A Pledge for Scientists

[Sam]

When we consult a doctor, the doctor could earn quite a bit of money by
faking things, by telling us we had diseases that we didn't have, by
prescribing things that we didn't need but that earned them some
kick-backs. Doctors pledge not to do harm to patients. It's the Pledge
that goes a long way to give us the confidence that we can trust a
doctor's advice.

Shouldn't we demand the same from scientists? Shouldn't scientists have
a similar pledge? What are the issues behind such a pledge?

1. Educational independence, accountibility and liability

How much accountibility should go to the educational institutions for
teaching anyone how to make bombs and biological weapons? Do such
institutions check the mental stability and the intention of the people
they give the technical details? Do they also insist that students
consider some ethical questions? Where educational institutions fail to
go into such issues, should they be held liable when it later becomes
clear there were shortcomings in their education? Is "independence" a
valid argument for educational institutions to escape liability? How
sacred is independence?

2. Trade practices and business conduct

Should companies that employ people to make such weapons escape
accountibility and liability? Should they be allowed to sell their
products to the highest bidder, no questions asked? Of course not,
companies are both sued criminally and privately all the time. But
court cases often demand evidence. Should there be intervention at an
earlier stage, e.g. when weapons of mass destruction are still being
developed, rather than actually sold and used by terrorist or
dictators? Should staff be fully informed about the character of their
work? Should investors, staff and customers be prosecuted for ordering
and producing such weapons in secrecy? How sacred is secrecy? When
should scientists refuse demands by their employers (if they work for a
company), customers (if they have their own business) or their students
(if they teach)?

3. Obligation to blow the whistle?

If the companies that employ scientists act without conscience, should
scientists close their eyes when it's obvious that the product they're
asked to work on can only be used to kill people in massive numbers?
It's sometimes hard to know in advance whether employers are working
within the bounderies of what's acceptable. Just like there's a good
samaritan law, should there be an obligation on staff to become a
wistleblower, when circumstances call for it?

4. Personal responsibility and principles - a pledge for scientists

Finally, shouldn't fuller acceptance of personal responsibility be a
prerequisite for certain positions? Can scientists claim privacy and
indemnity when their work could potentially harm so many people? Do
scientists have certain specific rights, responsibilities and
principles? If so, what are they? What should they be?

Wouldn't a Pledge for Scientists come a long way to improve the
situation on all the above points? Shouldn't such a pledge should be
fully explained to scientists during their education and shouldn't it
be a prerequisite for completing their study or even continuing with
their study beyond a certain stage? When seeking emoployment, should
scientists be expected to make adequate inquiries to ensure that their
work will comply with their pledge? Should the pledge include an
obligation to blow the whistle where appropriate?

Sam

[zinnic]

Welcome to Sam's world of independent thinkers

Sam says:
"Doctors pledge not to do harm to patients. It's the Pledge
that goes a long way to give us the confidence that we can trust a
doctor's advice.
Shouldn't we demand the same from scientists? Shouldn't scientists have

a similar pledge? What are the issues behind such a pledge? "

Zinnic says:
Should we demand the same from non-scientists?
.

Sam says:
"How much accountibility should go to the educational institutions for
teaching anyone how to make bombs and biological weapons? Do such
institutions check the mental stability and the intention of the people

they give the technical details? Do they also insist that students
consider some ethical questions? Where educational institutions fail to

go into such issues, should they be held liable when it later becomes
clear there were shortcomings in their education? Is "independence" a
valid argument for educational institutions to escape liability? How
sacred is independence?

Zinnic: Presumably Sam's 'independent thinkers' will define the
"shortcomings". and hold "them' liable. Liable to what? Re-education in
Sam's "Gulags'?

Sam says "Should companies that employ people to make [...... ] weapons

escape accountibility and liability? Should they be allowed to sell
their
products to the highest bidder, no questions asked? Of course not,
companies are both sued criminally and privately all the time. But
court cases often demand evidence. Should there be intervention at an
earlier stage, e.g. when weapons of mass destruction are still being
developed, rather than actually sold and used by terrorist or
dictators? Should staff be fully informed about the character of their
work? Should investors, staff and customers be prosecuted for ordering
and producing such weapons in secrecy? How sacred is secrecy? When
should scientists refuse demands by their employers (if they work for a

company), customers (if they have their own business) or their students

(if they teach)?

Zinnic: Should companies be sued for the potential harm that may arise
from the use of products that may arise from their teaching, research
and development? Guess who will assess the potential for harm of all
teaching, research and potential ? No problem- Sam's independent'
thinkers will.

