Meeting 11 (4/14) — Public and Private Science

Recall that our next meeting will be in two weeks: I hope you'll use the extra time out of class to conduct research on your final essays, prepare for your presentation, polish up your first essays, and so on.

When we meet again, Group 1 (Alex, Brittany, Dave, and Jennifer) will kick off the action. They've assigned chapter 3 of Kristin Shrader-Frechette's book, Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental and Public Health (Oxford University Press, 2007). Please read this prior to the meeting.

Note that Professor Shrader-Frechette is the keynote speaker at the Inland Northwest Philosophy Conference this year (she'll be speaking on May 2nd in the Law School Courtroom, if I'm not mistaken), but you should keep an eye on the INPC website for the details.

Comment Codes

For those of you who've gotten back early essay drafts, the obscure codes in the margins are translated on my teaching pages here. For the rest of you: well, you'll get these codes as well. . . . Let me know if you have any questions.

Adolescent Obesity

University of California and Columbia University researchers found a connection between obesity in adolescent children and the location of fast food restaurants. “…the researchers found that obesity rates were 5 percent higher among the ninth graders whose schools were within one-tenth of a mile of a pizza, burger or other popular fast-food outlet, compared with students attending schools farther away from fast-food stores” (NY Times). I chose this article not specifically for location of schools, but also to question national food regulation in general. It’s no mystery that the majority of fast food is manufactured without the health conscious in mind. Aside from violating certain free market rights, should there be restrictions on food quality in fast food restaurants?
I think it’s necessary to question the results of the research that was published. It seems possible that these results reflect an inference to the best explanation. There are many factors that influence a child’s diet that could reflect their weight i.e. parental influence, poverty, physiological/genetic factors etc. But if these results are accurately reflected in the scope of the study, what should we do about it? Perhaps impose proximity regulations on businesses looking to move into school zones. Limiting the ease of access seems like a reasonable solution to this problem. A better plan may be to educate kids on nutrition and health to equip them with skills to make good decisions. I personally attended a high school with an open campus lunch and a mediocre nutrition education program. Fast food was the primary lunch destination for the majority of the students. When so much of our adult population is obese, how are we supposed to help the kids? I am in favor of national regulation of downright “crappy” food. But I understand the problems associated with this type of regulation. What do you guys think?

Plan for class today

I'd like to reserve roughly the last 40 minutes or so of todays' meeting to give your groups an opportunity to meet with each other to chat strategy. Hopefully you've already had a chance to do this, though judging by the state of the blackboard discussion, I have my doubts for some groups. Time is ticking away. . . .

I will come around to chat with your group if you're ready to talk to me or if you have any questions, need guidance, &c. Group 2: Since you've had a recent meeting, I can either meet with you first (if you don't need the time at this point to talk amongst yourselves) or last, if you'd like to spend more than the ten or so minutes I can allocate to your group at this juncture. Group 1: we're still on tap to meet on Monday morning at 8AM, but I'm happy to chat with you at this point as well or you can simply use the time to sort out any loose ends that need sorting. I definitely want to talk to groups 3 and 4.

See you shortly.

"Science as Social Contract"

In March 24th's New York Times an article was published called, "NOAA Chief Believes in Science as Social Contract." The article talks about Dr. Jane Lubcheno (the new chief of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration) and her push for public involvement and for discussion among all parties involved in certain situations.

Some of the statements that stuck out to me were:

• "According to conventional scientific wisdom, researchers cannot spare time for public involvement, much less public service."
• "Jane Lubcheno has long urged scientists to abandon the habitual reticence of the research community and spend more time engaging the public and public official about scientific and technical issues."
• "...Dr. Lubcheno called for 'a new social contract' for science, aimed at helping policy makers take steps to sustain the biosphere."
• In response to the "dismal state of many of the nation's fisheries...[Dr. Lubcheno said], fishing communities, scientists, regulators and other stakeholders in the debate need to overcome a legacy of bitterness and distrust."

What was most striking to me was how Lubcheno’s stance/view is very similar to Kitcher, and how she portrays what Kitcher states to be a part of a scientist’s obligations. The steps that Lubcheno is taking and proposing are the very similar to the steps that Kitcher describes as the steps to well-ordered science. For on pg. 195-96 of Science, Truth, and Democracy, the steps to well-ordered science are: 1) Self-awareness of the current gap, 2) Telling the truth (obligation to tell the truth), 3) Public awareness, and 4) Being an advocate for the public (and if these steps don’t work one is to abandon their research). Lubcheno is well aware of the gap between many scientists, what is being done in science, public policy, and the public. I would assume that she also knows the importance of being truthful with her fellow scientists, public policy makers, and the public. What Lubcheno is currently doing is not only educating the public, fellow scientists and public policy makers, but also advocating the education.

I think that what Lubcheno is doing and what Kitcher has proposed is important for good scientific progress. Scientists when pursuing their line of research need to be aware of the impact whether good or bad their findings can have. Also, it is important for scientists to not only be truthful with themselves about the impacts but also those funding the research (the government, universities, etc), those who will make decisions based off of the findings (policy makers, other scientists), and the public (where the money is in actuality is coming from, and who the findings will impact the most). However, this truth by the scientist must be reciprocated by all other parties involved, for without truth on all sides groups being honest, one can assume that those who are honest will be taken advantage of. In the end this will hopefully lead to open discussions between everyone involved about current research, and also about potential/future research projects that promote the interests of all parties.

