical theory a moral agent subscribes to, the responsibility on that agent is to honor the duty to act ethically. Whomever the moral agent happens to be, the duty and responsibility to act ethically is the same. Scientists and researchers are no more ethically responsible than any other moral agent. They do not have ethical duties over and above the ethical duties of any other moral agent.
It is arguably the case that the social context and impact of the product of a scientist’s or researcher’s efforts is greater than that of many other human endeavors. Science, government, education, the media and other social institutions each have large and significant impacts on individual lives and on other social institutions. But what really determines which institution’s impact is more significant? By what metric do we measure that impact? Lives? Resources? Trust? In any case it can be argued that any one impact is greater or more significant than any other. However, one can not separate the impact of science from the impact of government which funds the research, nor from the impact of education which trains the researchers, nor from the media which informs the citizenry which supports the government. All of these institutions are interdependent, and no single one can be demonstrably shown to have a larger impact than any other.
But the impact of a moral agent’s actions does not necessarily correspond with the level of responsibility or duty to act ethically. There appears to be an underlying principle of equality which is seen in many ethical theories: all moral agents should be accorded the same respect. This equality of respect derives from the notion that all moral agents are rational individuals, each capable of determining a proper, ethical, course of action. Every rational individual is not only capable of determining ethical actions, but duty bound to act ethically. And with equality of respect comes equality of moral duty. In essence, the moral principles of beneficence, non malfeasance, justice and autonomy all have at their core the principle that all rational individuals are morally equal. Each rational individual should act in a manner that benefits society, does not cause unjustified harm, allows other rational individuals to make their own decisions, etc.. Despite the possibility that a particular moral agent X can impact society in a greater manner than moral agent Y, it does not necessarily follow that Y’s ethical duty and responsibility is less than X’s: they are both morally equal.
Given the principle of moral equality, it therefore becomes meaningless to assert that any specific, rational individual has a higher ethical duty or responsibility than any other rational individual. Scientists and researchers are by the nature of their actions deemed to be rational individuals. They do not have more or less moral stature than any other rational individual. These moral equivalencies do not aggregate to form a block of greater ethical duty based on the number of scientists and researchers versus the number of other moral agents either. Ethical choices and actions are made and performed by rational individuals, whether they are in a group or not. An individual moral agent can not surrender his or her ethical duties and responsibilities to the group or institution to which that agent belongs. Scientists and researchers do not have greater ethical duties or responsibilities than anyone else, and despite some protestations, they also do not have a moral free pass, either.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Final Exam Question : Sociology of Religion
Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim had very different understandings and theories about religion (its function and its impacts on society). Describe the major theoretical contributions of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim to the sociological study of religion.
Marx viewed religion as an alienating agent that reinforced the stratification inherent in society. Faith is used to keep the downtrodden from questioning their lot in life, whereas the privileged use faith to justify their exploitation of the masses. As indicated in the text, history is replete with examples that support this thesis. From the oppression of the caste system in India, the suppression of conquered peoples in Europe by the Romans to the suppression of the conquered in Africa and Asia by Europeans, religion is used as a device in the conflict between classes.
Marx views religion as not just the means of oppression but also as the sign of that oppression. It is a symptom of the “illusionary happiness of the people”. People would have no need for that illusion if they were no longer oppressed.
According to many critics of Marx, Max Weber took religion more seriously than Marx. Weber showed that religious ideas have a power of their own. To Weber, ideas have power, and when large groups of people take up a common idea, that common set of beliefs can drive a change in the course of history. To understand the role of religion’s ideas in a person’s life, one needs to place oneself in the shoes of a believer and imagine the intentions and meanings.
Weber’s example for the power of ideas is the rise of Capitalism as an outcome of the Protestant work ethic. Calvinist predestination theology states that each person has a calling, which entails fulfilling one’s duty to God through day-to-day work in labor, since each person was chosen by God and his destiny in the afterlife predetermined. Thus the earlier Catholic teachings that profit and labor were necessarily evil were overcome and the way was open for the development of Capitalism, which emphasized the accumulation of Capital through profit and labor. In effect, Weber found that the link between class and religion was bi-directional in contrast to Marx’s unidirectional causal link from economic need to religious purpose.
