Clarifying Human Dignity (Response to Graham…)

You brought up some excellent points in regards to the two types of human dignity in your last post Graham. I think that this is a very important distinction to make. I admit that as I’ve been thinking through the human enhancement, it has been the first definition that I’ve utilized (as you picked up on my last post). Just to clarify the first definition of human dignity relates to our intrinsic value as human individuals and then the second definition of human dignity (as Graham pointed out) relates to our behavior as human individuals. We use this second definition when we say that someone’s actions (running around naked or throwing feces at people) don’t measure up to some kind of social standard.

I think we can agree that the second definition of human dignity in regards to behavior isn’t what gives us intrinsic value. Going back to your lunatic running the streets naked. The fact that he acts in a socially deviant way doesn’t negate the fact that he has intrinsic value. This is why you as an individual can’t just shoot him or enslave him for his behavior. Although his actions may be undignified as a human being, there is still something about him which must be respected. He may need to be punished for his criminal behavior, but as Kant points out to punish someone for a crime IS to treat them as an end and not a means. It recognizes their individual responsibility as human.

You wonder why people like Kass seem to think that our human dignity can be so easily lost. I think a clarification here may be helpful. Kass’s whole point is that human dignity can’t be lost! It is impossible to extract from an individual there intrinsic worth as a person. It is actually those who think an individual’s worth comes from their biology or external social views that need to answer why human dignity can be taken away from someone.

What Kass is saying is that while, a person’s human dignity can never be taken from them, we can treat others as if they didn’t have that intrinsic worth. That is the danger of post humanism, not that is will somehow remove the “dignity gene” but that it isn’t treating the individual with the respect due them as a person with intrinsic human dignity. By analogy, enslaving a group of people doesn’t actually remove their dignity as persons but in a horrifying way treats them as if they weren’t intrinsically valuable individuals.

I can relate to your frustration when Kass never clearly defines human dignity. That is one of the weaknesses of his argument I admit. But, let’s look at both sides. The post-human proponents say that if Kass can’t give a clear definition for human dignity then he shouldn’t denounce them as harming this unidentified thing. On the same note though, if the proponents can’t give an adequate definition for human dignity how can they say that Kass’s policies oppose it? It’s pretty clear I believe that the proponents haven’t provided a clear and defensible definition for human dignity and how post humanism won’t harm it.

One last question, I haven’t taken phil bio but the notion of essentialism seems interesting. If essentialism holds that a species has a distinct set of properties that define it as a species, are these properties physical or immaterial? Is essentialism referring to scientifically, statistically determined characteristics like Fukuyama’s Factor X or does it refer to a philosophical, classical definition of essences? (You’ll have to excuse my ignorance).

Human Enhancement

So I just had a few thoughts from last weeks presentation. First off I just think it would be entertaining to admit that I had the second lowest score of 9 =) I guess you could say I am on the con side. When I think of the difference between therapy and enhancement I see it as this: Therapy is helping someone meet their current potential and I see enhancement as enabling someone to go beyond their potential. Is bigger really better? I dont think so at all. I don't think that being able to give someone a pill to make them happy will make the world a better place let alone that person be truely happy. I see it as an easy way out. I think the point that stood out the most from the critic side was the loss of pride in one-self. To give everyone the opportunity to make themselves go beyond their potential seems to me that what makes us so much different from other creatures is our vast amount of emotions. This is kinda extreme but I see our world going towards that scene in the movie "Wall-E" where technology was so advanced no one had the desire to do anything and they all became so obese they couldnt get up and they just sat around all day and no relationships except for those in their virtual world. That is a pretty extreme case, but I think one of the reasons we have people excell in certain activities is because they can take pride and joy into the work they put into excelling and that satisfaction you get when recieving a first place in an activity just wouldnt be the same. You took a pill to make you run faster, yeah you would probably have to work alittle so that your muscles could work, but that extra training you did to be the fastest wouldnt mean anything. The award ceremony would mean nothing, the pill deserved the award... not you. One thing I did notice throughout the presentation was that the two sides were almost argueing against different things and I believe this happens alot. The pro side seemed to be argueing for enhancement that could be used to fix physical deformities, physical complications, and diseases. The critic side seemed to be argueing against super humans. First off, for the pro side, I have to say that I believe a hundred percent that plastic surgery is an enhancement. But as someone said in class it has been so abused and the ability to help people has gone way beyond that. I think the the human race cant handle alot of our technology. I think it was said at the end of class, but the idea that we need to argue for the same thing and debate a certain situation instead of debating the whole topic. Sorry this is so scattered... I just had alot on my mind =)

Swine Flu Outbreak

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/04/swine_flu_outbreaks_and_the_et.php#more

The link above is an article titled "Swine Flu Outbreaks and the Ethics of being Sick" by Janet Stemwedel. In the article, Stemwedel discusses many ethical questions regarding what to do when you sick. One question she raises is that of staying in bed vs. seeking medical care. In this section of the article, she discusses the cost-benefit analysis of staying in bed vs. getting medical care when you are not sure how serious your illness is. She brings up many interesting points for when you should get medical care vs. when you should tough it out. This dilemma reminds me of the prisoners dilemma reading we discussed in class earlier this semester. There are costs and risks that each decision you make takes on, and it is often difficult to figure out what the best solution will be to end up with the best possible outcome. On one hand, going staying in bed and toughing your illness out will not put a burden on the hospital resources who need to help people who actually have the flu opposed to those who are not sure. On the other hand; however, if you do not get treated, you have the possibility of getting sicker; also, if you do recover on your own, the tracking of the illness cannot be recorded and this also becomes a disadvantageous outcome. It's defintely a very interesting question to ask yourself when you come down with something and are not sure of the severity of your illness. I'd like to hear what you all think of the article and ethical issues it discusses.