Argument against pursuing certain lines of research

In class, we discussed several arguments Kitcher addressed regarding the pursuit of certain lines of research. In general, our discussion of the topic led us to the conclusion that there are certain lines of research that may be best left untouched or at least done with caution and respect to the parties involved.

The issue I have with this conclusion is that while it may be best to leave some issues untouched, I find it difficult to believe that it is possible to actually restrict these lines of controversial research. Although laws and regulations can be placed on certain lines of research (e.g. stem cell research), there still are ways to get around these regulations that leave the decision of pursuit to the scientist involved. While I do believe there are many subjects that should not be further researched strictly because of the harm they could cause and the lack of enhancement of society they bring, I still find that there truly is not a way to detract researchers from their pursuit of knowledge.

Different Office Hours

For a various reasons, I need to change my office hours for the next few weeks. Rather than the usual Friday office hours, I'll hold them on Thursday April 2nd, Monday April 6th, Monday April 13th, and Thursday April 23rd, all from 1-3PM. I'll have other times available by appointment. Sorry about this: just turns out that Fridays are getting quite complicated for me for the foreseeable future.

Criminal Doctors

In a recent New York Times article, Uppsala University in Sweden has admitted a convicted murderer and Nazi advocate to their medical school. He had been previously admitted to a different Swedish medical school before getting kicked out for falsifying documents. The United States is classically strict on its medical school applicants, not allowing anyone entry with a felony conviction. A recent change in policy now requires all misdemeanor offenses to be reported on medical school applications. When the primary clause of an occupation is “do no harm”, how could any medical school knowingly grant entry to a convicted murderer? As the article implied, this is likely a huge oversight.
This raises some very difficult questions about the admissions process. How deep do they dig when researching the background of an applicant? This could be an extreme case but it makes you think about the potential for other felon physicians practicing elsewhere. Exceptions to the felony rule could probably be made under certain circumstances. For instance, it’s a felony to be convicted of selling marijuana which would render an applicant incapable of becoming a physician, but should it? It could be argued to accept applicants on a case by case basis, but that still seems inadequate. I don’t see a problem with condemning an applicant for committing murder while being associated with neo-Nazi hate groups. It should not even be a question!

Blog grading

<>I just love grading. . . . < /sarcasm >

Just some clarification and a reminder about how I'll be evaluating you at the end of the term --- not because I like to, but because I have to. Recall that the syllabus read as follows:

Further Research and Blog Postings (20%). I have established a “blog” for the course on which most of the course business will be conducted. . . . You’ll be contributing to this blog on a regular basis by authoring posts and commenting on others’ posts. The reading I assign is the tip of the iceberg. We’re dealing with topics and issues that are constantly under public discussion — both in academia and in the popular press. I’d like to see you do your part to bring some of this material to the rest of the class’s attention. Moreover, I expect everyone to be reading the blog. Note that others might be reading it as well — this blog is a public, collectively-authored document of which I want us to be proud!

Here’s how I’ll evaluate your contributions: We have around fourteen weeks: I expect you to post/comment significantly on at least eight different topics, in eight different weeks. After each class, I will evaluate your posts for the week on a 0-4 basis (0= “not done”/“wildly insufficient”, 1=“needs improvement”, 2=“acceptable”, 3=“good”, 4=“excellent!”). At the end of the term, I’ll ask you to submit a “best of” portfolio of your posts and will assign a grade on the basis of this and your numerical scores.

As I've mentioned in class, you can often get a good/acceptable score by adding just one really thoughtful, interesting post (you don't necessarily have to scour the web for other interesting material for the rest of us to look at). But more often, the best scores have gone to people who will supplement such posts with helpful comments, short news items, and so on. I'll be looking at your cumulative score over all weeks, your average weekly contribution over your best eight weeks, and a "best of" portfolio of posts that you will assemble in word and email to me to peruse.

Note also that when it comes to dividing the weeks in the grade book, I've been treating our class meeting as the dividing line. Stuff posted five minutes before class gets considered for the week prior to class; stuff posted five minutes after class gets considered for the week after class (just FYI: I don't know that it makes a great deal of difference --- let me know if I'm wrong about this).

Reaction to Kitcher

In chapter 10 of Kitcher’s book, he list four problems with science and democracy today. On Tuesday my group discussed some of the issues that arise with these problems and what we could do to limit the effects of these problems. I found the first two problems the most interesting. The problems are:

1) The Problem of Inadequate Representation
2) The Problem of the Tyranny of the Ignorant

These problems are obviously opposites of one another, but which of these do you find more troublesome when it comes to a scientific application? I find the second problem more troubling and frustrating than the first. The ignorant/uninformed/mislead are able to vote on things that they do not fully understand. This means that they can and are easily influenced by people with their own private agendas, who might not have the best interest of the collective in mind. I am not saying that we should take away someone’s right to vote, that is obviously the keystone of our society, but maybe we need to rethink how we vote and fund scientific research. I don’t have any answers on how to restructure this process, but I find it hard to believe that we can’t find a better and more efficient way of doing this. One thing that I have done to minimize my effect on this problem is that I don’t vote on issues that I do not understand. Anyway, what does everyone else think? Which of the two problems do you find more troublesome?