Durkheim took a functionalist approach which also found purpose and power in religious ideas. Religion was a “fundamental and permanent aspect of humanity.” In his view, the task of the sociologist is not to determine which religion is “True”, but rather to treat each religion as real and to find the commonalities. Durkheim came to argue that all our categories of thought are created in and from religion. But religious ideas and thoughts, sacred things themselves, only derive their power from the collective investment made by the believers. Religious force is the feeling inspired by the rest of the society which believes. When people conform to these religious ideas they are submitting to the authority of society. “… social thought, with its imperative authority, has a power that individual thought cannot possibly have.”
This stands in contrast with both Marx and Weber. Durkheim doesn’t assign an economic role for religion, rather religion performs a social function; it creates social unity by strengthening the shared beliefs of the believing community. It strengthens the bonds between people and society, with God being a representation of society.
Marx viewed religion as an alienating agent that reinforced the stratification inherent in society. Faith is used to keep the downtrodden from questioning their lot in life, whereas the privileged use faith to justify their exploitation of the masses. As indicated in the text, history is replete with examples that support this thesis. From the oppression of the caste system in India, the suppression of conquered peoples in Europe by the Romans to the suppression of the conquered in Africa and Asia by Europeans, religion is used as a device in the conflict between classes.
Marx views religion as not just the means of oppression but also as the sign of that oppression. It is a symptom of the “illusionary happiness of the people”. People would have no need for that illusion if they were no longer oppressed.
According to many critics of Marx, Max Weber took religion more seriously than Marx. Weber showed that religious ideas have a power of their own. To Weber, ideas have power, and when large groups of people take up a common idea, that common set of beliefs can drive a change in the course of history. To understand the role of religion’s ideas in a person’s life, one needs to place oneself in the shoes of a believer and imagine the intentions and meanings.
Weber’s example for the power of ideas is the rise of Capitalism as an outcome of the Protestant work ethic. Calvinist predestination theology states that each person has a calling, which entails fulfilling one’s duty to God through day-to-day work in labor, since each person was chosen by God and his destiny in the afterlife predetermined. Thus the earlier Catholic teachings that profit and labor were necessarily evil were overcome and the way was open for the development of Capitalism, which emphasized the accumulation of Capital through profit and labor. In effect, Weber found that the link between class and religion was bi-directional in contrast to Marx’s unidirectional causal link from economic need to religious purpose.
Durkheim took a functionalist approach which also found purpose and power in religious ideas. Religion was a “fundamental and permanent aspect of humanity.” In his view, the task of the sociologist is not to determine which religion is “True”, but rather to treat each religion as real and to find the commonalities. Durkheim came to argue that all our categories of thought are created in and from religion. But religious ideas and thoughts, sacred things themselves, only derive their power from the collective investment made by the believers. Religious force is the feeling inspired by the rest of the society which believes. When people conform to these religious ideas they are submitting to the authority of society. “… social thought, with its imperative authority, has a power that individual thought cannot possibly have.”
This stands in contrast with both Marx and Weber. Durkheim doesn’t assign an economic role for religion, rather religion performs a social function; it creates social unity by strengthening the shared beliefs of the believing community. It strengthens the bonds between people and society, with God being a representation of society.
Final Exam Question : Sociology of Science
Sociologists of science often work from the perspective that scientific facts, like many other things in our society, are socially constructed. Using Latour and Woolgar’s work along with other information from the science chapter, explain what it means that scientific facts are socially constructed. Give some specific examples of how what goes on in a laboratory helps to construct scientific facts.
Despite the view and learned opinions of most philosopher’s of science, Latour and Woolgar argued that scientific facts are socially constructed. The reason given is that research findings are debated, discussed, and disagreements worked through until consensus is reached in a laboratory. These debates, discussions and disagreements are conducted in the context of a highly competitive laboratory environment, where power struggles within the lab hierarchy may determine what interpretation and results will get the attention.
In a laboratory, scientists explore, extract, measure, and quantify data derived from the real world. In the laboratory, this work is prioritized by availability of funds and allocation of resources. The administration of the laboratory assists and in many cases defines the priority of the work conducted. The scientist’s goal is to leave all biases at the door of the laboratory. But where there are people involved, there are social relationships and factors at play also.
