Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Student_BlogToday, we live in a world that is constantly changing. Everything happens in the blink of an eye, and if you have your eyes closed for more than a second, you miss so many important advancements, specifically in the STEM fields. As techno-scientists move forward into new territories, shattering past experts’ wildest dreams, the idea of what is wrong and what is right is constantly being examined. Many practices are going on today, such as stem cell research, among others, that have divided experts. There is a fine line that STEM professionals are finding themselves progressing along in regards to morality.
As a technology/social science major myself (my major is Human Resources Development), I often do not think of the ethical dilemmas being faced by people in my field, or other scientific majors. As I am about to complete ethics in science, I cannot help but reflect onto how ignorant I was before taking this course. I have learned so much and my attitude towards scientists has changed. Before this course, I did not think about how science is a field made up of individuals with personal lives, beliefs, and motivations. I blindly placed my trust in them because I am not in a position to question them, or so I thought. Americans all over the country, young and old, share these oblivious beliefs because they are not educated in how science progresses and the role they actually play.
In order to combat this lack of interest and attention in science, I think a number of things need to happen for the future. Everyone needs to be taught at some point in their education about what scientific work truly involves. I have found that only people directly involved with scientific research, whether it be in academia or their career, are aware of what is right and wrong, and the questions that should be asked when research is being conducted. We are the people this work directly affects and often the test subjects. If we look back to the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, we can see how easily our uneducated citizens can be taken advantage of. Although that was a different time, it is still entirely possible today. As uneducated people on science, we place our trust in scientists and we don’t speak up when things are off because we don’t have knowledge to do so. Science grows more specialized and impossible for an average person to understand or even begin to understand. In public high schools, there should be focus in the science courses on informed consent, ethical dilemmas of the past in science, conflict of interest, IRBs, and things of the like. This is a beneficial practice because then people won’t have to have an interest to stay aware of their rights and ethics, they will know because it is general knowledge to them. Another issue contributing to this detachment from the scientific community is the role of the internet. Theoretically, this should bring the average person closer, but there is the rapid spread of misinformation. The attitude that “because it was on the internet it must be true” and manipulation of real information makes staying in touch difficult because people don’t know what to believe.
Future scientists need to place a high ethical standard for one another. Science has a come a long way since the cases we have studied throughout this course, but that doesn’t protect us from those past mistakes. The only way to ensure an ethical future is to ourselves embody how ethics in science should look. We need to seek our information from reputable sources and conduct our experiments according to the guidelines set for us by our institutions and IRBs. We need to push one another to do our best and what is right, because the work we do doesn’t just affect our bank accounts, it affects innocent and uneducated lives that blindly trust in us. As the next generation takes over, it will grow more difficult to do so, but also more important. Nonscientists also have a strong duty to demand ethical practices. If education on ethical science and good scientific practices spread, then the responsibility is evenly distributed, and the chance for bad science and mistakes decreases.

Advertisements

Student_BlogWith the advancement of science and technologies, the world has seen tremendous amount of research studies being undertaken in different avenues of science. There is an increasing depth of knowledge including a broad range of topics from small microorganisms, human systems to the extraterrestrial mission, for an instance, promising a future journey of mankind to the Mars. It is obvious that necessity drives the innovations, and unsurprisingly there is an increased interest and investments in these fields. With the quest of helping the mankind and making lives easier, even the government and private parties are funding the studies, and scientists are assiduously working to discover new things, test old hypothesis, improve the existing practices or to modify the currently available devices. With this rush, it is obvious that every one competes for the research publications, not just for the academic contribution but to ensure they receive the regular funding or get a good position in a company, or a tenure tract faculty position in a reputed university. There is an undue pressure for every researcher to publish their work in journals with high ‘impact factor’, an indicator commonly being used to categorize research qualities, and I am not totally convinced with this fact though. This indeed has been causative factor in appearance of so many similar research activities in different parts of the world, which indeed could have been made more scientific and collaborative in order to save time and resources. You should feel for the animals that are sacrificed for the sake of science, and think about the ways their use could be minimized. Needless to say, there are hundreds of peer review journals these days where a scientist can publish his research work. It has many aspects, and one good part of it is, it adds up knowledge to the facts that were already known.

