Science & Technology

Arg! “The Ethicist” Endorses Piracy!

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Ah, another Sunday, another chapter in the crusade of Randy Cohen, a.k.a “The Ethicist,” to redefine the definition of “ethical.” I used to read “The Ethicist” column in The New York Times  magazine out of professional curiosity, later, bemusement, and now I read it as a diagnostic exercise. Where did Randy acquire his bizarre fondness for certain forms of dishonesty? For the record, Cohen’s batting average of actually giving ethical, rather than unethical, advice appears to be holding steady at .750, which means that he advocates unethical means one out of every four inquiries. I’d say Charley Rangel would do better, and nobody’s likely to call him “The Ethicist” any time soon.

This Sunday, Randy is endorsing web piracy…really. Continue reading →

Mad Scientist Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

It is comforting to know that all mad scientists aren’t hell-bent on world domination. Apparently some Japanese mad scientists are dedicated instead to world vaccination, because, as reported in the April issue of “Insect Molecular Biology”, they have figured out how to make mosquitoes into itty-bitty flying syringes full of vaccine. Continue reading →

Climate Science Ethics: The Lovelock Interview

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

James Lovelock, 90, is a legendary scientist, environmentalist and futurist. He has just given a lengthy interview in which he opines about the recent scandals in climate science, the value of skeptics, the limitations of political solutions to big problems, and the inherent uncertainty of science. The interview is remarkable for what it reveals about this independent scientist’s honesty, integrity, respect for adverse opinions and understanding of human nature. It is also that true rarity, an assessment of climate change that is measured, reasonable,  persuasive, and logical.

You can read the whole interview here, and the key statements  here.

Dubious Ethics Studies, Part II

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

There are good reasons to be skeptical of all studies purporting to analyze what people think according to how they fit into common ideological categories. In 2003, a study purported to portray conservatism as a kind of mental disorder. In 2008, another series of studies was packaged to make the case that liberals were compassionate in words only, that when it came to putting one’s money where one’s conscience was, it was those mean old conservatives who opened their wallets. Now comes a study called “Do Green Products Make Us Better People?”published in the latest edition of the “Journal of Psychological Science.” Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, did a series of experiments comparing the behavior of patrons of “green” products and the conduct of the less environmentally correct. Continue reading →

Philly’s “Webcamgate”: No Ethics Controversy, Just Unethical

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Ethics Alarms has not discussed the Lower Merion School District’s “Webcamgate” scandal, in part because its facts are still somewhat in doubt, and because I found it difficult to believe that what had been reported was true. High school student Blake Robbins sued the District after officials reprimanded for him for conduct inside his Pennsylvania Valley home. Apparently he was caught on the webcam of the Apple MacBook that the district supplies to its 2,300 high school students. Following an investigation by the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office and the FBI, it was confirmed that the cameras were programmed to be turned on remotely by school officials, but, say those officials, only to track down stolen computers, not to spy on students, their friends and their parents. Continue reading →

Ethics Hero (sort of, maybe, a bit): Google

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Google is a little like the turncoat in an action movie who almost sinks the hero but then makes a surprise return at the climax to save the day. In 2006, many of us were disgusted when Google agreed to help the oppressive Chinese government censor speech and information in exchange for getting a crack at the biggest market on the planet. We heard the company’s rationalizations about compromising their principles now to help open up Chinese society, but the truth always was that “Do no evil” Google was willing  to do evil for four years in exchange for a lot of yen.  At last the company finally decided that it couldn’t look at itself in its virtual mirror anymore, abandoned its agreement to help China control what its people could read and say, and moved its server to Hong Kong.

Google has garnered a lot of praise on-line and elsewhere for its decision. The company did the right thing, it is true, but it would have been far more admirable if it had taken the same position four years earlier, and refused to play the part of China’s cyber-muzzle in its quest for big bucks.

That feckless guy in the action movie who comes back in the last reel isn’t really a hero, you know. The only reason he is in a position to act like one is that he did the wrong thing in the first place. We’re glad he had a change of heart, sure. But let’s not get carried away.

__________________

Update: In the category of getting “carried away,” here is a stunning example from “Op-Ed News”:

“…again Google has found itself in a situation where its ethics are being challenged by one of the most oppressive governments (In our opinion) in the Global Community, and rather than backing down, Google has chosen to stand-up for their belief that moral values and ethics trump corporate profit, an occurrence so rare these days that we believe Google  deserves special recognition for refusing to compromise their core ethics of “Don’t be Evil,” even in a situation where it could result in the loss of huge profits in China’s booming economy and what may one day be one of the largest Internet markets in the world…”

The author, William Cormier, conveniently ignores the fact that Google’s decision that “moral values and ethics trump corporate profit” has only come after four years of letting profit trump its values. What does he think Google has been doing the last four years? Does he really believe China just started  censoring Google searches? You can read his entire, hilarious hosanna to Google here.

Provocative Ethics Reading for a Sunday

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

If your endangered Sunday newspaper is as shrunken from cost-cutting as mine, you may need some extra reading material as you wait breathless for the results of the House vote on health care reform. Here are some provocative ethics pieces from around the web:

E-mails Aren’t Private? Oh-oh…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Rehberg v. Paulk that one who sends an e-mail has no “expectation of privacy” in its content, once it is sent to a third party—-and that third party can even be the internet service provider. Which means, in essence, that e-mails aren’t private any more, if this ruling stands.

Here you have a good example of how courts can re-define formal ethical standards on multiple planes with a few words. This means that one of the most influential Federal Courts has given the green light to any government agency or employer who chooses to read your e-mails. It may well be that lawyers who send documents containing confidential client information have breached their duty to protect confidences. It means that if your room-mate reads confidential messages on your laptop without your permission, the law says its your fault, not his.

This is the point where ethics, manners and the Golden Rule becomes more important than ever. The court case may change the law, and it may be legal to read other people’s e-mails without permission, but it’s still not right.

For an excellent scholarly dissent from the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling by Prof. Orrin Kerr, see his argument on the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Many thanks to Prof. Monroe Freedman whose post at the Legal Ethics Forum alerted me to both the case and Prof. Kerr’s critique.]

Astrology Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Considering absurd hypotheticals can still be valuable. Consider this ridiculous question from a site with the tautological title, “Astrology or Superstition?” :

“Would it be unethical to use astrology to gain advantage over someone in the work environment?”

Obviously not, because astrology is a crock. But if it were not a crock, what would the answer to this question be? Continue reading →

Public Privacy and the Ubiquitous Camera

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Everybody has a camera…well, almost everybody. Thanks to cell phones, we can be recorded in still or video formats almost every second of the day. We are our own Big Brother.  So much so, in fact, that it is hard to muster too much fright and indignation over increasing use of public cameras by the government. Boston police, for example, now have immediate access to street video of shootings, robberies, and homicides on many city streets, and use real time images to send information about the suspects and crimes to responding officers. Continue reading →