Ethics Classes by Dr. Bruce Glymour and Dr. Amy Lara
Dr. Glymour is a philosophy
professor at KSU and focuses mainly on philosophy as it pertains to Biology. He
has had papers published on evolution theory as well as natural selection.
Dr. Lara specializes in ethics and
offers classes on moral philosophy. She has been studying ethics as it pertains
to science, especially scientific communication. She is currently working on a
curriculum for graduate students that will teach them the ethics of such
communication.
Basic Ethics Terminology-
Dr. Lara: 5/30
This class was to mainly
introduce us to some of the basic terms we will come in contact with in the
next sessions and if we continue on learning about ethics or philosophy after
the program is over. We began by discussing three different “branches” of
ethics: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. The talk was mostly
over meta-ethics, which covers the question of objective values. Then, several
different beliefs were introduced, along with their general definitions. The
lecture ended with us going over consequentialism,
believing that the best course of action maximizes pleasure, and deontology, the belief that we should
act a certain was because we are supposed to and to not violate other’s rights,
no matter the personal negative consequences. We were then given the APS
guidelines and told to analyze which they focused on.
From what I can tell, the guidelines
tend to go more with deontic versus consequential reasoning for behaving a
certain way. Very rarely did the guidelines go through any punishment for
breaking them and generally stuck with repeating that it was simply unethical
to, for instance, plagiarize or fabricate data. The one consequence the paper
did stress, however, was that if others, especially those outside the
scientific community, were to discover these occurrences, it would greatly
damage the reputation of science as a whole, and lead many to no longer trust
the results gained from legitimate studies.
I can certainly foresee the
consequences that are claimed by the APS. If people were to stop trusting
scientists and their findings, nobody would have a future in this field, even
though it is of key importance to the advancement of our society. Even the
ramifications that are not mentioned would likely be devastating to the
individual since their reputation would be ruined and if they stole others
work, they could be in for extreme legal troubles. However, one issue I do
foresee with the guidelines and with the overall lecture is when what I believe
and what others believe are different, especially in a case where a superior
believes it is alright to fabricate data and encourages it while I don’t feel
comfortable with it. We have not yet gone into this situation, but I look
forward to it because I do believe that I have no idea what I would do if I
were ever put in that situation (be insubordinate or continue with unethical
behavior).
Discussion of APS Guidelines and
Some Instances of Dishonesty- Dr. Lara: 6/4
The beginning of the discussion
focused on the guidelines provided by the APS regarding ethics. We went over if
we found them to be more consequential or deontic in nature. I found that the
main consequence mentioned was preserving the foundation science was built upon
and making sure data collected is still looked at as scientific. The rest
seemed to be very deontic, focusing on the fact that fabricating data or
stealing other’s work is not appropriate simply based on standards we have.
Dr. Lara also dove into the thought
that sometimes unethical behavior may actually advance science instead of
hindering it, like copying ideas from lesser known scientists. I also brought
up Coulomb, since it is my understanding that he did fabricate his data, or at
least altered it, to obtain his famous equation. This also brought up the
responsibility of when to list someone as a co-author/acknowledgement and what
responsibility this placed on that individual.
A bulk of the talk was focused on
the case at Berkeley where the person who alleged to have discovered element
118 as well as its decay was shown to have fabricated results all the way back
to when he received his doctorate. It was asked why people do such things if
the likelihood of getting caught is relatively high. My belief is that it is
all ego; this can happen to everybody else except for me. This guy may have
gotten away with small scale cheating and then thought nothing would go wrong
and continued to do it. Dr. Corwin also made a good point in that he could have
simply made a mistake in the beginning, was too embarrassed to acknowledge it,
and then it spiraled out of control until he was caught.