A good research should have a sound experimental design, good methodological approaches, proper data operations and effective communication of the research findings. All these steps demand highest ethical standard maintained by the researcher. We have evidences of plagiarism, falsification, failure to disclose the conflict of interest even from the reputed scientists, and it makes us wary about the quality of research works being published in mushrooming peer reviewed journals these days. Can we trust the research papers in top ranked journals and design our studies based on their findings? Do we set some standards or check marks to validate these studies, or do we blindly trust their data, and believe in what we see online? I always ask these questions to myself. Time has come, and we need to act to stop these fake sciences from affecting what has been already done and what is yet to come.

Besides the publication of the research work, I believe a researcher must also be aware about the implications of the research activities. There should be the clear statements regarding the limitations of the study and when and where the study findings could be applied. The mere display of fancy tables and diagrams using different statistical tests and graphic programs will not be a rational justification for the quality of work done. A falsified result can never be a good science. Imagine a situation in which the government decides to adopt public health policies being based on just few and less substantial research activities. This will not only affect your health, but the health of the entire community or the country. The seriousness and impacts of the research papers might not be global in all conditions, but those papers having a direct link to the human health or the critical aspects of the society will have a significant impact on a large scale and for a substantial period of time. A new treatment of choice can and should never be based on the data which were influenced by the researchers’ biasness, conflicts of interests, and did not meet the ethical standards. Summing these up, a researcher should be well aware about the impact of his or her work, and have a foresight about implications of the clinical findings. This will also necessitate researchers to be ready to address any gaps in the knowledge or provide further evidences that could strengthen the conclusions reached in their papers.

Moreover, effective communications skills are vital among the scientist who hold a responsible position in the society to ameliorate the lives of people, and not let any science do harm to already vulnerable population. Although, it is a challenge to explain all the sciences to a common people, to whom scientific paper might seem like a tome of jargons, but whenever required, a scientist should be able to explain the research findings to the people in general in common words they can understand. This will increase the transparency of the research works, and also ensure public supports. But the problem is, what if the researcher is biased or forced to publish the results in the way funding industry wants? People believe in what a news source publishes, or what a television program broadcasts, and if the scientist in such a vital position go beyond the ethical standards, the consequences are far more detrimental and outreaching than anyone can imagine. I believe we all are familiar with the radiation experiments and tobacco wars in the history of United States of America, where public trusts on scientists were exploited for the sake of political and financial interests. Same data can be interpreted in different ways, and it is the responsibility of the researcher to explain what the results mean.

We know the consequences of bad researches! So, what can be done to prevent this? Firstly, the researcher must make sure the data are collected in a scientific manner, and should maintain a highest ethical standard in recording, handling, analyzing and storing those collected data. We have heard about issues in which even the reputed writers have falsified their data or presented their work using some hypothetical data. Keeping a good copy of the study data not only helps to do better science, but also provide a solid proof of the work if someone wants to see the raw data. There has been increasing demands recently about making the raw data available to the public. Although the raw data itself might not make a good sense, but it will definitely boost up the transparency a scientist has with the people in general. A secured storage and destruction of data at a proper time are required to prevent the breach of vital and confidential information about the study subjects.
In addition, when it comes to health policies and plans or addressing an environmental issue or the clinical trial of a new cancer treatment, all of these require proper data handling. Same studies could be used by the government to plan health policies or to take into action against environmental issues. If these very studies are not scientific, successive follow up studies based on these assumptions would be nothing more than a waste of resources. And in the mean time, a lot of irreversible damages could be induced on the unaware people. A good data is the vital part of contributing science.

Furthermore, research data must reflect the real scenario of the study samples. Though there is a possibility of human errors, it should be minimized as much as possible. An ethical and scientific paper is definitely a good working basis for further studies and advance the science. Future therapies, technologies and policies are going to be based on what research we do currently. It is our duty and moral responsibility to be confined to the highest ethical standards so that no resources should be wasted for “false or misleading science”. In conclusion, I have a hope that we change our insight about the data and understand the gravity they hold so as to advance the science, not to ruin what we care for.