The Blur of Dignity (Response to Justin…)

Justin, I liked your layman’s definition of ‘human dignity’, particularly the notion of their intrinsic value. I’ve thought a lot about this issue because the question of post-human dignity looms at every end of this debate, and the dreaded post-human state is purely speculative. So we all have this intrinsic value that holds our dignity, human status, etc. but why does it seem so easy to lose? There seems to be a blurring of two separate definitions of dignity. Of course the sense that you are referring to as an intrinsic, state of “being human” sense of dignity; and then the sense relating to behavior, respect, and self-worth. Perhaps there is an assumption that we all have dignity regardless of our behavior. I know this is beginning to blend with definitions of integrity but I would argue that this second notion of dignity is just as easily compromised as ones integrity. Here is the problem I have when discussing the post-human, there ought to be (if there isn’t already) a precise conception of intrinsic dignity. If this intrinsic dignity could be compromised by altering the human state, then what other external (or internal?) factors could also compromise it? This was always where Leon Kass lost me in his argument. He argued for the potential post-human threat to human dignity but never really offered a concrete sense of this type of dignity. The lack of definitive explanation has always led me to believe Kass arguing for some type of theistic soul. I found this seemingly implicit axiom very frustrating, not to mention the nauseatingly frequent invocations of Aldous Huxley’s book, Brave New World.

I also don’t think dignity is relating to something as trivial as laws, culture, or “someone arm”, as Justin clearly pointed out, but I do question the dignity of someone with severely diminished mental function. Not in the sense that just because you lack mental abilities you cannot have dignity, but at what point does mental deterioration start affecting dignity? If your deteriorated mental state left you insane and you felt the perpetual overwhelming urge to run naked through public throwing feces at passersby, then your dignity would definitely be in question. Though this would be in the second sense of dignity mentioned above and not the first, right? Again the terms are blurring between the intrinsic sense of dignity and the dignity that we all have as self-respecting adults. The problems I refer to as the “blurring” may only exist as problems for me because of my own engrained perceptions.

Kass’s direction does seem to be moving into the immaterial realm which now resembles the tenets of essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that biological species hold essences or properties that constitute what it is to exist as that species. This is most commonly seen as a type of alternative species concept within the philosophy of biology. So if Kass is saying that our intrinsic dignity (i.e.) ‘what it means to be human’ is defined by this unidentified characteristic, then I take Kass to be an essentialist. I won’t go into the problems with essentialism here, but Kass will have to rise to an unprecedented level if he wants to beat this challenge.

One other point I would like to make is that it’s not clear that living an enhanced state would affect human dignity. Of course if we construe the post-human to the over-enhanced abomination like state of The Borg from Star Trek, then it’s easy to focus on the negative. I wonder if those who have experienced organ transplants, prosthetics, or other types of treatments feel as though they have lost something integral with their sense of self. This may provide a little insight into what the post-human state may look like on a very rudimentary level.

Obama's Speech on Science

President Obama gave a speech today regarding science research, funding, and education. This speech gives a very broad plan for the future of our country’s scientific research and development. When compared with the American Competitiveness Initiative (that I spoke about in the group presentation), this plan does focus more on the education and research aspect instead of the profit-driven science and technological advancements. Yet, there are many similarities between them as well, which focuses on intertwining education, science, and the economy. While all of the points in this speech sound like they can help the country advance in many areas of science, there continues to be a strong tie between science and the need for economic growth (the "profit" of the government). There are many, MANY issues addressed in the speech, so if you have some time, check it out!

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/27/obamas-strident-support-of-science/

(The transcript of the speech is a few paragraphs down on the page)

Climate Change Responsibility and Social Justice

Climate change has become increasingly important in the past decade. Increased green house gas emissions (carbon dioxide emissions) in the atmosphere due to human activities such as burning of fossil fuels, land use, etc. are resulting in increased global temperatures, glacier retreats, increased length of seasons, changing and severe weather, sea levels rising, etc. This in turn causes a number of controversial and ethical issues: the rich (developed countries) vs. the poor (developing countries) and the responsibilities and obligations that accompany climate change. There are many ethical issues that correlate to climate change. If prevention and reduction strategies are to be developed to address the issues of climate change, they must combine adaptation, mitigation, and ethical principles in developed and developing countries.

Politicians and world leaders have an obligation to develop a plan that will reduce the sources of climate change. However Chalmers explains that many value systems are ill-equipped to deal with the spatial and temporal complexities of the problem. Meaningful change will require collective action on an unprecedented scale, and will require that responsibility is effectively assigned and assumed. One aspect of this ethical dilemma of climate change is whether or not humans have an obligation and responsibility to future generations. Climate change is not only effecting the current generation, but could also have a drastic impact in the future. Secondly, there exists and issue of the obligations of the rich vs. the poor. Considerable changes in our climate will have a greater effect on certain countries. One of the complications of trying to develop solutions to climate change is acknowledging that it is a serious issue. The countries that are well-off and are financially stable have many resources, connections, and influences that can be used to inform and educate others of climate change. They also have the financial means to help fund scientific research and implement prevention and adaptation plans. Countries such as these have an ethical and moral responsibility to use their resources to help the effort of climate change prevention and reduce their impact. The problems associated with climate change will have the greatest effect on the poor. The plans and strategies developed to adapt to and prevent climate change need to be tailored so that there are responsibilities to the poor that guarantee social justice.