We then went into the concept of
cognitive bias, or trying to look for certain patterns in data that don’t exist
or perhaps changing it to get the results wanted. This was a key point when we
discussed Milken and his Oil Drop experiment, which was a part of one of the
articles we read. Many are now arguing that he had faulty practices and that he
lied about it by claiming that the data he eventually used represented all the
drops he collected and there was no selective sampling. Personally, I agreed
with Dr. Corwin’s view on the case, in that when he performed the experiment,
and when he did admit to omitting certain data points, the policies were much
more relaxed and they were not seen as faulty or misleading. However, when the
times started to change and he could possibly be discredited, he thought it
best to alter his wording on the data. Overall, I also don’t see what the big
deal with it is. It is accepted that he did his experiment during a time when
views on data collection were shifting and was caught in the middle. We
currently abide by different standards and don’t need to dwell so much on
things that really don’t matter.
Speaking to the Public-Dr.
Glymour: 6/11
Most of the class was spent
discussing our views on what scientists owe to the public and possible
consequences for/against giving our results to them through the press. We also
went into what information should be discussed to the public if that time
comes, i.e. what do they really want to hear or what will they understand.
The professor went into the
positives that can come out of disclosing findings. He mentioned that more
funding could be gained and that any type of support is a good thing. Other
aspects were investigated, such as the possibility that explanation is owed to
them since we would be using funds to do research or possible other
social/scientific obligations we may have to uphold. We also talked about who
should actually do the speaking, since some people may not have time to do so
if they are immersed with work or if their communication skills are lacking.
The biggest issue though seemed to be how in depth people should go when trying
to explain findings with people not in the scientific community.
In my opinion, what we tell to the
public should be stripped down to methods we used, results found, and what
conclusions WE drew from it. That should be it. Some brought up if we should
try and convince people that are conclusions are correct, and possible ways
that people should change the finding implies we, as a society, are doing
something wrong. I don’t believe this is a good way to go about things. People
involved with science realize that findings almost always need to be refined,
corrected, or even refuted. However, the public usually believe that scientific
findings are absolute and that the conclusions should be believed
wholeheartedly, and if scientists try to play into this, disaster will occur.
When the public finds out about said refinements, corrections, or refutations,
they tend to believe the scientists made mistakes or are corrupt in some way,
and start losing faith in other findings that may be true. The best I think we
can do is offer our beliefs and give them the evidence to draw their own
conclusions.
Frames-Dr.
Glymour: 6/18
Scientists can be viewed in many
different ways, according to today’s lecture. These different views, as showed
during the class, range from an anti-establishment thinker, to a quack, or a
lone genius versus a large group. The benefits and expectations of each view
given to the views, or frames, was analyzed.
The case used for the lone genius
was that of Galileo, the “hero” of the fight for heliocentrism. We discussed
how he embodied part of the anti-establishment thought and went through the
virtues he had in order to generalize this view. The main attributes were
courage, audacity, actually being correct, etc. This also brought up how people
are not always these things we categorize them as, since Galileo himself
recanted his belief of a heliocentric galaxy when threatened by the church. It
was also brought up that he could be great a disagreeable person when it came
to intrapersonal interactions, such as those with his daughter.
To explain the large group, we began
talking about the Manhattan Project. Even though this was a collaboration, credit
is either given to the group or a chunk of it is given to the person in charge,
Oppenheimer. This is understandable, as they would also most likely take the
blame if the project failed. The key virtue given to people that work in this
time of environment would be cooperation. The benefits found from this type of
project could also be classified as social, since really no one person could
take full responsibility for its success.
Towards the end of the discussion,
the idea of if scientists should give advice or partisanship towards a view was
also brought up, ending with the same given answer: maybe.
To me, the idea of frames is the
same as putting a spin on something or cleverly using euphemisms. It’s all
about how ideas are presented and interpreted instead of how they actually are.
Sometimes everything can be on the same page, but usually the frame is added to
try and push the beliefs of the person applying the frame. I think that people
should always look at these topics with skepticism since most do add personal
opinions to whatever they present. My views are still the same as far as giving
our opinions to the public: express but don’t try to convince.