Presentation Rubric

More grading technicalities: I will be using this rubric for evaluating the presentations. It's intended to work in something like the same way my essay rubric works, though as you can see, it has more room for write-in comments.

I will be passing blank rubrics out to the class to fill out and complete anonymously at the end of each of our remaining classes. I will take this as advisory data when I sit down to complete my rubric. I recommend taking a careful look at this and working at figuring out how to best make the far right column. Good luck!

Does Language Determine Culture?

I'm just finishing up my first essay, which pertains to defining the word "natural" in the dairy industry. Such as organic milk being more natural compared to pasteurized milk with hormones, etc. and really being able to determine what natural is. I came across another philosophy blogging site (crazy huh?) that had a very interesting question: does language determine culture? It made me think about how often we are influenced by specific words or sentences and how our culture can begin to change due to those words. For example, more and more people are eating more "organic". This one word is influencing how we eat, or now what we buy, or even how the producers change their image. Organic, is usually considered to be more healthier/natural, but then how are we to define healthy, or also to define natural. The meaning of these words or how they relate to us have changed, and have been determined by our culture. A great example on this site was the phrase D-day. We all know where this word came from, however it is now used more and more in the business press, pertaining to or related to a launch of a new product. Communication is very huge in our culture and language I believe has definitely influenced us through the years. I just never thought about how much language really determines our culture/mind frame......very interesting question. If you would like to look at the site, here is the link http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/search/label/Does%20language%20determine%20culture%3F?max-results=20

Rubric Interpretation

Here's how I see the scores on the rubric translating into rough grades: The A range runs from 22-28, B: 16-22, C: 10-16, D: 4-6, F: <4. But rather than fixating on the grade, focus on what you need to do to improve.

Science Funding: Justice or Utility?

I’ve been thinking over the discussion in class yesterday and am realizing that some of the confusion over science funding may arise because of the conflation of two related issues. On the one hand, we tend to believe that the scientist should be free to investigate those things which he or she has a genuine interest in without being manipulated or censured by the government or society. This is assuming his or her research is ethical in nature and doesn’t compromise the society’s values. On the other side of the equation, is the individual tax-paying citizen, who in some degree supports science funding through their tax dollars. Again, it seems logical that like the scientist, each of these people should have the freedom to choose what things are worthy of their investment. Should they too have the right to study, vicariously through the use of their money, those things which they genuinely want to support? We would like for both the scientist and the citizen to have complete freedom of action but what happens when these freedoms oppose each other in society? That seems like the foundational question that we are asking?


As strange as it sounds at first, I kind of like Matthew’s idea of having a list of issues which citizen’s can allocate their individual taxes toward. If it is the public’s money, the public should have a large degree of say on how that money is spent. Will this crimp the speed and efficiency of scientific advancement? Yes. This system wouldn’t be as powerful or as versatile as a more “elitist” organization where the resource allocation decisions are made at higher levels. But, this is the price you pay for justice it seems. Democracies were never meant to be efficient. Does this debate boil down to a question of justice versus utility? And if it does, what is our underlying criterion for deciding how to allocate funding?

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.