Sam says:
"If the companies that employ scientists act without conscience, should

scientists close their eyes when it's obvious that the product they're
asked to work on can only be used to kill people in massive numbers?
It's sometimes hard to know in advance whether employers are working
within the bounderies of what's acceptable. Just like there's a good
samaritan law, should there be an obligation on staff to become a
wistleblower, when circumstances call for it?

4. Personal responsibility and principles - a pledge for scientists

Finally, shouldn't fuller acceptance of personal responsibility be a
prerequisite for certain positions? Can scientists claim privacy and
indemnity when their work could potentially harm so many people? Do
scientists have certain specific rights, responsibilities and
principles? If so, what are they? What should they be?

Wouldn't a Pledge for Scientists come a long way to improve the
situation on all the above points? Shouldn't such a pledge should be
fully explained to scientists during their education and shouldn't it
be a prerequisite for completing their study or even continuing with
their study beyond a certain stage? When seeking emoployment, should
scientists be expected to make adequate inquiries to ensure that their
work will comply with their pledge? Should the pledge include an
obligation to blow the whistle where appropriate?

Sam

Reply
Welcome to Sam's World of 'independent thinkers'.
you

[zinnic]

A glitch sent this post before completion! See my next post.

[zinnic]

Sam:

"Doctors pledge not to do harm to patients. It's the Pledge
that goes a long way to give us the confidence that we can trust a
doctor's advice.
Shouldn't we demand the same from scientists? Shouldn't scientists have

a similar pledge? What are the issues behind such a pledge? "

Zinnic:
Physicians are scientists. Should we demand a pledge that they
conduct only medical research that has NO potential for harm?

Sam:

"How much accountibility should go to the educational institutions for
teaching anyone how to make bombs and biological weapons? Do such
institutions check the mental stability and the intention of the people

they give the technical details? Do they also insist that students
consider some ethical questions? Where educational institutions fail to

go into such issues, should they be held liable when it later becomes
clear there were shortcomings in their education? Is "independence" a
valid argument for educational institutions to escape liability? How
sacred is independence?

Zinnic: Presumably Sam's 'independent thinkers' will define the

"shortcomings". and hold "them' liable. Liable to what? Re-education in
Sam's 'Gulags'?

Sam:
"Should companies that employ people to make [...... ] weapons ESCAPE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND LIABILITY? Should they be ALLOWED to sell their
products to the highest bidder, no questions asked? {snip}.Should there
be INTERVENTION at an earlier stage, e.g. when weapons of mass

destruction are still being developed, rather than actually sold and
used by terrorist or

dictators? Should staff be fully INFORMED about the character of their
work? Should investors, staff and customers be PROSECUTED for ordering

and producing such weapons in secrecy? How sacred is secrecy? When
should scientists refuse demands by their employers (if they work for a

company), customers (if they have their own business) or their students

(if they teach)?

Zinnic: (My capitalization for emphasis in above quote).
Escape accountability and liability from, allowed by, intervention by,
informed by, prosecuted by whom ....(wait for it)... Sam's
'independent' thinkers of course! Who else?
Guess who will assess the potential harm of products that will arise
from 'improper' teaching and research? No problem- Sam's independent'
thinkers will.

Sam:

"If the companies that employ scientists act without conscience, should

scientists close their eyes when it's obvious that the product they're
asked to work on can only be used to kill people in massive numbers?
It's sometimes hard to know in advance whether employers are working
within the bounderies of what's acceptable. Just like there's a good
samaritan law, should there be an obligation on staff to become a
wistleblower, when circumstances call for it?

Zinnic:
Again, Sam's "independent ' thinkers will decide "whether employers
are working in the bounderies of what's acceptable" and then condone
illegal revelation of trade secrets.

Sam:

"Finally, shouldn't fuller acceptance of personal responsibility be a
prerequisite for certain positions? Can scientists claim privacy and
indemnity when their work could potentially harm so many people?

Zinnic:
Judgement of suitable acceptance of personal responsibilty will be by
.......?
No prizes for correct answer.

Sam:

"Do scientists have certain specific rights, responsibilities and
principles? If so, what are they? What should they be?

Zinnic: The same as for everyone else.
Paraphrasing Sam
"Wouldn't a Pledge for NON-Scientists come a long way to improve the

situation on all the above points? Shouldn't such a pledge should be

fully explained to NON-scientists during their education and shouldn't

it
be a prerequisite for completing their study or even continuing with
their study beyond a certain stage? When seeking emoployment, should

NON-scientists be expected to make adequate inquiries to ensure that

their
work will comply with their pledge? Should the pledge include an
obligation to blow the whistle where appropriate?