References:
1. Ethics in Research and Publication, Elsevier https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/websites/elsevier_publishingcampus/files/Guides/Brochure_Ethics_2_web.pdf
2. Publishing ethics, Elsevier
https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/publishing-ethics
3. Authors and referees, Nature
http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/publication.html

 


Student_BlogIn the internet age, a few companies have come to the forefront as industry leaders that have changed the way we live and communicate. Social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, have accelerated the speed and ease with which we can connect with friends, family, and veritable strangers. Technology behemoth Google has integrated itself into every nook of our lives with services that range from email to photos to fitness tracking to online advertisements. But as important as these services have become to the everyday routines of millions of people, their immense potential as tools of social change was only realized with movements like the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter, where activists used technology to mobilize protestors and spread real-time information that was not being reported on by the media. For many, these events only confirmed what they had believed all along: that tech companies and their services were fundamentally good.
In recent years, however, there has been an alarming rise in the manipulation of social media websites and other technology services to spread false information in order to influence real-world results. In Germany, a far-right party was able to win 12.6% of parliamentary seats by preying on German citizen’s distrust of recent Syrian refugees. In the Philippines, autocratic leader President Rodrigo Duterte has a “keyboard army” whose job is to control the official narrative online. And in the US, of course, there are concerns that Russian hackers, aided by the Russian government, manipulated social media to influence the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. As investigative reporters uncover more information about these incidents, it is slowly becoming more clear just how incredibly difficult it will be to combat the spread of misinformation in today’s world.
Technology companies control a vast amount of information and how they use it is generally dictated by profit motive. Facebook and Google together control about one-half of the world’s digital advertising. Facebook alone has three billion users — nearly a third of humanity! It is well-known that the reach and speed of the internet makes it hard for false news to be fact-checked before it is spread around the globe, but an even more concerning issue has come to light in recent years. Tech companies employ algorithms to show users content that they are more likely to interact with to maximize user engagement with their product. This leads to clusters of people sharing news items of both similar beliefs and values which can quickly lead to an echo chamber of ideas. If these echo chambers become extreme enough, there is a political polarization of society. This problem has further been exacerbated by the fact that tech companies have not effectively been able to stop the targeting of false advertisements or news items to groups of people who are most vulnerable to this type of misinformation. This can take two forms: advertisers can exclude a minority group from their advertising or they may choose to target a demographic that shares hate-based values (e.g. Facebook allowed advertisers to target “Jew haters”). This belies many technology companies’ claims that they are a

“neutral technology platform” and that they should not held accountable for the content that users are shown.
As critics have called for greater transparency in how content is served to users, Facebook and Google have done little to answer these calls. In response to accusations from European regulators of “distorting internet search results and acting anti-competitively”, Google launched and funded the Digital New Initiative (DNI) in Europe to cultivate digital journalism. It also founded the First Draft News Coalition and became a participant of the Trust Project for similar reasons. Facebook also participates in the First Draft News Coalition [0], but has done very little to increase transparency in how it operates.
The company only allows researchers to publish the results of studies looking at the dynamics of social media; it does not allow them to publish the raw data. Facebook also does not want to share how it recommends content or targets ads to users. While both companies have vowed to restrict the advertising of false news stories, they have simultaneously lobbied against disclosure rules that would force them to reveal who is paying for ads.
As members of the public, we must continue to demand more transparency from technology companies. Others have already called for technology companies to hire more editors and journalists from across the political spectrum who could help curate and manage content; they would be a balancing force against the companies’ algorithms. Some have opined that the companies should “tweak [their] algorithm so that it does less to reinforce users’ existing beliefs, and more to present factual information”. Still others have argued that social media companies should be classified as utilities and made a “public benefit corporation”; a move that would be a tech company’s biggest nightmare. So far tech companies have resisted even being classified as a media organization, because that would force them to follow a new set of regulatory guidelines that have heretofore been free from. Professor Phillip Howard of the Oxford Internet Institute explained the situation quite succinctly when he said, “If they are considered a media company and are taking money for placement of advertisements, then they are responsible for truth in advertising” [2]. That would, of course, force tech companies like Facebook to devote more money to hiring human fact-checkers and it would make them liable for any damage that might occur from misinformation that is spread on their website.
For a very long time, the internet was a kind of wild frontier. There was very little regulation of websites or the companies that built them and this was seen a positive, because it fostered the innovation and the growth of new companies. But as these small companies founded in garages and dorm rooms have come to grow into multi-billion-dollar corporations that now wield power far greater than any of us could have imagined twenty years ago, it is time to hold them accountable. If the companies themselves are unwilling to be clear about their mode of operation and conduct themselves ethically, the public must act in its own interest and pass regulations that will lead to greater transparency.

References

Buni, Catherine. “Facebook Won’t Call Itself a Media Company. Is It Time to Reimagine Journalism for the Digital Age?” The Verge, Vox Media, Inc., 16 Nov. 2016, http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13655102/facebook-journalism-ethics-media-company-algorithm-tax.

