Ethics For Physicists

Most physicists never receive any formal education in ethics, even
though they face ethical questions throughout their working lives.
Marshall Thomsen believes that it is vital for ethics to be part of the
undergraduate curriculum.

Ethics at work?

To what extent should a formal education in ethics be part of the
university physics curriculum? When this question is raised in the
physics community, the response is often that there is no significant
problem with fraud in physics, and hence that including ethics in the
curriculum is unnecessary. Even raising the question is viewed by some
as a waste of time at best and insulting at worst. I would argue,
however, that such a response takes an overly narrow view of the role
of ethics in physics.

"Ethics" refers to the standards of conduct associated with our actions
as professional physicists. Our professional activities extend beyond
traditional research to include a wide range of other activities that
we do in support of research, teaching and our interaction with the
rest of society. That we consider ethics to apply to the full range of
these activities is important to the health of the physics community.

The "cold fusion" affair provides an interesting example. When Stanley
Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced ten years ago this month that
they had achieved fusion at room temperature in a table-top experiment,
their declaration was, by all accounts, premature. Although a full
examination of all the intricacies of the story would require a book
(see, for example, Frank Close's Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold
Fusion), several simple observations can be made.

The fact that many others tried - and failed - to replicate the
experiments of Pons and Fleischmann can be viewed as evidence that the
scientific community can effectively weed out erroneous results, and
hence that "the system" works. However, an enormous price was paid (in
both time and money) to investigate these results. Had Pons and
Fleischmann delayed in going public, these resources could have been
used in a more productive manner. At the same time, it is important to
recognize that they did not have the luxury of making their decisions
in a vacuum. They had potentially made a discovery that could have been
incredibly rich in patent rights, and their university was anxious to
share the wealth.

There are many lessons that can be drawn from the cold-fusion affair.
One is that real-world decisions are made in a complex environment that
makes ethical decisions more challenging to implement. Another is that
society can pay a steep price for ethical lapses of this sort.

Ethics for physicists

Ethics does not just apply to high-profile cases such as cold fusion.
Many of us, in much less dramatic settings, have had to face the fact
that some research results we have disseminated are in some way
inaccurate. A calculation may have been performed incorrectly, an
instrument may have been wrongly calibrated, an important factor may
not have been accounted for, or a simple typographical error may have
crept into a paper.

In many cases, these errors could reasonably be classified as
acceptable (and, to some extent, expected) mistakes that are made in
the course of scientific exploration. However, it is important for us
to always question whether we have rushed our results into print
prematurely. I expect all of us have read a paper where this seems to
have been the case.

But there are many other situations in physics where we confront
decisions that have an ethical component. For example, can we be sure
that our data have been analysed and reported fairly? Does a particular
individual deserve co-authorship on a paper? Are the projections we
made in our grant proposal realistic? When we are asked by someone
outside the scientific community for our expert opinion on a particular
topic, do we have enough expertise to provide it? Are we taking our
share of the responsibility for ensuring that society is getting
adequate technical advice from the physics community? Are we providing
guidance and training to our students that is appropriate for the
current job market?

Teaching students ethics

One way of helping physicists to appreciate the role that ethics plays
in their lives is to include it in the undergraduate curriculum. At
Eastern Michigan University in the US, we offer a seminar course in
ethics for our physics majors, who meet for one hour each week to
discuss readings from a wide range of resources. We begin by discussing
the five basic principles of ethics that were described in 1993 by the
philosopher and ethicist David Resnik. According to him, one should

not harm others needlessly
(the non-malificence principle);

promote the welfare of others
(the beneficence principle);

allow rational people the right
to self-determination
(the principle of autonomy);

treat equals as equal
(the formal principle of justice);

distribute goods on the basis
of need or merit (the material
principle of justice).

These principles can be viewed as the foundation of scientific ethics.
For instance, the principles of non-malificence and beneficence
presumably help guide our choice of research topics....

Marshall Thomsen, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and
Astronomy, Eastern Michigan University, USNorbert Vance;
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/3/2/1

Immortalist wrote:
Most physicists never receive any formal education in ethics, even
though they face ethical questions throughout their working lives.
Marshall Thomsen believes that it is vital for ethics to be part of the
undergraduate curriculum.

Ethics at work?

To what extent should a formal education in ethics be part of the
university physics curriculum? When this question is raised in the
physics community, the response is often that there is no significant
problem with fraud in physics, and hence that including ethics in the
curriculum is unnecessary. Even raising the question is viewed by some
as a waste of time at best and insulting at worst. I would argue,
however, that such a response takes an overly narrow view of the role
of ethics in physics.