Human Dignity

While thinking about the enhancement presentation over the last week, the question of human dignity has kept surfacing in my mind. It seems that this is one of the fundamental questions that we have to investigate if we are to begin exploring the human enhancement debate. I think I’m going to write my final paper on this topic and was curious to hear others perspectives on the issue. I guess the question is, “In what does human dignity rest?”

First of all, I guess we need to at least try and define the terms. If I had to define human dignity in layman’s terms, I guess I would describe it as a characteristic of each and every human individual which gives them intrinsic and not just utilitarian value. In other words, we all know intuitively that you can’t put a dollar value on someone’s life; human life and money aren’t on the same spectrum. I believe that’s what Kant was referring to when he said we must always treat humanity whether others or our self as an end and not merely a means. Human dignity may be hard to define, but I believe that we all intuitively believe that there is something about us that gives us intrinsic value. And even if we don’t admit to this, we all seem to live as if human life had intrinsic value.

So, from where does this value come? (You’ll have to forgive me my Kassian exploration, but I’m definitely open to hearing other points of view). Two options which I think are ruled out logically are our physical human body and the common values of society. I’ll try to explain my reasoning. If we root out human dignity in our physical body or in our DNA we have made a gross err. The problem with rooting dignity in the physical body is that anything physical can be removed. If our dignity was physically found in our “right arm”, by removing that appendage one could physically remove someone’s dignity. I know this sounds a little ridiculous but bear with me. What about rooting it in our neurons? We could then say that to be dignified is to have a certain mental capability. But again if one loses this through brain damage, do we say that they have physically lost their dignity? The same holds true for our DNA, it may be immensely harder to remove, but any attempt to say that it is our basis for a dignified life is to say that if an individual had their genetic makeup altered, they could in fact alter their human dignity. Any attempt to root human dignity in the physical, material body seems destined to fail because, anything physical can be removed from the person.

What about viewing human dignity not as something emanating from an individual but as something that is bestowed upon an individual from the outside culture? In other words, human life has dignity because we all agree as a society that it has dignity. At first this sounds like a very reasonable approach but it too has a fatal flaw. If the surrounding culture can give an individual human dignity then they can also take it away. In our current western society we sometimes forget this fact and say that a person is valuable because we all agree that they are valuable. But what happens when society no longer believes that? Is that not what has happened all through history. Slavery, denying women their rights, child prostitution, infanticide, racism, is not each of these a situation where society has decided that a certain group of individuals no longer has the dignity that the rest of society has? If we are going to denounce these practices as objectively wrong in any sense, we can’t turn back around and say that human dignity is bestowed on the individual by society. That is just nonsense.

So where does that leave us? I think this the direction that Kass was moving in his writings. This is why he argued for rooting human dignity in something immaterial yet still in the individual. I agree that it’s hard to define and by definition can’t be discovered by science which only concerns itself with the physical. But, in light of the other options is it really that farfetched? We can call it the “The natural human activity,” or “human flourishing,” or the “human soul,” but I think that a pretty strong argument can be made for rooting human dignity in something of this sort. I realize that a positive argument hasn’t been made here but the negative argument against the alternatives seems pretty strong.

I realize that there are a lot of assumptions made in this argument, but if we agree that human dignity is something that does exist, sooner or later we must begin defining and laying out its boundaries. Any thoughts? Like I said I’m open to criticism and am looking for feedback before writing my paper.

Possibility of Human Cloning

This is a video I came across on CNN.com. According to this, a doctor recently used cloned embryos and transferred them into 4 different women in the hopes that they would result in pregnancies. I find this truly unbelievable…first, that we actually have the technology to do this. And second, because there are people that want to have their children be clones of themselves. Personally, I would have a difficult time with the concept of having a child that would actually be a replication of me. It just seems weird. But on a more general note, with a “breakthrough” like this it seems like there are more negative side effects than positive. They state that by cloning the embryos and implanting them, they can provide a couple with “biological offspring”. Don’t we already have the technology to do this without cloning? A lot of time and money are going into this area of study even though there is an alternative that is already being used. In vitro fertilization is one option that has been used for decades now and the procedure is far less risky compared to cloning. The main concern with cloning is that there is a higher chance of the child having birth defects. So, is there a rational reason for this doctor to clone a human? In my opinion, the reason for cloning in this case is not substantial since there are alternatives already available, and the procedure should not have gone forward.

This video also states that there are doctors that clone embryos for the use of stem cells. These stem cells are used only for medical research. But there are other methods of obtaining stem cells for research that are “natural”, such as collecting umbilical cord stem cells after a child is born. The lines that have been drawn in the cloning debate seem blurred. How is it acceptable for embryos to be cloned for the use of stem cell research, but not for reproductive purposes? It would seem that once an embryo has been cloned, even for the use of stem cell research, it would be difficult to stop the eventual reproduction of a human being. Both purposes come from the initial act of cloning, so how can the two be distinguished?

The topic of cloning is very controversial and there are many conflicting opinions on the matter. According to the video, the doctor involved believes that his team will have successfully cloned a baby within two years. If we haven’t been able to resolve the issues involved with this topic by now, how will we resolve them in two more years?

Human Enhancement: Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride

This started as a response to Alex’s post from a few days ago, but I think it’s grown long enough to become its very own thread.