Again .....welcome to Sam's INDEPENDENT THINKER'S world.

.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/3/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

Zinnic:
Physicians are scientists.  Should we demand  a pledge  that  they
conduct only medical research that has NO  potential for harm?

 

If medical professionals practice as doctors, they abide by their doctors pledge. If they engage in scientific research, then this should be covered by a scientific pledge.

Zinnic: Presumably Sam's 'independent thinkers' will define the
"shortcomings". and hold "them' liable. Liable to what? Re-education in Sam's 'Gulags'?

 

They should be held liable for the harm they do. Doctors pledge not to harm their patients. Why can't scientists have a similar decency, especially if they start working on weapons of mass destruction?

Zinnic: Escape accountability and liability from, allowed by, intervention by, informed by, prosecuted by whom ....(wait for it)... Sam's 'independent' thinkers of course! Who else? Guess who will assess the potential harm of products that will arise from 'improper' teaching and research? No problem- Sam's independent' thinkers will.

 

People will make up their own minds, as long as journalist have access to what's going on. Commercial or military secrecy should not apply to scientific research, especially where this has the potential to put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of irresponsible people.

 

I've discussed this under another topic. Since some people keep complaining about copying and pasting of text, I'll just give the URL, so you can go and have a look there yourself:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities/msg/fe1fd4deb414abad

 

(Personally, I prefer it if people copy and paste the full text, but it's a good idea to add the URL of where it can be found elsewhere).

Zinnic: Again,  Sam's "independent ' thinkers will decide "whether employers are working in the bounderies of what's acceptable" and then condone illegal revelation of trade secrets.

 

As said, people will make up their own minds. Check the URL for more details.

Zinnic: Judgement of suitable  acceptance of personal responsibilty will be by
.......?
No prizes for correct answer.

 

Again, people should and will make up their own minds.

Zinnic: The same as for everyone else. Paraphrasing Sam
"Wouldn't a Pledge for NON-Scientists come a long way to improve the situation on all the above points? Shouldn't such a pledge should be fully explained to NON-scientists during their education and shouldn't it be a prerequisite for completing their study or even continuing with their study beyond a certain stage? When seeking emoployment, should NON-scientists be expected to make adequate inquiries to ensure that their work will comply with their pledge? Should the pledge include an obligation to blow the whistle where appropriate?

 

I appreciate your efforts to widen the pledge, zinnic, but let's start with getting it accepted for scientists. After all, scientists are the ones who are most likely to be working on weapons of mass destruction. But I agree, laboratory staff and peoiple with easy access to classified information could be covered under the same pledge. But let's start with scientists.

Again .....welcome to Sam's  INDEPENDENT THINKER'S world.

Thanks for the applause, zinnic, and for your efforts to improve the proposal.
 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

zinnic wrote:

> Physicians are scientists. Should we demand a pledge that they
> conduct only medical research that has NO potential for harm?
>

Some physicians are scientists - most aren't. Most are people
repairmen. Logic and knowledge are important parts of medical
practice, just as they are important parts of TV repair, but the
scientific method is not. Doctors doing research are practicing
science. More later...

Dave

[zinnic]

Is it your position that in Research and Development only those
individuals involved in the research aspect are scientists? Those
involved in development are what (if they are not scientists)? By your
definition, engineers would not be required to sign Sam's Pledge.
Ask Sam. He claims to have [all?] the answers.

[Sam Carana]

One issue is liability. Where does liability start? Someone invents a gun. No liability? Yet, to have his patent accepted, he needs to produce a working model. So, he leaves this working model and somehow is shot with the gun. Who is liable? 

Note that, in the case of guns, a shopkeer who sell guns can hardly escape liability. Especially if the byer turns out to be someone who is under age, has mental problems or has previous convictions. Similarly, people cannot just leave loaded guns lying around and expect that only the one who pulls the trigger will be held liable. This is commonly accepted, due to the many cases where people have become innocent victims of negligance.

In the case of new inventions, there is little that forces inventors to take specific care, other than their conscience and common sense. A pledge would encourage more care in this regard.   

Sam

[zinnic]

In the great majorityof cases the USER is liable.
Delete "gun" from your post and substitute anything else which can be
lethal. Now ponder on "liability".
(Some hints--plastic bags, knives, rope, electricity, automobiles,
indoor heaters... Sam , you take over!)