“How the World Was Trolled; Social Media and Politics.” The Economist (US), 4 Nov. 2017, p. 21. ABI/INFORM [ProQuest], search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/docview/1959491784.
Kuchler, Hannah, and Madhumita Murgia. “Facing down Fake News.” Financial Times, 2 May 2017, p. 9. Laurent, Belsie. “Combating Fake News May Force Big Changes at Facebook, Twitter.” The Christian Science
Monitor, 6 Oct. 2017. ABI/INFORM [ProQuest], search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/docview/1947629514.


Student_BlogThe education and training of IT professionals usually focuses on technical knowledge and skills. You learn how to perform tasks, yet with little thought of how those abilities can be misused. Actually, numerous IT professionals approach their work with a hacker’s perspective: whatever you can do, you’re qualified to do. IT professionals often have access to confidential data and knowledge about individuals’ and companies’ networks and systems that give them a great deal of power. That power can be abused, either deliberately or inadvertently. But there are no standardized training requirements for hanging out your shingle as an IT security consultant. Many of the ethical issues that face IT professionals involve privacy.
Should you read the private e-mail of your network users just because you can? Is it OK to read employees’ e-mail as a security measure to ensure that sensitive company information isn’t being disclosed? Is it OK to monitor the Web sites visited by your network users? Should you routinely keep logs of visited sites? Is it okay to look through files on a user’s laptop when you’re troubleshooting a problem? Remember that we’re not talking about legal questions here. A company may very well have the legal right to monitor everything an employee does with its computer equipment. We’re talking about the ethical aspects of having the ability to do so. If any of these questions caused you to stop and think about what you would do, you’re not alone. Ethical choices often seem murky. As IT professionals, what should we do when we encounter potentially murky situations like the ones described? We live in a human society, subject to less-than-complete information, societal pressures, and multiple interpretations of facts. More often than not, we need to apply professional judgment, which is guided by our own experiences as well as reliance on laws, policies, and culture. Sometimes existing laws or institutional policy will guide ethical behavior; sometimes they won’t. What many people often do not understand is that what is legal is not always ethical. I believe it is our responsibility as IT professionals to act in an ethical manner in the performance of our work duties. To inadvertently do otherwise risks losing the trust of employees, clients, communities, and the general public. Without such trust I have difficulty imagining how IT professionals can continue to perform their duties effectively. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it. Like any other profession, information technology benefits from a standard, accepted code of ethics that helps guide behavior in sometimes confusing contexts.
Any technology can create disruption. Google collecting personal information from wireless networks. A dating app used for stalking. For example, there’s the Girls Around Me app, which picked up personal data from nearby phones to identify and message single women in the users’ vicinity. It was pulled from Apple’s App Store, but only after an outcry from smartphone users who saw it as less a tool for dating than stalking. Facebook inadvertently outed a few University of Texas students who had joined Queer Chorus, a student choir group. The president of the chorus added students to the group’s Facebook page, not realizing it would automatically notify all of their Facebook friends—some of whom the students hadn’t yet come out to, including family members who didn’t take the news well, to put it mildly.
Facebook added additional explanations in the Help Center and has since added additional privacy controls, but for at least those students, it was too late. These incidents could have been avoided if developers had proper professional ethics education and if ethics were made part of the software development process, something engineers constantly return to as they see how their work is being used. Software professionals should be required to take the same engineering ethics course any engineer would do.
References:

https://psmag.com/education/teaching-software-ethics-course-facebook-engineering-silicon-valley-65728

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/09/software_engineers_need_a_crash_course_in_ethics.html

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2557944/security0/ethical-issues-for-it-security-professionals.html