Research Resources

I'm sure that most of you know about what resources the library has to offer for online research, but here are some of my favorites you might try if you're still casting about for some options:

JSTOR: General purpose database with articles in pdf format. Consider restricting your search field to Philosophy and general science or target other fields as needed.
The Philosopher's Index: Just philosophy. Some articles will be available; others will not (depends on our library's subscriptions). It's usually best to use this on campus so you don't have to deal with the proxy server which can sometimes impede efficient access to articles.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Great general background on many philosophical topics. Good source of references for other articles/books to examine.
Google Scholar: VERY general search. Search for UI's library in the advanced preferences to enable a nice article linker to get full text when you can.

Remember: the first essay does not need to be a long research essay. I'll be looking for careful argumentation; but that may concern just one source that we've already read if that's what is needed for you to support your thesis. I'm of course happy for your essay to draw upon other sources: depending on the topic you choose, you might need to.

Race, Social Justice, & Free Inquiry

In chapter 8, “Constraints on Free Inquiry,” Kitcher discusses the problems with unrestrained free inquiry in scientific practice. He demonstrates that even a Millian framework, with individual freedom of expression as one of its basic tenets, rejects absolutely free inquiry when there is ample evidence to believe that it would undermine the fundamental freedoms of other individuals or groups (Kitcher, Science, Truth and Democracy, p. 95). He articulates the risks of the political and epistemic asymmetries associated with pursuing such types of inquiry, and he concludes that “if we shouldn’t engage in ventures that can be expected to decrease the well-being of those who are already worse off than other members of society, we should therefore refrain from engaging in [that particular area of science]” (98). However, he argues that prohibiting certain areas of research is the last thing we should do, as prohibition may have equally bad consequences as pursuing the work. Clearly there are still moral consequences of the research, so the onus is on individual scientists and scientific communities to decide which types of research to engage in. This brings our focus once again on the intent of the scientists.

The current use of race in genetics and genomics research sheds light on this issue. It’s no secret that race has been used as an important factor in biomedical research for decades; since the early 1990s, the NIH has required that women, children, and racial minorities be included in NIH-funded clinical trials when possible. The likely justification for this is to encourage equal representation of various members of society, but this could be extended further as a means of promoting social justice by providing “compensatory care” for historically underprivileged racial groups. This provides an interesting parallel to Kitcher’s discussion—it certainly makes sense to avoid those types of research which may result in political/epistemic asymmetry and social inequality, but should we pursue research that aims to benefit disadvantaged racial groups? Or instead, in using race in biomedical research (particularly genomics and pharmacogenomics), are we merely reinforcing the unfounded view that there are biologically meaningful links between race and health disparities?

I think the deeper problem lies in how we interpret and legitimize the use of race in biomedical research. What is race, anyway? Is it anything more than what the U.S. Census Bureau has decided to call “Caucasian” or “African-American” or “Pacific Islander”? What about mixed-race individuals? Are we so deluded by sociopolitical conceptions of race that we can’t even fathom it may all be an illusion? Research is increasingly demonstrating that there may be more variation within “racial” groups than between them, so why do we continue to use this as a scientifically sound variable?

Once again, it’s important to scrutinize the intent of the scientists. Did the developers of BiDil, the FDA-approved anti-hypertension drug targeted specifically for “self-identified blacks,” decide to market the drug to increase social justice, or was profit their only aim? (It’s worth noting that the drug’s elevated efficacy in black patients was demonstrated ex post facto.) If the drug had been found to be more efficacious in whites, would it still have been marketed? The main problem seems to be that we’ve taken a commonly held notion of race for granted and applied it scientifically, failing to acknowledge very important biases that are probably preventing us from getting at explanations closer to the truth. Even when racial stratification is used to promote equality, it seems we’re only watering the seeds of racism inherent in the social climate.

I’ve asked many questions and supplied few answers, and there remain many other pertinent issues of using race in biomedical research. I think what this dilemma demonstrates, in the context of our current discussion, is that free inquiry always has potential (and often foreseeable) moral and social consequences. Whether we perceive those consequences to be good or bad, we must remember to analyze intentions of the responsible parties to discover biases that may be preventing us from conducting well-ordered science. That’s all for now. (If you’re interested in race issues and social justice in pharmacogenomics, I recommend reading Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; she’s done excellent work in this area.)

First Essay Reminder

So, as I wrote earlier and mentioned in class today, I'd like the first essays delivered to my office by 3PM on Monday, April 6th. That's not too long from now, you may notice. I am willing to read and mark essays submitted earlier and give you a chance to revise them before the deadline for a better result (or you can stand pat). I'll turn them around to you as soon as I can manage, but don't expect a miracle. Let's say that the cutoff for getting an essay back from me before the deadline is Tuesday the 31st (which I can turn around by Friday the 3rd): I'll mark these in the order in which they are received). You are well-advised to take me up on this offer.

Also note that on the essay rubric has a row that describes conformity to instructions. That includes following this formatting guide (notably, having correct citations, a works cited list, &c.). There are other ways of doing things, of course. I'd just like to see you master this one for the purposes of this class.

