The Art And Science Of Respect Pdf Free Download

[Tiffani Wernett]

<div>Respect, thinking, and acting positively about others and ourselves (self-respect) means caring about how our actions impact others, being inclusive, and accepting others for who they are, even when they are different. Respect starts with confidence and is linked with empathy, compassion, integrity, and honesty.</div><div></div><div></div><div>In this guidance, we urge authors to be respectful of the dignity and rights of the human groups they study. We encourage researchers to consider the potential implications of research on human groups defined on the basis of social characteristics; to be reflective of their authorial perspective if not part of the group under study; and to contextualise their findings to minimize as much as possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups in the public sphere. We also highlight the importance of respectful, non-stigmatizing language to avoid perpetuating stereotypes and causing harm to individuals and groups.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>the art and science of respect pdf free download</div><div></div><div>DOWNLOAD: https://t.co/y0gdjjq2sJ </div><div></div><div></div><div>Research should respect the dignity and rights of human research participants; of individuals or groups connected either with the research participants or the research topic; and of the communities in which research is carried out. Research should also respect the rights of non-human life, tangible and intangible heritage, natural resources, and the environment.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Non-maleficence and beneficence are two fundamental principles in research ethics requiring the maximization of benefits and minimization of potential harms. These principles form a core part of general frameworks for the ethical conduct of research across the sciences and humanities (for example, The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki; The Belmont Report; the International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans; Ethics in Social Science and Humanities).</div><div></div><div></div><div>Additionally, we require that all content submitted for publication be respectful of the dignity and rights of individuals and human groups. Researchers are asked to carefully consider the potential implications (including inadvertent consequences) of research on human groups defined by attributes of race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability or other status, to be reflective of their authorial perspective if not part of the group under study, and contextualise their findings to minimize as much as possible potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups in the public sphere.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Finally, authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their submitted manuscripts. Authors should ensure that writing is free from stereotypes or cultural assumptions. We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to attributes such as race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability or other group descriptors unless they are relevant. We advise that authors writing in English follow the guidance on bias-free language provided by the American Psychological Association when preparing their manuscripts for submission.</div><div></div><div></div><div>We expats of rural Canada carry pieces of the place that bred us, and in my approach to science communication, I use lessons I've brought from my own. Growing up in Nova Scotia, I was given a strong sense of the stereotype of Maritimer generosity: we'll give anyone the shirt off our back, if you sincerely need it, and then invite you in for blueberry grunt and a Keith's (or five).</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Where I'm from, we're taught that we owe respect to every person we meet. To clarify what I mean by respect, I prefer this definition from Merriam-Webster: "a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way". I've also heard it described as "recognizing the humanity in others".</div><div></div><div></div><div>A study released in 2015 from the Pew Research Centre found that just over a third of American adults do not believe that humans evolved. Only half believe that human activity has caused climate change, and a similar number believe genetically modified foods are "generally unsafe". These are all topics that science has a great deal to say about, and where scientists and the public appear to be in stark disagreement.</div><div></div><div></div><div>The primary way scientists reach out to adults beyond the school system involve media outlets like TV and radio, and we shy away from these venues because we fear being misrepresented by them. There certainly are success stories: people like Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku have offered themselves as public touchstones for entire fields of science. But in my field, genetics, we've stayed mostly quiet. I bet you know why.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I came a bit late to the controversies - I was only 11 years old when the human genome project was completed in 2001, for example. And by the time I entered university, the dust was already kicked up, and the battle lines were being drawn. At the same time I was learning about how genetic research is done, I was also hearing the public backlash. Keep science out of my food. Keep science out of my doctor's office. And, absolutely keep science out of my children. It was startling at first, especially as so few of my mentors seemed willing to engage this divide between scientific and public opinion.</div><div></div><div></div><div>To answer this question, I turn back to what I've learned about respect. After vicious Maritime storms, people will do seemingly selfless things, like dig each other's vehicles out of the snow with no expectation of payment (this may not be the norm in Halifax, but in the smaller towns and villages it's certainly true). They do this because they respect each other enough to cooperate. If you respect your neighbours enough to recognize that you're facing the same struggles, you'll want to help. This is not a complex idea and it needn't be rooted in some profound morality.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Our world is a complex place, and we all struggle to make our way through it as best as we can. This remains true when we're talking about snowstorms, or genetically modified organisms, or vaccines, or genetic testing. So far, we (geneticists) have failed to appreciate that although we're all afraid of the same things (cancer, food insecurity, infections), other people will make decisions on these topics according to their own values, not ours. Instead of engaging with this divide, we've clung to the idea that teaching more science will make everyone think the way we do. But perhaps it is precisely this lack of respect for the wider public that has driven people away.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Scientists are learning to be respectful, but progress is slow. The first step for us is to recognize that everyone is doing their best to make good choices in a chaotic world. The second is to offer our scientific perspective for public scrutiny in a way that is reflective of the highest scientific ideals - that is, our science communication must be oriented towards improving lives.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I am proud to count myself among many fantastic geneticists that are beginning to foster a sense of public respect within science*. I can only hope we will have the privilege to be guided through this transition by non-scientists who are ready to forgive the combative relationship our institutions have created, and help us craft a scientific culture that welcomes diverse viewpoints and discussion.</div><div></div><div></div><div>A "no ethics" principle has long been prevalent in science and has demotivated deliberation on scientific ethics. This paper argues the following: (1) An understanding of a scientific "ethos" based on actual "value preferences" and "value repugnances" prevalent in the scientific community permits and demands critical accounts of the "no ethics" principle in science. (2) The roots of this principle may be traced to a repugnance of human dignity, which was instilled at a historical breaking point in the interrelation between science and ethics. This breaking point involved granting science the exclusive mandate to pass judgment on the life worth living. (3) By contrast, respect for human dignity, in its Kantian definition as "the absolute inner worth of being human," should be adopted as the basis to ground science ethics. (4) The pathway from this foundation to the articulation of an ethical duty specific to scientific practice, i.e., respect for objective truth, is charted by Karl Popper's discussion of the ethical principles that form the basis of science. This also permits an integrated account of the "external" and "internal" ethical problems in science. (5) Principles of the respect for human dignity and the respect for objective truth are also safeguards of epistemic integrity. Plain defiance of human dignity by genetic determinism has compromised integrity of claims to knowledge in behavioral genetics and other behavioral sciences. Disregard of the ethical principles that form the basis of science threatens epistemic integrity.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Technoscientific research aiming to have immediate practical payoff typically cannot be conducted without being informed by well confirmed basic theory, and/or by the availability of suitable instruments for manipulating materials. The research that produced transgenics, e.g., depended upon prior knowledge having been gained about the molecular structures of genomes; cures promised to follow stem-cell research depend upon fundamental understanding of cell development; nanotechnology became possible following the construction of instruments that enabled the manipulation of individual molecules. Technoscience does not eliminate basic science, but the priorities of research in basic science tend to be set with an eye on long-term practical payoff, or on practical spinoff from the developments of instruments, etc, that need to be developed to make the research possible (Lacey 2012).</div><div></div><div></div><div>Of course, those who hold the values of capital and the market may reject my proposal for rehabilitating neutrality, and hence my account of the responsibilities of scientists, and be comfortable with science being at the service of special interests. Any argument made for this needs to be attended to. There are others who think that there is nothing that can be done (without having the material conditions of their lives threatened) to counter the dominance of capital and market forces today, or that the responsibility of scientists, qua scientists, is to behave according to the norms prevailing in contemporary scientific institutions.</div><div></div><div> 31c5a71286</div>