An example of Latour’s view is his treatment of the facts surrounding the demise of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II. Recent examinations of Ramses corpse indicated that Ramses died of tuberculosis. Latour, on the other hand, states that it is not reasonable to state that the cause of Ramses’ death was tuberculosis since that disease was not discovered until 1882, 3000 years after the death of the Pharaoh. Latour makes this case since he maintains that scientific facts can not be discovered; scientific facts can only be constructed. Philosophically, this is identical to claiming that the Earth was physically the center of the Universe, with the stars, planets and the Sun revolving around the Earth until the scientific fact uncovered by Copernicus was constructed by him.
Latour makes the mistake of equating the objective truth of a scientific fact or data, with the socially constructed explanation and interpretation of that data. The philosopher of science Ian Hacking argues this point in his book The Social Construction of What? He maintains that the purist point of view, that social norms and personal values are divorced from the work of the laboratory, is unrealistic. The realities of the social world do impact the work of scientists within a laboratory. But the viewpoint advocated by Latour, that scientific facts do not exist outside of a social context is also unrealistic, and in fact, that ignoring claims to truth is misleading.
Despite the view and learned opinions of most philosopher’s of science, Latour and Woolgar argued that scientific facts are socially constructed. The reason given is that research findings are debated, discussed, and disagreements worked through until consensus is reached in a laboratory. These debates, discussions and disagreements are conducted in the context of a highly competitive laboratory environment, where power struggles within the lab hierarchy may determine what interpretation and results will get the attention.
In a laboratory, scientists explore, extract, measure, and quantify data derived from the real world. In the laboratory, this work is prioritized by availability of funds and allocation of resources. The administration of the laboratory assists and in many cases defines the priority of the work conducted. The scientist’s goal is to leave all biases at the door of the laboratory. But where there are people involved, there are social relationships and factors at play also.
An example of Latour’s view is his treatment of the facts surrounding the demise of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II. Recent examinations of Ramses corpse indicated that Ramses died of tuberculosis. Latour, on the other hand, states that it is not reasonable to state that the cause of Ramses’ death was tuberculosis since that disease was not discovered until 1882, 3000 years after the death of the Pharaoh. Latour makes this case since he maintains that scientific facts can not be discovered; scientific facts can only be constructed. Philosophically, this is identical to claiming that the Earth was physically the center of the Universe, with the stars, planets and the Sun revolving around the Earth until the scientific fact uncovered by Copernicus was constructed by him.
Latour makes the mistake of equating the objective truth of a scientific fact or data, with the socially constructed explanation and interpretation of that data. The philosopher of science Ian Hacking argues this point in his book The Social Construction of What? He maintains that the purist point of view, that social norms and personal values are divorced from the work of the laboratory, is unrealistic. The realities of the social world do impact the work of scientists within a laboratory. But the viewpoint advocated by Latour, that scientific facts do not exist outside of a social context is also unrealistic, and in fact, that ignoring claims to truth is misleading.
Big Buck, Big Pharma : Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs - SOC142 Extra Credit
The video shown in class, Big Buck, Big Pharma : Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs, while not presenting anything new, was shocking nonetheless. The extent of the marketing of pharmaceuticals by drug companies is astounding. I personally remember when the number of advertisements for individual drugs was limited to the over-the-counter (OTC) type, but now, pharmaceutical corporations advertise prescription medication directly to the consumer. In fact, there has been a 500% increase in this direct to consumer marketing over at least the last two decades. More money is pouring into these campaigns than into other individual products. For example, according to the video, during Vioxx’s heyday, more money was spent on those ads than for Pepsi.
This intensive marketing of prescription directly to consumers does make the consumer aware of the choices available for treatment options. The line that the pharmaceutical companies use that it’s just educational has some validity. However, there is a danger in providing such information to the masses of people who most likely do not have the training nor educational background required to intelligently determine the proper course of treatment. In the world of physician shopping and giving the customer what he wants, medication could be demanded from willing physicians for any number of conditions as advertised. Also, the probability that a medical condition doesn’t exist is possible, since the advertisement for the medicine gives specific symptoms for which a person may develop psychosomatic conditions.
While providing some educational value to the consumer has already been mentioned, many instances of deception occur. In several cases, major drugs have been re-branded and slightly modified to extended patent protection beyond the statutory limit afforded to a specific drug. These new brands may be functionally equivalent to the older brand, but they have prolonged profit making potential for the pharmaceutical corporation. Minimal investigational or experimental investment has been made, but higher prices are nonetheless charged for them.