Student_BlogInternet is one of the greatest discoveries of mankind. It changed the face of how data and information is to be shared. It also paved a way for a technological revolution. Some of the most valuable companies were born because of the Internet. The focus of the article is on the tech behemoth ‘Google’. Since its incipience in 1999, it has seen enormous growth and is one of the most valuable and most influential organization in the world. Approximately 1.2 billion people use Google. Google processes 3.5 billion searches in a day. We can just imagine the influence it has over people. But the question that piques my mind is that whether the search results are impartial and unbiased towards or against a particular organization.
Delving further on this issue, the results were not completely unbiased and this played a big role in influencing the masses. Google has claimed that the autocomplete algorithm was designed to omit disparaging and offensive terms associated with individual’s or a concept’s names. But when you search for the term ‘is homosexuality’, the first suggestion is ‘is homosexuality a sin’. Statistics say that if there is a negative autocomplete suggestion in the list, it will draw somewhere between 5 and 15 times as many clicks as a neutral suggestion. This autocomplete suggestion is an indication of bias. Also, appearing on the first page of Google search results can give websites with questionable editorial principles undue authority and traffic. The combination of these manipulation techniques can have an enormous impact on people without their knowledge that they are being manipulated.
One of the most infamous ploy of Google was to be seen during an election. The tampering and manipulation of search engine led to a swing in results of the election. Google suppressed the negative autocomplete search results relating to Clinton. This can be linked to the close ties between the Clinton Campaign and Google. After Google, pulled back the censorship, there was a flood of pro-Trump, anti-Clinton content. Some of the content was in retaliation to the suppression. When people searched for trending terms like “Feminism”, the first autocomplete suggestion was ‘Feminism is Cancer” which echoed the thoughts of our current President Donald Trump.
Around 75% of the people had no idea that their search results were biased. Studies show that during an import event like elections, if the first page of the links was in favor of one candidate, people were likely to prefer that candidate. Google’s spokesperson defended the organization by saying that it is all generated by an algorithm and that humans had no role to play in deciding the autocomplete suggestions. Also, many organizations have been taking advantage of Search Engine Optimization algorithm of Google to promote their websites and hence influence the masses.
Search engines are a significant means to influence the masses and that the tech giant ‘Google’ has a big role to play to preserve the sanctity of unbiased and impartial information. Also, they need to enhance their monitoring and security protocols to correctly identify the websites violating their policy so as to prevent the swing in outcome of events with humungous impact like elections.

References:-
http://socialpsychonline.com/2015/09/search-engine-manipulation-effect-election/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/google-autocomplete-rightwing-bias-algorithm-political-propaganda


Student_BlogSince the publishing of Frankenstein, science fiction has embraced the role of teaching us morals. It has guided us as scientists, showing us dreams of cloning, space travel, and even alien contact, while at the same time reminding us the dark consequences behind our actions. It has allowed us to quiet the voice inside us asking why not?, while at the same time pushing us to ask what if? It is this ability to debate ethical dilemmas that inspired Gene Roddenberry, creator of one of the most widely known series – Star Trek.
In the 60’s, the space race was at its peak and Star Trek was inspiring a new wave of scientists eager to reach the final frontier. The series contained adventures across the universe, exploring philosophical questions that, despite being 300 years in the future and in alien worlds, related to deep moral issues present in any scientific endeavor. Star Trek aimed at showing scientists the vast possibilities the pursuit of knowledge provided. It displayed a world in which the starship Enterprise traveled as a scientific exploratory vessel; its sole mission “to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.” It presented the true scientist dream – science without boundaries. And yet as it showed us a universe full of possibilities, it made us stop and realize that no scientific endeavor is truly without ethics.
Since the beginning, the show was deemed controversial for many of the issues it raised. It freely commented on sexism, war, poverty, and even racism – topics that were shunned at the time. The cast and crew pushed the limits of their broadcaster’s censorship, adding subtle messages in each episode that would otherwise have been silenced. When ethics was involved, however, it displayed the messages loud and clear. As the crew traveled, they encountered many difficulties that tested their morals. All members of the starship Enterprise are techno-scientists, and any moral problem they encounter becomes that of scientific ethics. Was a governor right to kill half of his starving planetary colony so the other half would survive the plague? Is it right to disturb development of a secluded planet in order to save it? Are they right as a science vessel to defend themselves if attacked? Are telepathic species justified to use their abilities for information against non-telepathic ones?
It is these and more questions that make Star Trek the inspiration it continues to be, making us as scientists contemplate the boundaries of our endeavors. The adventures of the Enterprise crew run deep within the foundations of modern science, from physics in the exploration of the space-time continuum, to medicine for the search of new technologies and universal cures. Sliding doors, tablets, smartphones, computers with talking AI, universal translators – all technology that wouldn’t exist without the series. We follow in the steps of the crew as they show us the universe, and learn from their mistakes so that we may avoid our own. Their values are our values and their science is our science.