[goozlefotz]

From: Yahoo News

Survey: Scientific Misbehavior Is Common By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science
Writer

It's not the stuff of headlines, like fraud. But more mundane
misbehavior by scientists is common enough that it may pose an even
greater threat to the integrity of science, a new report asserts.

One-third of scientists surveyed said that within the previous three
years, they'd engaged in at least one practice that would probably get
them into trouble, the report said. Examples included circumventing
minor aspects of rules for doing research on people and overlooking a
colleague's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.

Such behaviors are "primarily flying below the radar screen right now,"
said Brian C. Martinson of the HealthPartners Research Foundation in
Minneapolis, who presents the survey results with colleagues in a
commentary in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Scientists "can no longer remain complacent about such misbehavior,"
the commentary says.

But "I don't think we've been complacent," said Mark S. Frankel,
director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Frankel, who wasn't involved in the survey, said its results didn't
surprise him. But he said that the survey sampled only a slice of the
scientific community and shouldn't be taken as applying to all
scientists.

The survey included results from 3,247 scientists, roughly 40 percent
of those who were sent the questionnaire in 2002. They were researchers
based in the United States who'd received funding from the National
Institutes of Health. Most were studying biology, medicine or the
social sciences, with others in chemistry and a smaller group in math,
physics or engineering.

Of the 10 practices that Martinson's study described as the most
serious, less than 2 percent of respondents admitted to falsifying
data, plagiarism or ignoring major aspects of rules for conducting
studies with human subjects. But nearly 8 percent said they'd
circumvented what they judged to be minor aspects of such requirements.

Nearly 13 percent of those who responded said they'd overlooked
"others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data,"
and nearly 16 percent said they had changed the design, methods or
results of a study "in response to pressure from a funding source."

Martinson said the first question referred to other researchers in
their own lab, and the second question referred to pressure from
companies funding their work.

But David Clayton, vice president and chief scientific officer at the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which focuses on biomedical research,
said he found both questions worded so vaguely that they could be
referring to perfectly acceptable activities.

Clayton also says it's not clear whether the behaviors addressed in the
survey have been increasing or declining over time.

___

[Sam Carana]

Sure, many objects can be lethal and suppliesr will take many precautions to avoid that. Moreover, they will be happy if someone points out potential dangers.

 

By contrast, scientists have closed themselves off from scrutiny and seek indemnity for things that have unimaginable destructive potential, such as nuclear boms, genetically-manipulated and chemical substances that are intended to cause contagious diseases at massive scale.

 

No, you will not silence me about this and people should not follow your false advice and close their eyes for what is so obvious!

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Scientists invented the self-sealing bag, electricity, etc.

And I for one have no fear of "nuclear boms."

And if what you claim is "so obvious," why can't you present any proof?

[Sam Carana]

Interesting survey, but how much is this part of a system that seeks to cover up its own horror? What worries me about such surveys is that they focus on things like falsifying data, plagiarism and intrusions of privacy. I've seen other surveys that focus almost exclusively on ethical questions of research into cloning and genetic manipulation. They all divert attention from the real horror of the system.

 

The question is who can be held responsible (if anyone) in case of a nuclear explosion somewhere on earth, a biological weapon being unleashed or an experiment gone wrong? Who? The magazine publisher who published instructions how to create bombs? The lab assistants who were so playfully experimenting with nuclear material? The consultants and experts who gave advice as to what security measures should be taken as precautions against unauthorized access and why? Anderson Consulting? 
 

Petty offenses like scientists plagiarism are addressed in many report about what's wrong with scientists. Moral concerns by christians about stem-cell research, cloning and IVF receive headlines in the press. But what about negligence of scientists in their responsibility for things they know more about than most other people, i.e. their own research and experiments? What about the vicarious liability of scientists for abuse of what they produce in their labs, outside the eye of public scrutiny? Wouldn't a pledge be a helpful step in the right direction?

 

The more scientists are jumping up and down, seeking to avoid such a pledge, the more we should trust our instincts that they are trying to cover up something fishy and are afraid for wistleblowers among them to expose this.

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

I think the regulations for projects using human subjects and anything
dealing with nuclear physics have some pretty strict guidelines and
regulations.

And there are laws that govern the use and storage of nuclear material.

And if universities don't do this, who does? A home-school mom? Yeah,
THAT'S who I want to be handling hazardous materials ...

[Sam Carana]

On 6/9/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the regulations for projects using human subjects and anything dealing with nuclear physics have some pretty strict guidelines and regulations. And there are laws that govern the use and storage of nuclear material.

 

If that's the case, then scientists should have to worry about pledging to comply and doing their duty of reporting risks, hazards and breaches. The problem is that they don't. Why don't they? Because the system has indoctrinated them with the wrong ideas.