Despite the legal requirement to specify all known side effects of a drug, many consumers do not pay attention to them. The advertisements do not dwell nor emphasize drug safety nor do they always mention adverse drug reactions. There appears to be a de-emphasis on safety for the chance to make more profit.
So given the aforementioned problems of the intensive, direct marketing of prescription drugs, should the pharmaceutical corporations be allowed to conduct such marketing strategies? Or should they only be allowed to direct promotional materials to medical professionals? Should they be allowed to market their product like any other corporation markets non-pharmaceuticals?
While there is much to be said about the educational value of such marketing, any promotional material for these drugs should be directed towards the primary users of the information, not necessarily of the product. The primary users of the information are the medical professionals licensed to dispense medication. That being said, the methods for promoting prescription medications to health professionals should be regulated. While regulation can never be a panacea for all possible interactions between corporate entities and individual people, the stakes are too high with medications: misdiagnosis, over medication, adverse reactions, misuse and other side effects can be lethal. The safety of individual members of society is paramount.
The educational value of the current marketing efforts could be delivered by requiring all pharmaceutical corporations who desire to sell their products within the country to contribute substantive medical information as well as operating funds to public access databases. Such databases would contain in plain language as well as in medical jargon, information that the public and medical profession could use to evaluate effectiveness and safety of their product. It also would streamline the marketing efforts of the drug companies, allowing them to invest time and money in finding new drugs.
This intensive marketing of prescription directly to consumers does make the consumer aware of the choices available for treatment options. The line that the pharmaceutical companies use that it’s just educational has some validity. However, there is a danger in providing such information to the masses of people who most likely do not have the training nor educational background required to intelligently determine the proper course of treatment. In the world of physician shopping and giving the customer what he wants, medication could be demanded from willing physicians for any number of conditions as advertised. Also, the probability that a medical condition doesn’t exist is possible, since the advertisement for the medicine gives specific symptoms for which a person may develop psychosomatic conditions.
While providing some educational value to the consumer has already been mentioned, many instances of deception occur. In several cases, major drugs have been re-branded and slightly modified to extended patent protection beyond the statutory limit afforded to a specific drug. These new brands may be functionally equivalent to the older brand, but they have prolonged profit making potential for the pharmaceutical corporation. Minimal investigational or experimental investment has been made, but higher prices are nonetheless charged for them.
Despite the legal requirement to specify all known side effects of a drug, many consumers do not pay attention to them. The advertisements do not dwell nor emphasize drug safety nor do they always mention adverse drug reactions. There appears to be a de-emphasis on safety for the chance to make more profit.
So given the aforementioned problems of the intensive, direct marketing of prescription drugs, should the pharmaceutical corporations be allowed to conduct such marketing strategies? Or should they only be allowed to direct promotional materials to medical professionals? Should they be allowed to market their product like any other corporation markets non-pharmaceuticals?
While there is much to be said about the educational value of such marketing, any promotional material for these drugs should be directed towards the primary users of the information, not necessarily of the product. The primary users of the information are the medical professionals licensed to dispense medication. That being said, the methods for promoting prescription medications to health professionals should be regulated. While regulation can never be a panacea for all possible interactions between corporate entities and individual people, the stakes are too high with medications: misdiagnosis, over medication, adverse reactions, misuse and other side effects can be lethal. The safety of individual members of society is paramount.
The educational value of the current marketing efforts could be delivered by requiring all pharmaceutical corporations who desire to sell their products within the country to contribute substantive medical information as well as operating funds to public access databases. Such databases would contain in plain language as well as in medical jargon, information that the public and medical profession could use to evaluate effectiveness and safety of their product. It also would streamline the marketing efforts of the drug companies, allowing them to invest time and money in finding new drugs.
The Corporation | Externalized Costs and Political Contributions - SOC142 extra credit
When corporations operate, according to the movie, The Corporation, they tend to externalize costs. In other words, these legal entities end up making third parties, which have no direct interest in the corporation, bear large amounts of the cost of running and maintaining the enterprise. These costs range from the funds needed to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure, like roads, trade arrangements and the legal system, to the human cost of the unthinking and impersonal actions of the corporation.
These human externalized costs, borne by the rest of society extend beyond the borders of the host or parent nation. But the human costs borne by the host nation are significant. When corporations fall under financial pressure, the fiduciary responsibility to stockholders legally bind and restrict the actions that corporations can conduct. That legal bind force corporations to do their best to externalize all costs, and maximize the return to the stockholders, but not to all the stakeholders. Who are the other stakeholders? Employees, employee families, retirees, neighbors, local governments, etc.: ordinary people and social institutions. These stakeholders are just the ones in the home nation. Additional stakeholders are the environment, future generations, and anyone or anything affected by the actions of the corporation now and in the future.