While I'm sympathetic to Alex's view that human enhancement (particularly genetic) holds many tempting opportunities for improvement of the human condition, I have serious reservations about it. For me, morality of the pursuit of knowledge always comes down to motive and intent. Personally, I'm not against human enhancement for what it is, another technology to augment our reality. I have two primary issues with it, one stemming from personal belief and one from my concern for social justice.

To be fair, I will disclose upfront that my personal belief stems partly from the Buddhist teachings of attachment, desire, and no-self as they relate to human suffering. From my personal perspective, I am skeptical of the motives people may have for wanting to "improve" themselves in the first place. Are we really doing it to improve our health and well-being, or is it because it would be "cool" to have the latest and greatest super-human capabilities? Does this desire arise out of a general dissatisfaction with our present state? I think this is, as Kristian eluded to, psychological more than anything else. A lot of proponents talk about "improving well-being" and this "moral obligation to future generations to enhance," but I really believe these arguments are trying to hide a deeper, self-centered motivations of wanting to change who or what we are now. I guess in this way I agree with Kass somewhat when he says we should ‘let healthy bodies be,’ but this doesn’t mean I’m completely opposed to people wanting to ‘augment’ themselves either. We’re all at different stages of acceptance of our present condition, so I think it’s natural to have these motives. I think that in any case (and Dave, I’m also a fan of casuistry, case-based reasoning), the individual needs to truly reflect on what it is she values about both her present state and the improvements that enhancement supposedly will bring.

From the social justice perspective, this is where I hit a wall with human enhancement technology. Again, I think that self-centeredness is part of the problem here, because it seems to me that enhancement is often pursued out of personal fantasy and greed. Aside from that, however, I think we do have a moral obligation to the worse-off, and I don’t see how enhancement research is going to help them in the near future. Thomas Pogge, Norman Daniels, Dan Brock, James Flory, and Philip Kitcher (all those papers we had for the discussion on justice in research) all argue that we have an obligation to devote scientific research and resources to other people and other nations worse off than ourselves, especially when we have a direct involvement in their economic or social affairs. These resources are limited, and the more we devote to enhancement tech, the less we devote to AIDS, malaria, TB, water/food crises, etc. I don’t buy the proponents’ argument for one second that enhancement tech will eventually help these people someday. If we have a problem now distributing resources appropriately, how can we expect this to change in the future? I know Bostrom argues that future people will be smarter and maybe even more caring than we are, but I’d rather not chance the survival of our modern population on the enlightenment of future generations.

I also wanted to add that I agree with Dave that human enhancement is already happening, and I think we’re wandering through fog along the edge of a cliff. The technological capabilities to select for certain traits in embryos are mostly a reality, and it’s already being performed to some extent when we select ‘healthy’ embryos for IVF or choose to abort others when found to carry some dangerous disease. Our society obviously has a fascination with mood- and physical-enhancement drugs, which are highly advertised and made widely available. Cosmetic plastic surgery, whether the proponents want to call it enhancement or not, is probably one of the worst yet most widespread fads of our modern times, in my opinion. Maybe there’s no stopping the train, but I hope that individuals think carefully before they jump on board because, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, “buy the ticket, take the ride.”

Blog Best-of Due Date

I mentioned in my last post about grading the blog that I will be asking for a "best of portfolio" of your blog posts. Here's how I want that: please select what you take to be your five most substantive, interesting, and important posts or comments from the term, copy and paste them into the body of a single email message to me and send it by May 12th (posting in that week is fair game: hopefully everyone will keep reading out of interest). I'll sit down on the 13th and consider these, your cumulative blog score (curved across the class), and the average of your best eight weeks and come up with a letter grade for this component of the course.

Response to Group 2's Presentation

After Group 2’s presentation on human enhancement, I came to the same conclusion I usually do about most ethical topics: they must be dealt with case-by-case. Of course that is probably just because of my moderate nature—I don’t like to have clear-cut situations. I am a firm believer in discussion and whether or not we pursue human enhancement should be discussed thoroughly every time an ethical question arises. Some cases are clear: if cancer treatments can be created through biotechnology that does not consist of taking poison then it should be our priority to do so. Allowing a parent to choose the aesthetic features of their children is an example of enhancements we should not employ as there really are not any tangible benefits to society or the individual.
Kind of brings me to my whole thought on the matter of enhancement: we already do it. I did not want to get into this in class due to time so here’s a good place to put my thoughts. Our only purpose, with comparison to the rest of nature, is to reproduce and raise our young to the point that they can reproduce. I am ignoring the fact that a lot of animals do not raise their young. So is it much more to say that we should do everything in our power to make life easier for the next generation? This, of course, is not always the case as with pollution or big-bank CEOs. Curing and treating disease is just one way we do that. So, in this regard, medicine is natural. Biotechnology is just an extension of medicine that involves new science. As history tells us, new science can appear to be bad and unnatural. Therefore, it is safe to say human enhancement already happens. For example, vaccines enhance our ability to develop immunities to disease.
However, there must be a limit. That limit should be heavily discussed by both sides of the issue. Thinking that aging is a disease is probably up there on craziest things said. Could write a book about why not dying is actually a bad thing. I’ll go with just saying that over-population is enough evidence against it. Also, I firmly believe that enhancement in sports beyond proper nutrition and hard work is wrong. I think that the flaws in athletes are what make the sport worth watching. It is nice to see great performances every now and then but everyone being perfect would take away the point of watching. Sorry, Matthew.
Guess that is just my idea on the matter: Beat the topic down with discussion until a course of action can be made.