And if universities don't do this, who does? A home-school mom? Yeah, THAT'S who I want to be handling hazardous materials ...

I have no ambitions handling hazardous materials. Anyone who rtead my posts will understand that I seek to make things safer, rather than trust any single person with responsibilities like that! Your misplaced ridicule and personal attacks don't gain you any credit here!
 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Why don't YOU take a pledge to comply with an oath of human dignity?
No? Why don't you? Because you're part of the system?

And where in this post did I attack you? I only attacked your
arguments. Get a clue ...

[zinnic]

My false advice? Again, an assertion on your part. Provide an example.

[Sam Carana]

It would be false advice to suggest that only the user was liable. The responsibility of suppliers is stated in an abundance of court rulings. If that was not what you were suggesting, then what were you trying to say? To use two of your own examples, automobiles and indoor heaters have to be recalled if they turn out to be unsafe.
 

Sam
 

[Sardonic Witt]

And yet firearm manufacturers are not subject to recall, which would be
a better analogy to your point about scientists. People make dangerous
things, intended for potentially harmful consequences. So long as these
possibilities are communicated, it is the user who bears the burden of
responsibility for an object's use.

See Sony v. Universal (the Betamax case). The Supreme Court ruled that
Sony was not responsible if VCR users abused copyright law with their
devices.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/10/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

And yet firearm manufacturers are not subject to recall, ..

 

No they're not! More generally, manufacturers should not be able to hide behind secrecy provisions to avoid the consequences for products that go haywire or fail in other respects.

..which would be a better analogy to your point about scientists. People make dangerous things, intended for potentially harmful consequences. So long as these possibilities are communicated, it is the user who bears the burden of responsibility for an object's use.

 

That's the very point. Scientists do not communicate very well. If they made a pledge, then they would at least be making some kind of statement. Instead, they expect to continue just making weapons and conducting dangerous experiments. They expect that, when things go wrong, we can clean up their mess, if we're still alive. That kind of attitude is completely unacceptable and a pledge would be a good step into the right direction!

See Sony v. Universal (the Betamax case). The Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not responsible if VCR users abused copyright law with their devices.

Read that case again! In the ruling, Sony only escaped liability because the programs were publicly broadcast, so the copyright owner's argument that there was no permission for viewers to see the movies didn't hold.

 

Manufacturers and suppliers of products are being convicted every day for delivering faulty products, for negligence, etc. Your suggestion that this wasn't the case is absurd.

 

Moreover, manufacturers and inventors should be scrunitized more closely for the impact of their products. The same goes for the people who plan and preach others to be killed in the expectation that, when they come before court, they can be indemnified under free speech provisions. It's time people start accepting responsibility for their conduct. It's time we start listening to the concerns people have about scientists and address the many valid points brought up in this group.

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

I love how you issue "directives!"

Sony escaped liability because the court reasoned that the inventor and
distributor of a technology should not be held liable for a particular
use if another intended use is stated.

SO, as I said, if the inventor or distributor of a technology explains
the intended purpose and warns about the dangers, they should be
covered under the law. And the Grokster case will either reinforce this
case in spades, or reverse our society's position on technology
development.

Either way, the "valid points" you cite haven't been shown valid, not
does anyone but you seem to think as you do (never a good sign) ...

[zinnic]

You know that I have never suggested that ONLY the user should be
held liable. Give me some credit.
It depends on the circumstances in which the individual or population
is harmed.
Vendors, manufacturers, inventors or your 'hateful' scientists are
not responsible for ALL the ills and misforunes that beset our current
society. I am all for changing our society for the better, both morally
and economically. Your vituperation and finger pointing at your
personal scapegoats is not persuasive but counter productive (did'nt
not work for the Democrats!).

.
the Queen [was in a furious passion, and went stamping about, and
shouting "Off with his head!" or "Off with her head!"about once a
minute]......Alice [They're dreadfully fond of beheading people here:
the great wonder is, that there's anyone left alive!].
Regards...Zinnic : - )

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:

> It's time we start
> listening to the concerns people have about scientists and address the many
> valid points brought up in this group.
> Sam

Scientists are people. They have families and mortgages and car
payments. The work they do is their job. If they don't do the job
they are told to do, they get fired. How can you hold the individual
scientist responsible for the results of their work any more than any
other employee is responsible for the work they do. If GM builds a
faulty car, is the worker on the production line to be held
responsible? Why are you focussed on scientists more than other
specialties?