Society as a whole pays the price for layoffs, union busting and habitat destruction. Corporations longing for maximum returns don’t care if they employ sweatshops, outsource work, or dump toxic waste. In order to maintain control in regions of the world where the political, legal and enforcement infrastructure is not as mature as that of Western society, corporations can muster military support to ensure that they receive what they need or want, as made evident by many corporations having a long history of condoning human rights violations.
Why do corporations act this way? Simple: Corporations have no feelings.
So should corporations be able to donate to political campaigns, given that they externalize costs? Corporations have no beliefs. They have no feelings, emotions or life. Corporations are legal persons, yet if they were flesh and blood individuals, they would be considered psychopathic legal persons, committed to mental health facilities to protect themselves and others. Ordinary people who are committed are not normally allowed to donate to political campaigns. Such people are restricted by society from influencing societal decisions.
Corporations externalize costs so much that they not only dump expenses on society, they also manage to divert tax dollars into their coffers as well as influence tax policy. Many corporations buy this type of political influence by donating to political campaigns. But since corporations hold allegiance to profits and not to any flag, they shouldn’t be allowed such political access. Should disloyalty to a nation be rewarded with political influence in that nation? I don’t think so.
So should any organization be able to contribute to political campaigns? I think the question is somewhat leading. It assumes that the current political process is acceptable and that the practice of soliciting and making political contributions should be allowed to continue in its present form. I don’t think we can continue and survive with those assumptions. I think the entire electoral process in the United States requires an overhaul, and the first change would be to restrict political contributions to a general election fund, divorcing the influence of corporate money from the inevitable corruption that it brings when contributions are made to individuals. Political contributions have more influence in politics than the will of the people who comprise the ostensibly sovereign entity.
These human externalized costs, borne by the rest of society extend beyond the borders of the host or parent nation. But the human costs borne by the host nation are significant. When corporations fall under financial pressure, the fiduciary responsibility to stockholders legally bind and restrict the actions that corporations can conduct. That legal bind force corporations to do their best to externalize all costs, and maximize the return to the stockholders, but not to all the stakeholders. Who are the other stakeholders? Employees, employee families, retirees, neighbors, local governments, etc.: ordinary people and social institutions. These stakeholders are just the ones in the home nation. Additional stakeholders are the environment, future generations, and anyone or anything affected by the actions of the corporation now and in the future.
Society as a whole pays the price for layoffs, union busting and habitat destruction. Corporations longing for maximum returns don’t care if they employ sweatshops, outsource work, or dump toxic waste. In order to maintain control in regions of the world where the political, legal and enforcement infrastructure is not as mature as that of Western society, corporations can muster military support to ensure that they receive what they need or want, as made evident by many corporations having a long history of condoning human rights violations.
Why do corporations act this way? Simple: Corporations have no feelings.
So should corporations be able to donate to political campaigns, given that they externalize costs? Corporations have no beliefs. They have no feelings, emotions or life. Corporations are legal persons, yet if they were flesh and blood individuals, they would be considered psychopathic legal persons, committed to mental health facilities to protect themselves and others. Ordinary people who are committed are not normally allowed to donate to political campaigns. Such people are restricted by society from influencing societal decisions.
Corporations externalize costs so much that they not only dump expenses on society, they also manage to divert tax dollars into their coffers as well as influence tax policy. Many corporations buy this type of political influence by donating to political campaigns. But since corporations hold allegiance to profits and not to any flag, they shouldn’t be allowed such political access. Should disloyalty to a nation be rewarded with political influence in that nation? I don’t think so.
So should any organization be able to contribute to political campaigns? I think the question is somewhat leading. It assumes that the current political process is acceptable and that the practice of soliciting and making political contributions should be allowed to continue in its present form. I don’t think we can continue and survive with those assumptions. I think the entire electoral process in the United States requires an overhaul, and the first change would be to restrict political contributions to a general election fund, divorcing the influence of corporate money from the inevitable corruption that it brings when contributions are made to individuals. Political contributions have more influence in politics than the will of the people who comprise the ostensibly sovereign entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)