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
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
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.
.
Zinnic:
Physicians are scientists. Should we demand a pledge that they
conduct only medical research that has NO potential for harm?
Zinnic: Presumably Sam's 'independent thinkers' will define the
"shortcomings". and hold "them' liable. Liable to what? Re-education in Sam's 'Gulags'?
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.
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.
Zinnic: Judgement of suitable acceptance of personal responsibilty will be by
.......?
No prizes for correct answer.
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.
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
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
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.
___
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?
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 ...
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 ...
And where in this post did I attack you? I only attacked your
arguments. Get a clue ...
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.
.
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 : - )
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?
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.
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!.
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 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!
Currently arms SALES are as much a crime as arms use. Arms invention is
too vague to regulate.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Get a clue.
Those are pretty mild "inhsults". Try not to be so thin skinned.