[Sam Carana]

On 6/10/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sony escaped liability because the court reasoned that the inventor and distributor of a technology should not be held liable for a particular use if another intended use is stated.

 

The ruling was no blanket indemnity for inventors or distributors at all. There were a number of accusations, the main one being that VCRs assisted with (even invited to) breaches of copyright. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no breach of copyright where people just wanted to time-shift viewing of programs they were already permitted to view in the first place. Another accusation was that VCRs can also be used to tape content that people had no permission to view for, but that one was dropped because it wasn't the main use of VCRs.

 

In the case of weapons, there is a major controversy as to what their main or intended use is. Clearly, weapons are made to kill. That is the very intention. If such killing is practiced as a sport, then I suggest that makes it even more sick, because that suggested that one could derive pleasure out of killing. Anyway, there clearly are restrictions and regulations on the sale of weapons, and there are warrenty obligations and liabilities for manufacturers.

 

SO, as I said, if the inventor or distributor of a technology explains
the intended purpose and warns about the dangers, they should be
covered under the law. And the Grokster case will either reinforce this case in spades, or reverse our society's position on technology
development.

 

Yeah, the Grokster case is interesting to follow. But in the case of weapons of mass destruction, it's better to err on the safe side. Perhaps some scientist claims to have a well-intended purpose in mind, but let's face it, weapons of mass destruction are made to kill people at massive scale, there's no alternative use, is there?

 

Sam

[zinnic]

What is the safe side? Letting other countries develop whatever they
want whilst restricting ourselves to developing weapons that are LESS
terrorizing? Or should we ban the production of ALL weapons so that
other countries will realize how moral we are and, hence, not take
advantage of us in the ongoing global competition between theocracy
and democracy.

Hey! Why not have everyone in the whole wide world (fanatics included)
take a pledge that they will never, ever, use superior political,
economic or military power to control others. Surely, once these
pledges are signed and collected (by the UN?) everyone in the USA (and
the rest of the 'free' world ) will feel secure. With confidence that
these pledges will be honored by all, we can divert the enormous
savings in taxes (for security and education) towards a homeschooling
that will generate a complacent, self satified, insular nation that
will be ripe for the plucking by theocratic or autocratic barbarians .
Welcome to Sams world!.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/12/05, zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

What is the safe side? Letting other countries develop whatever they want whilst restricting ourselves to developing weapons that are LESS terrorizing?

 

We should think globally, rather than nationally. Science is not supposed to be different abroad.

Or should we ban the production of ALL weapons so that other countries will realize how moral we are and, hence, not take advantage of us in the ongoing global competition between theocracy and democracy.

 

Those who follow religious principles will give a pledge some weight. If it helps to avoid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists, then we should promote a pledge.

Hey! Why not have everyone in the whole wide world (fanatics included) take a pledge that they will never, ever, use superior political, economic or military power to control others.

 

Scientists are crucial for their access to details how to produce weapons of mass destruction. Thus, it's a good start to begin with scientists.

Surely, once these pledges are signed and collected (by the UN?)..

 

I do not advocate a central role for the UN. Instead, I advocate that educational institutions take their responsibilities in this regard more serious and take the extra step to avoid further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

... everyone in the USA (and the rest of the 'free' world ) will feel secure.

 

If it helps, then - yes - we will be able to sleep better. It's a good step in the right direction.

With confidence that these pledges will be honored by all, we can divert the enormous savings in taxes (for security and education) towards a homeschooling that will  generate a  complacent, self satified, insular  nation that will be ripe for the plucking by theocratic or autocratic barbarians. Welcome to Sams world!.

I do not advocate disarming unilaterally. Instead, I suggest that the military be split up into pieces. Yes, there will be huge savings resulting from that move, while there will also be better security services, due to higher efficiences, avoiding waste and bureacracy and better management and innovation.
 

But to get back to the pledge, if it helps a little bit in making the world a safer place, then why not?

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> Those who follow religious principles will give a pledge some weight. If it
> helps to avoid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction into the hands
> of terrorists, then we should promote a pledge.
>

And terrorists will honor the pledge, right? C'mon, Sam, get your head
out of your anal orifice!

[Sardonic Witt]

Because it's redundant and aimed at the wrong people?

I think regulating the USE of WMDs is much more important than
regulating their creation (though I am not happy to hear the U.S. is
making a new "combat nuke").

[Sam Carana]

If the "use" of WMDs is only targetted after the deed, then it's too late. We cannot let terrorists hold entire cities at ransom, because "sardonic wit" has decreed that terrorists can only be brought before a court after the explosion has actually taken place. In the case of WMDs, action needs to be taken much earlier.