Readings for 4/24

Here are the 2 readings for the upcoming 3rd presentation on "Global Climate Change".

5th Chapter titled Doing Something from James Garvey's book "The ethics of Climate Change".

Kyoto Protocol from "Encylopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change" 2008 Ed. Sage Publications.



EXTRA:-

For a quick guide to "The ethics in climate change" here's an interview (15min) with author, James Garvey DOWNLOAD mp3

Organic Foods

Our group presentation as you all know was about the industry in science. Just something that I didnt quite go into was organic foods. I am not against organic foods even though I may seem to appear that Im against it. I do believe that there needs to be a balance though. I do not like to support industries that hide behind peoples fears and concerns of the envirnment... organic foods today seem to be more of a market scheme then anything to me and I guess that is what bothers me the most. I believe that we should be supporting local farmers and getting away from dangerous pesticides. I do believe that pesticides are important though, we just wouldnt be able to produce enough forages to take care of our population of both humans and animals. The pesticides protect our crops from disasterous losses. Maybe what we need to put more research in developing less dangerous pesticides? I know we are having some very negative outcomes from using our past pesticides, such as the farmers that are using them are now coming down with cancers and such. I think anything we do is going to come with a price which is to bad... unfortunately we cant have everything. I think people need to start looking at the big picture though. I dont have an answer to how we can "make" people look at the big picture. Maybe it we just need to move back to older morals. It seems the further we move away from morals and ethics the more we lose. I dont know what morals need to come back and I realize I am walking on thin ice when it comes to even mentioning morals and what morals are. I cant define a good person, there must be something we strive for though, so maybe going back to older generations morals where life revolved more on family values then everything today being bigger is better and such. I think organic food is a great idea... i would love to support it... but i think it is just as corrupt as any other industry which is led by profit. Who blames them for being led by profit though... many of us are in college just so that we can make more money when we graduate compared to if we hadnt come to college. I know many people that have jobs that make great money but they hate the job... So I dont blame big industries for being led by money. It is just sad to me that something that could be such a good thing is being ruined, and people dont even realize it. I doubt many people stop and thing about how food is labeled and where it comes from and they blindly follow the labels that they feel safe with. I had no idea until I researched it that organic food in the US is being imported from China and other countries! That is crazy to me. There is so much more to the industry that many people would even think about... I think we do need to stop and think about things... people arent using their brains like we should be! Of course I am speaking very generally... but I think even I need to think more so I dont feel to bad about thinking that others should too.

Private Industry in Academics

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Here is an article from Discovery Magazine (Oct 2007 issue) by Jennifer Washburn. It talks more about the industry of science. The subject of private industry meeting the academic world is presented. In today’s world, the trend is for universities to receive funding from private companies in the hopes that the results from the research will benefit the company. The article points out that there are instances when the professors have either worked at that company or own stock in that company, which creates a conflict of interest. On the other hand, the joining of private industry and universities will create a connection for information to travel through. This would provide the students with an applicable experience while still in school, as well as preparing them for work in the “real world”. The companies will also benefit by receiving up-to-date information on the area of research.
However, there is a huge debate on what information is released to the public. Since much of the work is done at public universities, it is under the specific university, and more generally, the government’s jurisdiction. When the private companies begin to put money into the university’s research, the dilemma of HOW the research is used becomes an issue. The private company will want to publish only the information that will benefit their agenda, while the university will want to publish all of their findings so that the knowledge can be spread to others in that same area of study. So what is typically done in these situations? Many companies will use just the research that is beneficial to them…but is this sending the wrong message? Yes. They should be releasing ALL of the information about the research so that the public can have the opportunity to fully understand the situation. But by using only part of the research that is conducted at the universities, isn’t this sending the wrong message to the students that will soon be in the workforce doing their own projects? Will they think that it is okay to just release the information that benefits the company the most instead of looking out for the best interest of the public?

From page 4, “The dilemma, says Eric Campbell of Harvard, is that industry partnerships yield many positive benefits: funding opportunities, the conversion of knowledge into products that benefit the public, rewards for inventors, jobs, economic growth. On the other hand, “the fundamental reason the public invests in science is out of the belief that it represents truth, untainted by commercial interests,” he says. “So to call that into question, I think, is really one of the great risks.’” The universities and the students attending them will have more research opportunity by collaborating with private companies. The big question that arises from this is… Does the collaboration present the public with an accurate representation of the situation? I think that is doesn’t present the information in a truthful manner. How are we, as the public, supposed come to an accurate conclusion when we don’t have complete information? If we are looking at this using the “problems” in Kitcher’s book, there are two problems that relate to this situation.

First, is the Problem of Inadequate Representation:

When the only information about the research that is being presented is in favor of the company’s agenda, the company is neglecting the interest of the public by not properly informing them of possible problems. The company’s main goal is to promote their project/product. Therefore, they are only going to represent the beneficial views of the research. This is unbalanced representation.

The second problem is Problem of Tyranny of the Ignorant:

The public is not being informed of ALL of the conclusions of the research. So, how are they supposed to fully understand the situation? They will under-value certain aspects of the research that may actually have great significance, but since they have been poorly educated on the subject due to the company’s agenda, they may come to an unsuitable conclusion.

It is a difficult task to decide if privately funded research at universities is ethical. I think it will depend on the specific university, the research that is being done, and the individuals involved with that research (due to a possible conflict of interest). I think that there are many instances of misrepresentation of the information, mainly from the company’s perspective. However, I do think there are many cases when the research that comes from these collaborations will benefit the public, and outweigh the negative outcomes. So, we should not rule out the possibility of private-and-academic research in the future. What do you think?