Well-Ordered Science

I know my group (group 2) discussed about well-ordered science, and next week we will be discussing it more in depth, and so on that note, I found a really interesting article by Nancy Cartwright bringing up and agreeing with Kitcher on a well-ordered science. The link is http://personal.lse.ac.uk/cartwrig/Papers%20General/WellOrderedSciencePSA2004.pdf She discusses merely what are the "right" methods to be used in a well-ordered science, having such questions as; 1. what questions can be reasonably pursued at a given time? or 2.what are the effects of pursuing a given question or given line of research? When she states these two types of questions (or I suppose you could think of them as methods), from my prospective, for question one I take into consideration as to what would be most demanding to pursue in science, such as the need to pursue finding a cure for cancer vs making electric socks. At this "given" time I would have to say finding a cure for cancer, over making electric socks. This first type of question makes me think of how many scientists really evaluate or even think of this question or also even question two. I'm sure as mentioned in class, the scientists who created the atomic bomb, had number two question brought up, but how in depth did the scientists really think about the effect. Did they just think just about the specific research, or did they go into more detail and ask specific questions or different matters, such as how would it effect society.

The different phases that Kitcher discussed in his book about a well ordered science, I can see could be very beneficial, but I don't know how well they would actually pan out. I think as a whole, for scientists, researchers etc. following more of a step by step/phase method, it could help with better/beneficial experiments.

Meeting 10 (3/31) — Science in a non-ideal World

Reading:

• Kitcher, Science, Truth, and Democracy, Chapters 10-11, 14. (We may read 12-13 later down the road --- I think they can be acceptably read out of order.)
• Please also re-read/skim and bring the Kitcher and Flory article (which should by now be illuminated by the background of Kitcher's perspective on well-ordered science).

Next time, we'll start with group 1's brief introduction to some of the problems Kitcher's ideal of Well-Ordered Science (WOS) allows us to see in our present social arrangements. I'm curious about whether his ideal gives us enough to be able to say what to do about these problems. We also didn't get a chance to talk in much detail about whether we agree that WOS represents an ideal. Can you imagine other directions in which our science policy should aim? I also wanted to talk a bit more about the problem of what to do if we should find certain areas of research to be wrong to pursue. Can we just ban their pursuit (105)?

Chapter 11 gets back to the question of the role the ideal of WOS should play in our thinking about science policy. Not only can it help us identify problems, it might serve a role in directing positive measures to improve things. For any discussion of social policy, don't we need to have a conception of the good at which we are aiming? This chapter also addresses some of the concerns we identified today surrounding the inclusion in the idea of "experts" in the construction of our scientific priorities. To what extent can we expect such experts to represent our interests? Should "elitism" dominate in the construction of our scientific priorities? Might not this be the best way of approximating a state of WOS?

The general question of how to put an ideal into motion in an imperfect world is addressed in Chapter 14, which begins to address some very specific problems that we can consider. Kitcher was on the NIH ethical working group when a lot of key questions were being considered there (or, depending on your perspective, not being considered there). So there are problems. No big surprise. But what should individual researchers do about them? So we might have a collective responsibility to redirect our collective scientific attention toward or away from certain projects, but how should that affect you as a working scientist (if indeed you hope to become one)?

Pure vs. Applied Science

After reflecting a little bit more on the pure vs. applied science dichotomy, I feel that it may just be the terms themselves which are causing the confusion. When we were discussion this in our group, we proposed that maybe a better division would be between curiosity-driven and problem-driven scientific research. The first is motivated largely by a desire to understand some aspect about the natural world. This would be comparable to our “pure science” but without the tangling connotations of the word. The second science is motivated by a desire to improve human lives in some way, maybe through medicine, technology, environmental improvements or construction. From this perspective, it seems that the differences between the sciences are rooted in the motivations and purposes of the respective scientists. The use of the word pure in this context is at best misleading and at worst false.
It would seem that framing the dichotomy in these words eliminates the possibility of researchers avoiding the social implications of their work by hiding behind the label or “pure science.” Technology definitely does influence social and moral aspects of society, but so do ideas. Ideas have consequences. Even the seemingly abstract move from a geocentric to heliocentric world had numerous repercussions that have shaped the moral and social fabric of the culture’s worldview.

More on Peer Review… To review or not to review? That is the question.

I was reading this essay about peer review (I have attached the link at the bottom), and there are some interesting “behind-the-scenes” explanations of the process of finding a reviewer and what should be considered before a scientist should accept an offer to peer review a colleague’s work. Some of the points that are brought to light seem intuitive, but it amazes me to see everyday that the educated individuals this effects do not take them into account.

For example, the author asks questions such as, “Do you have the expertise the editor is looking for?” or “Is it too close to your own work?” For the last point point, she says that the selected reviewer should not review the paper because it is a no-win situation. If the reviewer does critique the paper, there is a risk that it could interfere with their own research and subsequent submission of their own paper. If the work of the two scientists are similar and the reviewer approves of other scientists paper, then the reviewer may have a difficult time getting his own research published in the future. So…what should the selected reviewer do? According to the author, the reviewer should read the title and abstract, and if it is similar to their research they should not review the rest of the paper. This seems like the best way to approach the situation, but most times the abstract does not contain enough information to make an educated decision to continue the review. There may be a point while reading the paper that the reviewer realizes that they have similar areas of research. The ethical reviewer should contact the editor and decided to cease the review. Unfortunately, there may be a situation where there are only a few scientists qualified to review the paper because there are very few people in that field of research. When this situation arises, what is the editor supposed to do? I think it will be very difficult to find a reviewer that has enough knowledge in the area of study while not being in direct competition with the author of the paper under review, especially since there will be at least two or three reviewers for each paper. The odds that one of them has a conflict of interest in one of many areas (highlighted in the article) is very likely.