"Ethics" refers to the standards of conduct associated with our actions
as professional physicists. Our professional activities extend beyond
traditional research to include a wide range of other activities that
we do in support of research, teaching and our interaction with the
rest of society. That we consider ethics to apply to the full range of
these activities is important to the health of the physics community.

The "cold fusion" affair provides an interesting example. When Stanley
Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced ten years ago this month that
they had achieved fusion at room temperature in a table-top experiment,
their declaration was, by all accounts, premature. Although a full
examination of all the intricacies of the story would require a book
(see, for example, Frank Close's Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold
Fusion), several simple observations can be made.

The fact that many others tried - and failed - to replicate the
experiments of Pons and Fleischmann can be viewed as evidence that the
scientific community can effectively weed out erroneous results, and
hence that "the system" works. However, an enormous price was paid (in
both time and money) to investigate these results. Had Pons and
Fleischmann delayed in going public, these resources could have been
used in a more productive manner. At the same time, it is important to
recognize that they did not have the luxury of making their decisions
in a vacuum. They had potentially made a discovery that could have been
incredibly rich in patent rights, and their university was anxious to
share the wealth.

There are many lessons that can be drawn from the cold-fusion affair.
One is that real-world decisions are made in a complex environment that
makes ethical decisions more challenging to implement. Another is that
society can pay a steep price for ethical lapses of this sort.

Ethics for physicists

Ethics does not just apply to high-profile cases such as cold fusion.
Many of us, in much less dramatic settings, have had to face the fact
that some research results we have disseminated are in some way
inaccurate. A calculation may have been performed incorrectly, an
instrument may have been wrongly calibrated, an important factor may
not have been accounted for, or a simple typographical error may have
crept into a paper.

In many cases, these errors could reasonably be classified as
acceptable (and, to some extent, expected) mistakes that are made in
the course of scientific exploration. However, it is important for us
to always question whether we have rushed our results into print
prematurely. I expect all of us have read a paper where this seems to
have been the case.

But there are many other situations in physics where we confront
decisions that have an ethical component. For example, can we be sure
that our data have been analysed and reported fairly? Does a particular
individual deserve co-authorship on a paper? Are the projections we
made in our grant proposal realistic? When we are asked by someone
outside the scientific community for our expert opinion on a particular
topic, do we have enough expertise to provide it? Are we taking our
share of the responsibility for ensuring that society is getting
adequate technical advice from the physics community? Are we providing
guidance and training to our students that is appropriate for the
current job market?

Teaching students ethics

One way of helping physicists to appreciate the role that ethics plays
in their lives is to include it in the undergraduate curriculum. At
Eastern Michigan University in the US, we offer a seminar course in
ethics for our physics majors, who meet for one hour each week to
discuss readings from a wide range of resources. We begin by discussing
the five basic principles of ethics that were described in 1993 by the
philosopher and ethicist David Resnik. According to him, one should

not harm others needlessly
(the non-malificence principle);

promote the welfare of others
(the beneficence principle);

allow rational people the right
to self-determination
(the principle of autonomy);

treat equals as equal
(the formal principle of justice);

distribute goods on the basis
of need or merit (the material
principle of justice).

These principles can be viewed as the foundation of scientific ethics.
For instance, the principles of non-malificence and beneficence
presumably help guide our choice of research topics....

Marshall Thomsen, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and
Astronomy, Eastern Michigan University, USNorbert Vance;
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/3/2/1

This is quite a difficult question. It should be said outright that the
responsibilities of a physicist is primerally to society as a whole.
This contrasts sharply with that of a physician or lawyer where the
responsibilities is to his/her client. The relationship the client has
with the professional is the subject of the ethical code.

The responsibiliies on the ethics of debate and publication of course
affects all scientists in one form or another.

If we accept that the prime responsibility (apart from issues relating
to publication) is to society, an immediate question arises. Should
physicists be deciding the defense policy of the US and or other
countries, bacuase this is what it ultimately boils down to. Ultimately
society has to agree on the formulation of policy, physicists can
advise, but their advice cannot and should not be the decisive factor.

The military issue came up after the development of nuclear weapons,
and this was the conclusion arrived at. On environmental issues the
main issue, to me at any rate is that physicists are failing to
anticipate the way that future technology is going to go. I have
already blasted Stern for his lack of imagination on developments by
the year 2050. Should physicists be attempting to get politicians (and
economists) to think with a little more imagination. Now there's a
thought!

All scientists I think have a duty to speak their minds and to present
issues in as fair and unbiased way as they can. To some extent it stops
there.

There is also the question of enforcement. In the medical and legal
professions which deal directly with the public there is are
professional bodies which control ethics and regulate membership. You
do not have to register as a physicist - there is no register. Should
there be? No for 2 main reasons.