Human Enhancement

This week’s group is presenting on human enhancement. I don’t really know where they are going with it, but I for one have not found a real reason not to pursue or implement these technologies. All the cons I have read on the subject seem to be scare tactics, or problems that can be addressed and fixed if openly discussed.

We fear the unknown. It is my belief that science has been pushing humanity forward throughout history and the technologies used in human enhancement are no different. Hundreds of years ago Galileo was persecuted for going against the geocentric belief that was popular at the time. Now we know that the sun is the center of our universe, not the earth. With this basic discovery we have been able to unlock many mysteries of our universe. What new things could we discover if we pursue the technologies used in human enhancement? More importantly, what will not be discovered if we choose not to pursue these technologies? I think that the pros of these technologies outweigh the cons.

If you want to read some good articles in favor of human enhancement visit Nick Bostrom’s web page: http://www.nickbostrom.com/

Last week's presentation

These whole week, I have been thinking about group one's presentation, and really what we can do to better communicate/educate. I would like to mainly focus on Jenny's and Alex's part on having better access to communication and mainly how the media persuades the general public. I think with how our technologies are now, we have the capability to communicate effectively, such as via internet, radio etc. the hard part with the communication and technology, however is really getting the truth out about specific things, such as exactly what BST, how it affects you etc. There will always be "untruths" when it comes to science and the industry of science, and truly I don't know if there is any way to not have the untruths happen. A quote from the paper the group assigned, said that "researchers have ethical duties to examine their positions carefully. As a result, citizens may not be well informed and will be less likely to protect their rights to life, to know, and to consent." What I thought of this quote, was the fact that if the researchers examined everything more carefully and educated the public, then it would cause the public to be more informed, and then have more of a say in their lives, and have the knowledge of the science given to them. This knowledge of science etc, will be crucial in the future, in making decisions, etc. Our group today will be going over Human Enhancement, which is a very debatable topic, and is something that is close to becoming reality. If people were to better understand and be more informed, I believe it will be beneficial to all, because then we could have a better say in what we eat, and what we want for our well being in life.

Response to "Science the Endless Frontier"

There are many things that one can respond to from not only these excerpts but also the entire report, but what caught my attention was Bush’s discussion in respect to higher education and its role with basic research.

First, I think that Bush’s description of colleges and universities, and the environment that they provide for scientists is something to think about. And, I would have to say that it is difficult to disagree with him. Why wouldn’t a scientist want a place to work where they don’t have to worry about outside pressures? For a student pursuing science, is it not beneficial for them to be in such an environment? Also, I would suggest that scientists would have more time to teach, due to not having to spend so much of their time dealing with certain pressures or politics.

So why is it not like this? Bush suggests elsewhere in his report that it is because of the government and industry applying all of these pressures on universities. They want to know answers to certain problems so they look to these scientists to solve them. But, is that really the role of the scientist? As Bush notes scientists should be allowed to pursue basic research, and not feel pressured to have to answer certain questions. Don’t get me wrong, I still think scientists should be held accountable for their research and be willing to discuss its implications on society, however, their research should not be pursued only for the reason to answer a question someone else is asking.

Second, what I find most concerning about Bush’s report is that it was written in 1945 and that it is 64 years later, and the only thing I can think of is, has our country really even changed or progressed since then? Universities and the scientists at these institutes are still looked to for the answers. Many research grants offered by the NIH (a government agency) are specific questions and are looking for answers. Also similar to what Bush pointed out, barriers still need to be removed for people in respect to higher education. The cost of education is continuing to increase (take Washington universities for example), and continuing to cause people to not attend higher education, or to have drop out of higher education because they cannot afford it. Yes there are some funds/grants/scholarships/etc. available for individuals in such situations, but in reality it isn’t enough. Money should not prevent those who have the drive and want to attend higher education from attending.

However, what is being done to address these issues? At times it is difficult to tell if anything is, and that people keep telling themselves during these times that something is happening. But these people need to obviously open their eyes and see the real picture. They need to look at how even though science has progressed in the past 64 years, could we be farther if individuals in research weren't constantly dealing with outside pressures? I would suggest that things would look different if some of these pressures and the barriers to higher education were removed.

"Science the Endless Frontier"

“Science the Endless Frontier” – by Vannevar Bush
A Report to the President, July 1945

(Below are excerpts from this report or you can click above on the title for the link to the entire report)

“Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown.”

The Importance of Basic Research

“Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic scientific research were long neglected. “

Centers of Basic Research

“Publicly and privately supported colleges and universities and the endowed research institutes must furnish both the new scientific knowledge and the trained research workers. These institutions are uniquely qualified by tradition and by their special characteristics to carry on basic research. They are charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds. It is chiefly in these institutions that scientists may work in an atmosphere which is relatively free from the adverse pressure of convention, prejudice, or commercial necessity. At their best they provide the scientific worker with a strong sense of solidarity and security, as well as a substantial degree of personal intellectual freedom. All of these factors are of great importance in the development of new knowledge, since much of new knowledge is certain to arouse opposition because of its tendency to challenge current beliefs or practice.”

Remove the Barriers

“Higher education in this country is largely for those who have the means. If those who have the means coincided entirely with those persons who have the talent we should not be squandering a part of our higher education on those undeserving of it, nor neglecting great talent among those who fail to attend college for economic reasons. There are talented individuals in every segment of the population, but with few exceptions those without the means of buying higher education go without it. Here is a tremendous waste of the greatest resource of a nation - the intelligence of its citizens.