To read more on this topic, check out NASA’s The Science of Star Trek, which details technology inspired by the series. You can also read Andy Lau’s article on teaching Ethics, “Why I teach ‘Star Trek’ in my class,” or watch Star Trek: The Original Series on Netflix. Translation provided by Google Translate.


Student_BlogAtomic bomb explosions! Warfare! Deceit! Humans used as guinea pigs! Ego and selfishness of scientists! These are some of the loud echoes of the negatives that history presents of the devastation that techno-scientific experts caused humanity and perhaps continue to do so. On one hand, science has been a useful discipline for the betterment of society. The cure of diseases, the manufacture of everyday essentials, automobiles, phones and even exploration of space have all been made possible because of science.
While science is rewarding to pursue, there has invariably been the issue of Osaedisregard for ethical concerns that define and guide scientific disciplines. In non-technical parlance, ethics refers to being accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially as it pertains to the standards of a profession. It could also mean the observation of sound moral principles that guide human behavior.
In the past, techno-scientific experts have been chastised for willful neglect for the ethics that surround their work. An example is the unguarded motive behind the making of a deadly atomic bomb that has for decades plunged Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki into devastation and slow recovery. These were as a result of the handiworks of scientists who obviously did not consider the moral repercussions of their pursuits in terms of untold degree and fatality and toxicity that came along with the bomb. This was one of the extreme situations where science failed humanity in terms of moral judgements. Others include infamous events surrounding the explosion the NASA’s Challenger space shuttle in 1986 which led to the loss of lives of the crew aboard(1). This too, occurred as a result of techno-scientific and managerial experts’ willful oversight to correct defects in the shuttle that made the spacecraft prone to disastrous accidents in the event of its launch.
On the ticket of deceit and/ or trickery, scientists in the past have failed to inform the lay public on the motives behind human experiments. Some have also hidden the details of the constituents of products that are manufactured and sold to the public for consumption. Reports after reports including those related to tobacco, lead-loaded paint and even polyvinyl chloride in plastics showed that these elements were harmful to human health. Workers and users who came into contact with these substances developed various forms of cancers, even children developed brain defects and several malformations that lead to deaths and disability. This is all because techno-scientific experts’ failure to be ethical by concealing what potential harm their products could cause to the “ordinary” person. They were essentially disloyal to people who confided in them for their expertise.
The lingering questions however are, “have scientists’ yielded place to new ways of doing science?” Is there greater transparency in the way things are done in science? Are there justifiable reasons why todays scientists do things do? In my opinion, the situation of ethics in science has definitely improved but there is still more room for improvement.
I keep wondering why nations brag about their superiority over each other in terms of armory and continuous threat of destroying each other with nuclear bomb, even in the 21st century. What I think is that even though these weapons are developed by the scientific capacity of a nation, their ethical use is inarguably questionable. The activities of scientists in this regard, have in the past decades and present been influenced by political forces and authorities in influential positions such as managers in industry. These powers invariably are the force behind why scientists may be unethical for their actions.
The aftermaths of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing(2), the mythical Tuskegee(3) studies and hidden secrets of tobacco(4) and lead-laden paints(5) industries all point put to institutional (managerial and political) influences. These suffices to say that, techno-scientific experts have a long a way to go to deal with the ethical problems surrounding their work. What draws my attention is that, many scientists may make the attempt to be ethical in their work but the dictates of politicians, managers and funding institutions may in many ways hinder them from being truthful to their work.
In other words, what most scientists need in order to be ethical in their work is boldness to oppose the wrongful dictates of the powers that be in their work. Scientists should learn to willfully stand for what is right, otherwise, the bad old history surrounding ethics of their work will keep repeating. Scientist should yield place new!
References
1. Bohannon JN. Flashbulb memories for the space shuttle disaster: A tale of two theories. Cognition. 1988;29(2):179-96.
2. Folley JH, Borges W, Yamawaki T. Incidence of leukemia in survivors of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The American journal of medicine. 1952;13(3):311-21.
3. Freimuth VS, Quinn SC, Thomas SB, Cole G, Zook E, Duncan T. African Americans’ views on research and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Social science & medicine. 2001;52(5):797-808.
4. Proctor RN. “Everyone knew but no one had proof”: tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990–2002. Tobacco control. 2006;15(suppl 4):iv117-iv25.
5. Hartman EE, Park WE, Nelson HG. The peeling house paint hazard to children. Public health reports. 1960;75(7):623.