It seems that there are too many “case-by-case” conflicts that can arise in the peer review process. Even the guidelines that are provided leaves room for questions on whether one should review a certain paper. In most cases, contacting the editor seems like the most logical and ethical course of action. From that point, the editor can act as a neutral party that can make the final decision on who reviews which papers based on the information at hand.

http://radonc.yale.edu/pdf/Ethical_Issues_in_Peer_Review.pdf

Meeting 9 (3/24) — Well-Ordered Science

Reading:

Kitcher, Science, Truth, and Democracy, Chapters 7–10.

For next time, we'll begin to consider Kitcher's articulation of an ideal of how science should be pursued in a democratic society. To focus our discussion, I want us to think in particular about four questions (roughly corresponding to the four chapters of STD I've assigned). Let's do another small group discussion-followed by general discussion. And since we already have groups in place, we might as well put those into play (so that you have some forward notice about what to focus on in your reading).

1) Kitcher claims that "pure science" is a myth. What are his arguments and do you find them convincing? [Group 4]

2) What is the argument against pursuing lines of research (contra claims about the value of free inquiry)? [Group 3]

3) What is the ideal of well-ordered science and what can/should its role be in helping us think about how we pursue different scientific projects? [Group 2]

4) Kitcher believes that the ideal of well-ordered science can help us identify some problems in the current functioning of science. Which of these problems looks like the most worrisome? Which are most tractable? [Group 1]

Hope you're all having a good spring break. . . .

Ethical Issues of Steroids

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/steriods-ethics.html

I am currently working on a essay discussing the ethical issues of the use of steroids in sports and the medical ramifications of the use of steroids. The article above is just a short essay about the use of steroids and the ethics behind their use. I felt it would serve as a good introduction to the topic for those of who have not really been following the steroid scandal in sports, particularly baseball at the moment.

Steroids in general are a very controversial topic. They are an ethical issue in both the medical field as well as in sports. Within the medical field, the issue is centered on the ethics behind creating drugs that can enhance human performance while often causing serious and severe side-effects both in the short term as well as the long term. There is also the issue here of actually creating the drugs often for the purpose of selling the to athletes and others searching for physical enhancement. Obviously, exceptions to the production of these drugs exist. These exceptions are usually found in the realm of medicine where cancer patients and others suffering from illness can receive treatment with steroids in order to help repair muscles and blood cells.

I'd really like to hear any input from anyone in the class regarding this issue or any thoughts regarding what other ethical issues may be implicit within the steroid conversation.

Searching for the Theory of Everything..

The first section of Kitcher made me think about science in terms of a pursuit towards a complete understanding of the universe. It seems like every time science comes up with a good theory to explain the universe, it eventually is proved wrong by someone else. The exception is in mathematics; if an idea becomes a theorem it is forever true. Good example is Newton’s idea of gravity. It was later disproved by Einstein with his theory of gravity. However, Newton’s theory proved to be able to predict phenomena as it applied to his world. It was only when technology was able to observe beyond the limits of Newton’s theory were we able to prove he was wrong.

So it makes sense to say that theories only work when they are applied in the correct setting. Best example of this is general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is impossible to explain the gravititational force with quantum mechanics—likewise with explaining the other three fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak, and strong) with general relativity. In fact, the mathematics behind the two theories are almost opposite of one and another. From this, explaining why mathematics is ‘absolute’ becomes trivial; the first thing mathematics does is specify the set in which the operations are preformed.

So the driving force behind new theories being developed and putting old theories into doubt depends as much on technology as it does with individuals with poor fashion sense. As a result, I firmly believe that we may never truly have one theory that can explain everything in the universe. Well, maybe everything in our universe but not everything that exists (little bit of theoretical physics). The theory of the atom leads to atomic particles which lead to the standard model of particles. Eventually, I believe we will be able to detect/observe particles that are ‘more fundemental’ than those in the standard model. Then probably something beyond that and so forth until we lose the ability to perform science.

Judgments for research determined by government or political structures

Kitcher gives a good example with the passing of Human Genome Project (HGP) and failure of superconducting supercollider (SS) for researches determined by political/governmental structures. Though the HGP was sold as benefits with regards with science and health, they were actually passed on the ground of possible economic benefits. I will also go further that even the people (in democracy) connected intuitively more with the benefits proposed by HGP and less so by the SS project So, does that mean SS is less important? This is where I want to bring in the criteria by Kuhn in “Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice” article from last weeks discussion, which were: accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness.

How could one efficiently apply the criterion of scope when even the scientist (let alone the decision makers for funding) can not visualize the scope particularly for new-original-unique theories? Physics is no longer in the state it used to be during the early 20th century when most groundbreaking theories were being developed and hence most non-physicist currently cannot understand or comprehend and hence cannot make a judgment on the possible scopes. But that does not necessarily mean SS project is less worthy of funds and hence I agree with Kitcher that science that leads to knowledge definitely has intrinsic value. As an additional argument, considering the massive economic and human resources for developing the atomic bombs that were eventually dropped in Hiroshima & Nagasaki were based on much more complicated reasons, none based on science. Though those supporting the research would mention the benefits particularly as an alternative source of energy, we have yet to see the scale of benefit proposed as they get outweighed by the fear from the unarguable destructive power.