If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, is made to determine who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity.”

Global Warming Site

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?cat=15

The above is a link to a global warming site that I found to be quite interesting. On the site, many articles are posted discussing, among other things, how their is huge profit to be made by creating global warming discussion and hysteria throughout the world. Although I do believe that much of the science indicates that global warming is a legitimate concern and there are scientific facts that back up many of the issues at hand, some of the articles on the site do bring up some ethical issues regarding media biases and the profitability that could be made by creating misconceptions behind the issue.

I found one passage from the article "Money Being Made from Warming Scare" by Dan McGrath to be particularly interesting in the counter-argument to global warming. In the article, McGrath discusses a passage from Larry Thornberry's first book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)." McGrath writes, "Mr. Horner parsed the fanciful claims of the global warmers. He built the case, infrequently encountered by the public, that the warming our planet has undergone over the past century is almost certainly nothing outside of the normal temperature variations the Earth has been undergoing since there’s been an Earth. Man’s activities may have played a part in this small temperature increase, but almost certainly a trifling part compared to variations in solar activity."

Although this is definitely not the argument that we see on the news everyday, it is important to analyze both arguments and realize that there is often times another side to the story that the public is often not exposed to. Next week, our global warming group will be discussing some of the issues on both sides of the subject at hand. I look forward to hearing what the rest of the class has to say regarding the topic.

Readings for Next Week (4/21)

Below are readings for our group presentation on human enhancement. Please note these PDFs are hosted by Blackboard, and you will need to be logged into Blackboard to download them.

The Chan and Harris piece is to represent the proponent side of human enhancement, the Kass piece is to represent the critics side, and the Parens piece is to represent more of a middle ground (he points out how the two sides have similar core values and ideas but are then talking past each other).

See you next Tuesday,
Roxy, Kelsey, Justin, Rachel, and Roger

Chan and Harris - In Support of Human Enhancement

Kass - Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls

Parens - Authenticity and Ambivalence: Toward Understanding the Enhancement Debate

Final Essay Information

Here's the deal I offered in class today: if you would like the usual slate of markup/comments from me on your final paper (and I sure hope that you would), I'll need these turned in on our last day of class (Tuesday, May 5th), unless you are either Graham or Afton who are presenting on that day and have slightly more time. If, on the other hand, you really need the extra few days, you may submit your essay on Friday, May 8th by 3:30PM in my office. 

Remember: the final essay should dovetail with your portion of the group presentation (taking into account any feedback you received in that context). It should come in at around 2,400 and 4,000 words long (I don't know how many pages that is: use the word-count feature) and involve a significant amount of scholarly research. What does 'significant' mean? Let's say at least five sources that were not assigned in the class. 'Scholarly' means that they should be professional journal articles or books published by reputable presses (e.g., the many "University Presses", Routledge, Blackwell, Wiley, &c.). If you're not sure about your sources, I'm happy to give them a quick peek. 

Do feel free to give me drafts in advance or come visit to talk about ideas, arguments, theses, &c.

Science Funding Response

After reading the comments on my last post concerning public science, I recognize the problems associated with letting an “ignorant” public have power in the decision process of funding allocation. It is inefficient; it could very well lead to the support of science hype like “electric pants” and could interfere with the academic freedom of researchers to pursue what they wish. While reading the selections for this week’s class though, it seems like giving industry power in the resource allocation process is even more dubious. If those who have a direct financial stake in certain outcome of research are the major funding of that research, there is a high likelihood of misleading if no false results.

At this point, it seems that we are left with a predicament. As a certain person or demographic group’s interest and knowledge of a particular area of science increases, their neutrality in regards to an issue decreases. The more someone invests in a particular research program in time or money, the more they will hold a polarized view in regards to that particular program. This works both directions. Those who study and are engaged in issues such as drug company advertising will sooner or later come out for or against such practices. In most cases, I would guess the camp that the person ends up in is due to some amount of personal benefit. We are left with this tradeoff it seems between a lack of interest and neutrality one side and increased interest and a degree of bias on the other. The more someone is engaged in an issue the more likely that they will be taking a self-serving position on that issue. What side of this equation do we want to power to rest? Which is the most efficient side for science? Which is most just?

Free Will and the Philosophy of Science

Brain Blogger: http://brainblogger.com/2009/04/14/free-will-and-the-philosophy-of-science/

Neurological research is being used to determine whether free will is just an idea created by humans to feel in control or can scientifically be proven. Some researchers have found results that they believe don’t make the idea of free will probable. However, these results can be interpreted differently. According to this blog there are a few philosophical assumptions that were alternately made, by other researchers, when it comes to deciding whether free will is in fact able to be determined; materialism, naturalism, determinism, etc. Science is founded on these philosophical assumptions. Because determinism is assumed by materialism, these scientists are trying to determine something that is not cannot exist based on these assumptions. This explains why free will is interpreted to not be plausible. So a question I pose is do you think that free will does exist? Or is it a phenomenon of science? Or just an idea that we as humans try to hold on to in order to feel in control of our own lives? What do you think?

Scientists Communication

Not only in comments that I have made elsewhere in the blog, but also in other people’s comments, I have noticed a trend in these comments saying that scientists need to not only discuss and communicate with one another but also with the public. Yet, how are scientists to be taught, shown, told, etc that it is important for them to communicate their lines of inquiry and findings with others, and to do so successfully?