1) As stated previously physicists do not deal directly with the
public.
2) A regulatory body would I think be a force for conservatism.
Physicists should be unconventional - should I say "dynamic" in their
outlook. An example of this is the following. In the 19th century the
august medical bodies talked about masturbation being harmful. Now they
talk about sex and all things sexual being "good for you". To me an
ethical point arises here. They have de facto admitted they were
talking crap in the past. The medical profession would not put it that
way - they would um and ah.

The last question to be considered is what should a physicist do if
their organisation (not necessarily the Pentagon) is behaving in an
unetical way. If it is "illegal" as opposed to simply unethical, they
should go to the Police and give them a tip off. In effect they are in
the same position as anyone else.

If I were a student I would not wish for an ethics course for all the
above reasons. Masturbation is to me quite persuasive in convincing me
of the evils of having Physics, or anything else controlled by an
"establishment" professional body.

- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
Immortalist wrote:
Most physicists never receive any formal education in ethics, even
though they face ethical questions throughout their working lives.
Marshall Thomsen believes that it is vital for ethics to be part of the
undergraduate curriculum.

Ethics at work?

To what extent should a formal education in ethics be part of the
university physics curriculum? When this question is raised in the
physics community, the response is often that there is no significant
problem with fraud in physics, and hence that including ethics in the
curriculum is unnecessary. Even raising the question is viewed by some
as a waste of time at best and insulting at worst. I would argue,
however, that such a response takes an overly narrow view of the role
of ethics in physics.

"Ethics" refers to the standards of conduct associated with our actions
as professional physicists. Our professional activities extend beyond
traditional research to include a wide range of other activities that
we do in support of research, teaching and our interaction with the
rest of society. That we consider ethics to apply to the full range of
these activities is important to the health of the physics community.

The "cold fusion" affair provides an interesting example. When Stanley
Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced ten years ago this month that
they had achieved fusion at room temperature in a table-top experiment,
their declaration was, by all accounts, premature. Although a full
examination of all the intricacies of the story would require a book
(see, for example, Frank Close's Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold
Fusion), several simple observations can be made.

The fact that many others tried - and failed - to replicate the
experiments of Pons and Fleischmann can be viewed as evidence that the
scientific community can effectively weed out erroneous results, and
hence that "the system" works. However, an enormous price was paid (in
both time and money) to investigate these results. Had Pons and
Fleischmann delayed in going public, these resources could have been
used in a more productive manner. At the same time, it is important to
recognize that they did not have the luxury of making their decisions
in a vacuum. They had potentially made a discovery that could have been
incredibly rich in patent rights, and their university was anxious to
share the wealth.

There are many lessons that can be drawn from the cold-fusion affair.
One is that real-world decisions are made in a complex environment that
makes ethical decisions more challenging to implement. Another is that
society can pay a steep price for ethical lapses of this sort.

Ethics for physicists

Ethics does not just apply to high-profile cases such as cold fusion.
Many of us, in much less dramatic settings, have had to face the fact
that some research results we have disseminated are in some way
inaccurate. A calculation may have been performed incorrectly, an
instrument may have been wrongly calibrated, an important factor may
not have been accounted for, or a simple typographical error may have
crept into a paper.

In many cases, these errors could reasonably be classified as
acceptable (and, to some extent, expected) mistakes that are made in
the course of scientific exploration. However, it is important for us
to always question whether we have rushed our results into print
prematurely. I expect all of us have read a paper where this seems to
have been the case.

But there are many other situations in physics where we confront
decisions that have an ethical component. For example, can we be sure
that our data have been analysed and reported fairly? Does a particular
individual deserve co-authorship on a paper? Are the projections we
made in our grant proposal realistic? When we are asked by someone
outside the scientific community for our expert opinion on a particular
topic, do we have enough expertise to provide it? Are we taking our
share of the responsibility for ensuring that society is getting
adequate technical advice from the physics community? Are we providing
guidance and training to our students that is appropriate for the
current job market?

Teaching students ethics

One way of helping physicists to appreciate the role that ethics plays
in their lives is to include it in the undergraduate curriculum. At
Eastern Michigan University in the US, we offer a seminar course in
ethics for our physics majors, who meet for one hour each week to
discuss readings from a wide range of resources. We begin by discussing
the five basic principles of ethics that were described in 1993 by the
philosopher and ethicist David Resnik. According to him, one should

not harm others needlessly
(the non-malificence principle);

promote the welfare of others
(the beneficence principle);

allow rational people the right
to self-determination
(the principle of autonomy);

treat equals as equal
(the formal principle of justice);

distribute goods on the basis
of need or merit (the material
principle of justice).