The researches that involve biological investigations to reveal natural differences are based on the claim of enlightening social policy, but their oppositions have radical views against such research. I think both are wrong because the main issue for me is to question the morality of the researchers for such studies and not just the proposed objectives. Since, the main idea of scientific research is that we want to gain new or more knowledge and most research don’t give results the way we want it to, so it would be presumptuous to take a radical stand against such research but it is also wrong if the researchers motive is in search of particular findings to refute or support controversial social issues which would lead more harm than benefits, not to mention the scientific legitimacy. Though I don’t agree with the radical stance, I do agree that the standards might differ for such biological studies as most of these findings lead to more inconclusive reasoning rather than analyzing the science behind (as can be seen in popular media). This is best demonstrated in the numerous researches during 19th and early 20th century on various races that lead to eugenics and the fertile grounds for the “pure Aryans” in Nazism.

Therefore, with the current situation where the panels for determining the researches are faced with various conflicts of interests ranging from economic and political to personal opinions (mostly misinformed) I don’t think the decision-making structure has a firm foundation. Some might argue this as it worked with the success of Apollo11 mission but this example can equally be argued as this was motivated during cold-war and there are also some well known scientists who question the scientific intentions of later space missions.

Peer Review – Black Box to White Box !

This my view on the link in More Peer Review Sketchiness. I was about to put this in comments but it was running a little bit too long ;-). Here goes.....

The article by Scott Jashik on Lamont’s research in “How Professors Think” is an interesting and very informative article for a student like me who intend to pursue research. I have always been skeptical with the big wigs and the whole process of peer review though I have really never successfully thought of an alternative approach. This article made me even more skeptical and hence the urgent need to either reform or debunk our current approach of rewarding excellence by peer review.

I agree with Lamont when she states that people (professors reviewing, students/applicant, common people) should not pretend that the current criteria in peer review (originality, feasibility, social & intellectual significance) equate scientific measure of excellence and hence other criteria should also be used. Though understandable, Lamont’s finding that different discipline have extremely different approach to decision-making challenges our current foundation of peer review because it tells us that there is no common fundamental criteria (fundamental because it is expected that others may either be added or be insignificant depending upon the discipline).

The findings and quotes from professors as peer reviewers particularly those related with “luck of timing” and “power of personal/profession interests” clearly show lack of professionalism. It is also interesting that some peer reviewers consider morality and character of the applicant just by reading the paper being reviewed and ranks them as wither courageous risk-takers or lazy conformist. I wonder if these reviewers consider themselves different from the draconian approach when institutions (church) banned Galileo’s research. I guess Galileo was too courageous and since history tells us that he was correct we should therefore support only such risk-takers. But on what grounds are they defining as risk-takers and lazy conformist, the extremes are easy to pick out but most are not extremes.

It is also interesting that most review panels go for the middle of the pack proposals which have flaws and hence I guess easier to review as they can give a good (lengthy) account of pros & cons, whereas for the those outside the pack these reviewers are too lazy, busy or incompetent to review/test the theories that are not in the common textbooks. I found this criterion to be against that where reviewers support the risk-takers. I guess this is where luck comes in (for the applicant), which is different from the luck of timing.

These findings therefore gives me the impression that our current peer review process is far from perfect and far more subjective that depends on the reviewer, his/her character, choice and mood on that particular day/time of review. I think peer review though not analogous in the strict sense but should be like taking a test where you get graded objectively (though there are accounts of subjectivity). The grader/teacher has a sense of responsibility because h/she knows that it will affect the carrier of the student unlike our current peer reviewers who seem (from Lamont’s findings) not to take those considerations seriously. Apart from all the rules, changes and codes of conduct of peer reviewing that can be brought upon if this sense of responsibility (to their particular discipline and well as to the applicant) by reviewers are taken seriously I think it will also motivate (or force) researchers/applicant to do better/sincere research and hence less crappy ones.

Kitcher

So one thing that really stood out with the first couple of chapters, thus far is the fact that Kitcher sort of discussed science as neutral or really no "truth" to it. Maybe I am interpreting him wrong, but he seems to explain how people have different believes, or see from different perspectives (discussed in the beginning of Chapter 2), causing science to really depend on the "truth for the society" etc. He also discussed about how can we maintain that what we believe is true when others disagree. This statement really comes back to the type of environment that each individual is accustom to and how they develop "truths" within that environment. I think it might have to do, with the "breaking point" of that person also and how strongly they believe. In science, research may be absurd but if that scientist strongly believes in it, even if many people disagree, then the scientist will still go on with the research, and finding truth behind (example: those darn electric pants). I agree with Kitcher in some aspects, however I think he does repeat some topics, or gives way to many examples, which is helpful but at the same time makes the reading tiresome.