 

If scientists suspect that their employer seeks to create and sell something with devastating consequences, then those scientist should blow the whistle and invite journalists to have a closer look into the matter of concern. Right now, scientists are not allowed to do so. If there was a pledge that would override secrecy demands by their employer in court, that would give scientists the confidence to ring the bell earlier, rather than when it's too late. Such a pledge is not just a burden on the shoulders of scientists, rather it's an extra feather on their hat, as it could protect them from private litigation by employers who claim breach of contract, security and secrecy provisions. It could also give scientists a legal defense for refusing to collaborate with the demands of rogue employers and exposing their concerns.   
 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

If people with terrorist inclination refuse to make the pledge, then that is a good thing, as it will expose such people at an early stage and prevent them from accessing ways to create weapons of mass destruction for terrorist causes. Similarly, religious scientists will think twice before handing over such weapons to terrorists if such a move is against what they have pledged.
 

A pledge is no fool-proof guarantee, but it's one of the things that will help and thus constitutes a step in the right direction. There's no reason to be rude about that, goozlefotz, instead, I suggest that it's better to exchange arguments, rather than insults.

 

Sam

[goozlefotz]

I usually try not to attack the person, sticking with the argument, but
Sam has incredibly unrealistic views on every subject in every post.
It is difficult to even reply to such off-the-wall arguments.

[Sardonic Witt]

Doesn't all of this demand MORE public regulation and LESS private
freedom? So, we're talking about the opposite of your education stance
here.

Currently arms SALES are as much a crime as arms use. Arms invention is
too vague to regulate.

[Sam Carana]

On 6/13/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't all of this demand MORE public regulation and LESS private freedom? So, we're talking about the opposite of your education stance here.

 

Private freedom? The freedom for for an elite to be educated under government control, in order for them to "freely" develop weapons of mass destruction to potentially kill millions of people and then being indemnified for that? That is not freedom! It has nothing to do with private either. Such a nighmare is by definition something that affects all of us. This is not something "private". It cannot be regarded as something that was to be protected from scrutiny by outsiders.

 

Furthermore, a pledge calls for educational institutions to become more conscious about their responsibilities. If such institutions want to give a good education, then they'll gladly incorporate such a pledge. Without government control over education, institutions would done so long ago.

Currently arms SALES are as much a crime as arms use. Arms invention is too vague to regulate.

Ahh, so you now finally admit that it's not just the "user" who is responsible. Weapons of mass destruction are not just invented by any old fool. It's a huge development process requiring many years of work by many people with expert skills and background. Scientists are at the core of the development of such weapons within the companies that develop and sell them. Scientists are also in a better position than most other people to realize the potential effects of such weapons. Scientists should be more serious about their responsibility and so should the institutions that educate the scientists. A pledge will be a step in the right direction.

 

Sam

[Sam Carana]

On 6/13/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't all of this demand MORE public regulation and LESS private freedom? So, we're talking about the opposite of your education stance here.

 

Private freedom? The freedom for for an elite to be educated under government control, in order for them to "freely" develop weapons of mass destruction to potentially kill millions of people and then being indemnified for that? That is not freedom! It has nothing to do with private either. Such a nighmare is by definition something that affects all of us. This is not something "private". It cannot be regarded as something that was to be protected from scrutiny by outsiders.

 

Furthermore, a pledge calls for educational institutions to become more conscious about their responsibilities. If such institutions want to give a good education, then they'll gladly incorporate such a pledge. Without government control over education, institutions would done so long ago.

Currently arms SALES are as much a crime as arms use. Arms invention is too vague to regulate.

Ahh, so you now finally admit that it's not just the "user" who is responsible. Weapons of mass destruction are not just invented by any old fool. It's a huge development process requiring many years of work by many people with expert skills and background. Scientists are at the core of the development of such weapons within the companies that develop and sell them. Scientists are also in a better position than most other people to realize the potential effects of such weapons. Scientists should be more serious about their responsibility and so should the institutions that educate the scientists. A pledge will be a step in the right direction.

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

Sure, we try to control harmful substances and devices.

But forcing inventors to restrict invention is not helpful, and it's
certainly opposed to your objections that education and knowledge
should be free from government control.

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
>
> A pledge is no fool-proof guarantee, but it's one of the things that will
> help and thus constitutes a step in the right direction. There's no reason
> to be rude about that, goozlefotz, instead, I suggest that it's better to
> exchange arguments, rather than insults.
> Sam

It will NOT help! Terrorists will sign the pledge and laugh at us.
Scientists will sign the pledge and continue to do what they are told
to do. My 'insults' reflect my frustration with your incredibly
unrealistic viewpoint.