There obviously are scientists who do know how to communicate, and do so successfully, but I would argue that many of these scientists run up against plenty of road blocks along the way. For example, as was talked about in “Private Science, Public Inquiry” there is a good proportion of university research that is funded by private (industry) funders. Therefore, one can only assume that scientists with such funding may have difficulty getting permission by such funders to present certain results, thus inhibiting their ability to communicate with others. Also, I would assume that scientists who work in government labs have similar difficulties (e.g. there has been some evidence that some of the engineers working on the shuttle Columbia knew that there was a potential problem, but such facts were not made public until years later). What are such scientists to do? Are they to turn down private funders or fight against the government? According to Kitcher and his suggestion for how to move towards well-ordered science, the scientists should fight or step done/away from their research. However, is this something that scientists in such positions should be expected to do? This I am unsure of. For if so, there would most likely be high resistance. Also, if they do, my guess is that private funders and/or the government would find scientists who would be willing to work under such conditions and go against Kitcher’s well-ordered science.

As for those who do not communicate or do not know how to communicate effectively, how are they to be taught how to do so? First, many of these scientists would probably not respond well to being told that they do not know how to communicate. Second, I highly doubt that they would want to take classes, read something, or attend conferences specifically about communication (my guess is that the individuals who would attend such a conference would be those who already can communicate). So what is left? This I do not know, and is where I am stuck and do not know what to suggest.

Animal Production Science

I wrote my short essay on animal welfare, production science, and the ethics involved. Bernard E. Rolling has written several books about the topic of animal welfare for animals used for food. Although he makes some interesting claims, I do not agree with him. A point he makes in Rolling’s Theory of Animal Welfare and Its Ethical Implications I find very radical and unfair to state. He says “The emerging social ethics in the US has not been transferred from a concern about companion animals and animals used in research to farm animals in intensive production systems because the public has not become fully aware of these conditions and how they affect the animals subjected to them. (Hayes, 2008)”
The animal production industry is terrible at informing the public, so I feel it is detrimental that industries push their facts more and educate people. For example, dairy cows have been bred to produce eighty plus gallons of milk a day so that milk production will satisfy the demands of the American population. The population demands that we have a mass amount of milk and also save our land and keep methane production down.
I believe that the animal production industry is doing everything in their power to make sure the welfare of their animals is being cared for as well as researching deeper into progressive technology to make sure that production animals are healthy and happy. It is a benefit to both humans and animals if the animals are taken care of and that no harm is done to them. As more and more research is performed more and more management skills, medicines, and facilities will be able to increase the welfare of our livestock.

Engineering Ethics - Social Responsibility vs. Legal Liability

I wrote my short essay on the ethics involved in the world of engineering, and as I was doing my research, I came across and short essay that I thought was interesting. One of the arguments that the author brings up is who should take responsibility for a design’s final outcome? Is there a social responsibility to the public? From my perspective as an engineering student, I think that it should be the responsibility of every engineer to think of the consequences that could happen with the production their design. In the design process that we are taught early on in our education, there is a step that involves brainstorming ideas, research, and realizing the requirements that need to be fulfilled with each project. In my opinion, this should also be a point when engineers ask people outside of the project about their views on the possible designs. An important question they should ask the public is how they think this will impact them, whether it is in a positive or negative way. Then the engineers can use that information to make the best judgment on how to proceed on the project. But once the project is complete, the rights to use that design are given to another group (like a company). What if there is a problem in the future after the engineer has been separated from the project for a long amount of time? Does the responsibility fall onto the company that is now using the design? Or is the engineer responsible because they didn’t think about the long-term effects of the design? What do you think?

http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/essays/design.htm

U.S. medical workers involved in prisoner abuse

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/07/content_11145632.htm

The above is a link to a recent report of prisoner abuse by U.S. medical workers overseas. The report tells of abusive interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists conducted by the CIA overseen and studied by U.S. medical workers. The article also discusses how this is a "gross breach of medical ethics."

This news is very disturbing to me, not only from the medical ethics viewpoint, but also the standpoint of the CIA and federal government. It is difficult for me to comprehend at this day-and-age that torture techniques such as 'water boarding' are still being used to torture suspected terrorists in order to gain information. The fact that the U.S. medical workers oversaw these actions to make sure they would not die seems terrible, but I guess I can see an argument that could be made in the defense of these medical workers. This argument being that if they boycotted this action, the practice may continue and those being tortured could potentially be killed or badly injured. Although this case can be made, there is also the alternative that if these medical workers did boycott the torture, they may not continue these actions based on the fact that they may injure or kill the victims. Very interesting and disturbing article. I'd like to hear what anyone else feels about this and what could be done to prevent future problems.

Public Awareness

I have really been thinking about how Kitcher states that to set the ground for an open discussion a scientist “has to advance public understanding of the questions with which she’s concerned and to encourage people outside science to appreciate the point of the inquiries that she and her colleagues undertake” (pg 196). However what dictates that one do this? Why should the public be continually informed of what is going on in science?

There is the obvious answer that if it is research funded by public money that individuals have the right to know where their money is going. But, outside of this reason, why should the public be made aware and in turn educated? Is it really only so that an open discussion regarding a scientist’s line of inquiry can be held? I fine this difficult to believe. For you see programs and organizations all over the US trying to educate people about certain types of diseases and cancers, and steps of preventions in regards to these diseases and cancers. I see such information as important and beneficial to others and their well-being, and that this reason is a main motivator for wanting to make the public aware.

However, does this mean that all scientists should inform the public in some form about their line of inquiry in regards to the implications that it can have? Or should some of the responsibility also be left up to the public?