Professor Biases

Harvard medical school students recently spoke out against their professors when they noticed reluctance to discuss pitfalls of using certain drugs. It turned out that some of their professors were in the pockets of several major drug companies. In my opinion this is appalling. For some reason I never really thought much about the influence that big business has on our universities. At least I never considered it influencing the way a professor may teach their classes. In light of this scandal, it prompted a new state law that requires declaration of all “corporate gifts” over $50. This is a step in the right direction but the problem is clearly unsolved. This article is worth taking a look at.

Class Tomorrow: Fair Warning

Hey folks, just FYI: I'm still sick. Worst cold/flu I've had in quite a while (keep your distance). Given our few number of meetings, however, I think I should power through. But there's no way I will be able to pick up the slack in our discussion like last time. So please, everyone come ready to discuss the Kitcher reading.

Plagiarism in Science

I was looking over the current issue of Science and noticed an article about scientific integrity and plagiarism ("Responding to Possible Plagiarism" by Tara C. Long, Mounir Errami, Angela C. George, Zhaohui Sun, Harold R. Garner -- you can access the article through the library's website), and it really has made me question the level of responsibility in which scientists are held to.

The paper begins by stating:

"The peer-review process is the best mechanism to ensure the high quality of scientific publications. However, recent studies have demonstrated that the lack of well-defined publication standards, compounded by publication process failures, has resulted in the inadvertent publication of several duplicated and plagiarized articles. "

After a discussion about varying search engines/databases that are available for helping detect plagiarism, the authors' note that after their own search they found at least 212 cases of potential plagiarism. They then notified original and later authors and editors about the potential plagiarism. Response ranged from shock, anger, and disappointment to at least one of the later authors stating that they were not involved in the article. In conclusion the authors' note that there needs to be:

- Authoritative oversight by the scientific community
- Authors need to commit to the novelty and accuracy of the report
- Peer reviewers must make informed and thorough reviews
- Verification of originality by editors

However, my question is how is one to implement and/or enforce rules or guidelines that address these conclusions? For example, in respect to authors needing to commit to the accuracy of their report, isn't this what journals/editors/etc. already ask of the authors?
Also, how are editors to verify the originality? Are they to ask the authors to submit proof of all data? But wouldn't individuals already intent on copying or making up data find a way to do the same with "their" data?

In general there is an obvious need for the scientific community to start holding scientists to higher levels of responsibility and scientific integrity. I think that one way to help start this process is to start with younger/newer research scientists. Many of these scientists are under pressure to get a certain number of papers published, and unfortunately (as has been noted) this causes a quite a bit of "crap" to be published. This pressure needs to be lessened to allow these younger/newer scientists a chance to develop and produce real research. Much of this lessening of pressure needs to come from the universities and research insititutes.

Also, in respect to scientists who are well established and have larger labs in which they oversee, these scientists need to actually be overseeing and be apart of all research. I am not saying that all such scientists are not involved, but that involvement needs to be more than just being the person who gets all the grant money and signs off on projects and papers--they need to be involved in the development and carrying out of the projects.

Though there are other ways in which the responsibility and scientific integrity of scientists can be increased, I think that the scientific community needs to actually start doing something about it--instead of just going "oh well" or giving a simple slap on the hand in cases like plagiarism or "crap" publications.

Science and Map Making

As I’ve been reading Science, Truth and Democracy, Kitcher’s description of science as analogous to map making really struck me. Maybe it’s just that I understand some of these more complex issues when they can be explained with some kind of illustration.

A map is a picture of what an individual sees in the world. It represents what is really there and describes what is really there in a way that serve’s the map maker’s purpose. In this sense, the map claims to be an objective description of reality. Yet, though a map maker has attempted to represent reality correctly, it seems that inaccuracies can come in from two different sides. First of all, there can simply be inaccuracies in the way that the physical world is represented, an incorrect coastline or the absence of a mountain on a map that actually is there for example.

The second kind of inaccuracy is when things that do exist are omitted in the map because they don’t serve the map maker’s purpose. For example, a road atlas which doesn’t describe the backpacking trails in a certain area. Its not that the maker believes that there are no trails there. He or she just knows that the information is irrelevant to the desired audience.

Science is also a map of reality, though maybe not as visual. It is a description of what the external world is like. I wonder if the same two kinds of “inaccuracies” are present here as well. The first is easy to see in the history of science. Many theories were only partly correct because the “map maker” just didn’t know enough about reality. The early theories of heredity or reproduction would be examples of this. This may be a little unorthodox but I wonder if the second kind of “inaccuracy” occurs in science as well. Do scientists consciously leave out aspects of a theory or related information because they don’t believe it speaks to their audience? This seems to come back to value judgment and theory criterion in science. Is it possible that researchers may tailor a theory to their desired audience by the inclusion or expulsion of data that will best serve their own purposes?

I’m not speaking of falsifying data. But what if the roads on a map were analogous to accuracy of a theory and the backpacking trails were analogous to scope of that theory. It seems that scientists will frame their theory value judgments. I don’t want to push the analogy too far…what do you think to meet their current needs (whether they’re driving or backpacking). These decisions would be based on?