[Sam Carana]

The above is so inconsistent and insincere! Government controls education in so many ways, the "independence" is a farce in the first place. But the worst act of control is how government indemnifies scientists who plot with dictatorial regimes to unleash weapons of mass destruction on innocent people.

 

And if someone like me stands up against this, I get attacked as if I was the villain in this picture! What principles is this supposed to reflect, if any? 

 

Sam

[Sardonic Witt]

How about we make Sam take a pledge not to be so irresponsible with
logic? It IS a powerful weapon ...

[goozlefotz]

Sam Carana wrote:
> And if someone like me stands up against this, I get attacked as if I was
> the villain in this picture! What principles is this supposed to reflect, if
> any?
> Sam

I don't think of you as a villain. I think of you as either naive or
crazy. In any case, I think that your proposals are unrealistic.

[Sardonic Witt]

That even on the Internet, idiocy is attacked by those who know better?
Hey, maybe that IS an argument for your "Internet education" model ...

[Sam Carana]

It seems that there are some misconceptions about the pledge I propose for scientists.

 

One such misconception is that a pledge would restrict scientists. As I explained, a pledge would instead assist scientists. A pledge would make it more difficult for scientists to be accused of ignoring their unconscionable demands by their employers. It would protect scientists' inclusion of moral values in their work and their teachings. Once such a pledge is common, scientists are in a stronger position to ignore and expose pressure to collaborate with harmful projects. It will be more difficult for scientists to be accused of breaching secrecy provisions when speaking out, because the position of scientists was well known before they were employed. In this way, a pledge would liberate scientists who follow their conscience and allow scientists to develop their talents without being held back by fears that they will be pushed into consceince conflicts.

 

Another misconception is that such a pledge should be forced upon scientists by government regulation. Instead, as I also explained, government's involvement with education should be opposed. Educational institutes should not be indemnified for handing over the instruments to murder people at massive scales. Anyone may walk into a university lab with plans to make weapons of mass destruction to kill millions of people. But essential tools, materials and information should not be handed over without any questions asked. Educational institutions and research labs should acknowledge their responsibility and a pledge is a good step in that direction. Again, such a pledge should not be enforced by law. Educational institutions of good standing will incorporate such a pledge naturally, while those who don't will expose themselves as unconscionable, which - without the evil hand of government - should mean they will be out of business in no time.

 

Finally, there is a misconception that the perception that the US could be attacked by rogue regimes justified stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) for use against such regimes. The reality is that the United States neither needs nor wants WMD to overthrow rogue regimes. Dictators can be taken out with missiles guided with pin-point accuracy, without any need to kill millions of innocent civilians in the process. But even dictators who deserve it aren't executed that way, because that would send out the wrong message. Instead of murder, the message is freedom, and it's sent out loud and clear in all the american TV programs seen all over the world. That message is sent out on the many CDs and DVDs people want all over the world. It's a message that's unstoppable and that shouldn't be tainted by a misconstrued idea that the US itself was a murderous regime.

 

At no point in history has any country been in such a strong military position as the US is today. This military strength can be used to persuade other countries that further proliferation of WMD is unacceptable. But rather than using more money to further increase military strength, this message should be spread by the media around the world. Dictators only stay in power due to their grip over the media and the tacit support of academics regarding their evil conduct. To change this situation, we should encourage journalists to expose dictatorship around the world, rather than to collaborate with the censorship such dictators feed on.

 

Many things start with education. To develop a conscience, to articulate a position, to stick to principles and to stand up against dictatorship, it's all very hard when the entire education system is preaching the opposite. Government involvement in education has led to the current situation, in which the entire world is held at ransom, under the threat of a conglomorate of scientists who work hand in glove with the military-industrial complex to point weapons of mass destruction at us and our children. Exposing the pivotal role of scientists in this horror is our duty. A pledge for scientists would be a step in the right direction to end this nightmare.

 

I am Sam, I have a conscience!

[Sardonic Witt]

You are Sam, who can't define conscience, at least not through your
actions ...

[Sam Carana]

Personal attack!!

[Sardonic Witt]

I didn't attack your person. I attacked your behavior on display in
this forum.

Get a clue.

[Sam Carana]

Clear refusal to apologize for an obvious insult, while another insult is added! I call for closer moderation of this person.

 

Sam
 

On 6/17/05, Sardonic Witt <sardo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[goozlefotz]

Those are pretty mild "inhsults". Try not to be so thin skinned.