Shapin: The Scientist in 2008 (Seed article)

There was an article by Steven Shapin (author of The Scientific Revolution and co-author of Leviathan and the Air Pump, discussed in Peter Godfrey-Smith's paper) in the December 2008 issue of Seed magazine. In his article The Scientist in 2008, Shapin addresses several issues that we've been grappling with in class--science and values, science and sociology, and integrity in scientific practice. It's definitely worth a read, and it might even be relevant to some of your class projects (particularly the progress and scientific industry groups). I'd be happy to carry on a discussion of the paper here if anyone is interested.

groups set

In virtue of Alex's throwing his hat in the Group 1 ring, the groups are now set. Brianne and John --- I hope you're okay with joining Graham and Afton's group on progress.

Here's what we have:

Group 1 (4/14): Industry of Science

Alex, Brittany, Dave, and Jennifer

Group 2 (4/21): Genetic Enhancement (aka "Better, stronger, faster cows and people")

Justin, Kelsey, Rachel, Roger, and Roxy

Group 3 (4/28): Global Climate Change

Casey, Kristian, Lauren, Sharma, and Thando

Group 4 (5/5): Progress

Afton, Brianne, John, and Graham

More Peer Review Sketchiness

A new book, How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment apparently paints a not-so-nice portrait. Hmmm. . . . don't know how I feel about this. . . .

Discussed here.

Meeting 8 (3/10) — Science and Objectivity

For next time, please read Part I of Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy. There are a number of themes that I'll want to focus on. First, there is the realism debate that we barely edged onto today in class: what reason have we to think that our best theories are merely empirically adequate if they concern things that are beyond the reach of direct observation? Kitcher discusses various responses (both homely and sophisticated) that we should attend to.

But the real interest is with his positive, pluralistic proposal in chapters 4-6. Science is the search not for any old truth (nor some obscure notion of 'Truth' with a capital 'T'): rather, it seeks significant truths. But significance is a matter of our aims and interests, about which there may be dispute. Do you find Kitcher's pluralism compelling here? What about his stance on significance?

Groups Update

So the groups and loose topics are (almost) set:

Group 1 (4/14): Industry of Science
Brittany, Dave, Jennifer, + one other

Group 2 (4/21): Human Enhancement
Justin, Kelsey, Rachel, Roger, and Roxy

Group 3 (4/28): Global Climate Change
Casey, Kristian, Lauren, Sharma, and Thando

Group 4 (5/5): Progress
Afton, Graham, + two others

We have three folks left without groups. Please sort this out on blackboard soon. As your other group members are probably eager to get going, I will give you until the weekend to get it figured out.

I think these are all interesting and potentially very rich topics. I'm looking forward to seeing what you're able to come up with. Remember: I'd like to meet with each group at least twice; the first meeting should be at least four weeks before your presentation day. So Group 1 needs to get going soon! At least you'll have a good amount of time to work on your final essays with the presentation comfortably behind you. . . .

For the groups who are set, I've created private forums for you to use in Blackboard as you see fit (or not at all).

Reaction to Ruse and Wilson

During the last class my decided that Ruse and Wilson believe that a large part of your morals are passed to you genetically from your parents. My reaction to this was that, while I have similar morals to my parents, we differ on some things. I want to know why we would not be identical in our moral code. Ruse and Wilson believe that this would be my morals being influenced by others people morals or that one person’s genes have influenced or “deceived” my genes. I find this difficult to believe. If we were just influencing each other’s genes, why do we have the ability to reason? Another question I thought about is if morals are genetic, then how has society progressed and changed its moral beliefs through history? For example, until August 26, 1920 women could not vote in America. I’m sure that before this time some people thought that is was morally wrong for women to vote. At some point in time people made a logical argument that women should have the same rights as men and therefore should be able to vote. If this argument can be explained by one person’s genes influencing another person’s genes, then do some people still have the genes that make them believe that for moral purposes women should not have equal rights as men? Can this belief really be linked to genes? I don’t think it can.

Groups

So it appears that two groups have pretty well come together (though there is room for one more in the global climate change group). We need two more groups: one of four and one of either four or five (depending on whether someone else opts into the aforementioned climate group). I've mentioned some ideas earlier in this blog. I also just posted two other ideas in some more detail on the blackboard discussion page in case people still casting about for ideas might get inspired.

I said before that I'd cut off this blackboard discussion by midnight tonight. But I might as well just extend that until tomorrow by class. We'll spend the first little bit trying to settle the remaining groups.

Response to Class 02/24

What interested me about the group discussion concerning Ruse and Wilson, was the question of to what extent do Ruse and Wilson favor genetic determination? Basing off of what I read, I think they strongly believe genetics play an important role in our society, they state other aspects, but it seemed they always intertwined back to biology and genetics. Personally I believe the environment plays a huge role, in what you believe or what you do, and with that could necessarily not do with genetics. For example, I have learned many things from my peers, and not from my parents, and presumably I learn these things without genetics taken into consideration. I think Ruse and Wilson are correct to a certain extant but just based off of how our environment is, I believe the environment is a huge aspect also.
Along with altruistic and selfish; I think these two categories really just intertwine. For example, there is a squirrel that lives in the plains, that sends out an alert call to all female family members when prey is approaching. The females are the only ones in the nest, because the males have to leave the nest at a young age. This species is being altruistic, by saving their own kind, but at the same time, they're being selfish because they are only saving the females, since the females will be the ones in charge of reproduction. The males have to defend for themselves, and then come back during mating season. One can be altruistic and selfish, but fully could not just be one or the other. If there is an example someone would like to throw out, that is one or the other, that would be great, I can't think of a single one.