These principles can be viewed as the foundation of scientific ethics.
For instance, the principles of non-malificence and beneficence
presumably help guide our choice of research topics....

Marshall Thomsen, professor of physics in the Department of Physics and
Astronomy, Eastern Michigan University, USNorbert Vance;
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/3/2/1

This is quite a difficult question. It should be said outright that the
responsibilities of a physicist is primerally to society as a whole.
This contrasts sharply with that of a physician or lawyer where the
responsibilities is to his/her client. The relationship the client has
with the professional is the subject of the ethical code.


So then the more closely physics research consequences hone in on
"social interaction dynamics and influences" the more ethical it
becomes and visa versa? Or where is the cut-off point where influences
of basic physics research change social outcomes?

The responsibiliies on the ethics of debate and publication of course
affects all scientists in one form or another.


Let us look at arithmetic as taught in the public schools. What could
be more educational? By that I mean, what could be more pure,
objective, factual, and untainted by doctrine? Watch out. Do you
remember the examples used in your elementary-school arithmetic text?
Most of the examples dealt with buying, selling, renting, working for
wages, and computing interest. As Zimbardo, Ebbesen, and Maslach point
out, these examples do more than simply reflect the capitalistic system
in which the education is occurring: They systematically endorse the
system, legitimize it, and, by implication, suggest it is the natural
and normal way. As a way of illustrating multiplication and
percentages, the textbook might have Mr. Jones borrowing $15,000 at 12
percent interest from a bank in order to purchase a new car. Would this
example be used in a society that felt it was sinful to charge
interest, as early Christian societies believed? Would this example be
used in a society that believed people shouldn't seek possessions they
can't afford? I am not suggesting it is wrong or evil to use these
kinds of illustrations in arithmetic books; I am merely pointing out
that they are a form of propaganda and that it might be useful to
recognize them as such.

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/

If we accept that the prime responsibility (apart from issues relating
to publication) is to society, an immediate question arises. Should
physicists be deciding the defense policy of the US and or other
countries, bacuase this is what it ultimately boils down to. Ultimately
society has to agree on the formulation of policy, physicists can
advise, but their advice cannot and should not be the decisive factor.


Good point, what if the scientist is asked questions about various
outcomes and policy makers take what he says and use him as an
authority. One way or the other we may need a balancing social agent
that can amplify or diminish the influence of scientific determinism?

The military issue came up after the development of nuclear weapons,
and this was the conclusion arrived at. On environmental issues the
main issue, to me at any rate is that physicists are failing to
anticipate the way that future technology is going to go. I have
already blasted Stern for his lack of imagination on developments by
the year 2050. Should physicists be attempting to get politicians (and
economists) to think with a little more imagination. Now there's a
thought!


And a zillion hollywood movies about scientists getting 'taken' and the
governmental powers using the research to their national or territorial
advantage.

All scientists I think have a duty to speak their minds and to present
issues in as fair and unbiased way as they can. To some extent it stops
there.


After the research data is used shouldn't the scientist point out
newely discovered side effects and help people become aware of this new
ongoing issue?

There is also the question of enforcement. In the medical and legal
professions which deal directly with the public there is are
professional bodies which control ethics and regulate membership. You
do not have to register as a physicist - there is no register. Should
there be? No for 2 main reasons.


This is a good criterion/standard but you seem to be permenantly making
them seperate. I would prefer a stard that claims that as long as
science ans social science are like physics and medical science we need
no professional bodies but when physics opens up many social influences
by its discoveries they should be ready to also incorperate
professional bodies?

1) As stated previously physicists do not deal directly with the
public.
2) A regulatory body would I think be a force for conservatism.
Physicists should be unconventional - should I say "dynamic" in their
outlook. An example of this is the following. In the 19th century the
august medical bodies talked about masturbation being harmful. Now they
talk about sex and all things sexual being "good for you". To me an
ethical point arises here. They have de facto admitted they were
talking crap in the past. The medical profession would not put it that
way - they would um and ah.

The last question to be considered is what should a physicist do if
their organisation (not necessarily the Pentagon) is behaving in an
unetical way. If it is "illegal" as opposed to simply unethical, they
should go to the Police and give them a tip off. In effect they are in
the same position as anyone else.


Diatribe on Civil Disobediance;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...a23760369867bc

If I were a student I would not wish for an ethics course for all the
above reasons. Masturbation is to me quite persuasive in convincing me
of the evils of having Physics, or anything else controlled by an
"establishment" professional body.

- Ian Parker

Perhaps ethics lessons should be a requirement before being permitted to use
the internet- for example, the unethical behavior involved in multiple
cross-posting.

ROFL Scott, excellent point.

I suppose that here my opinion of Ethics in Physics is divergent from
most opinions. I'm the odd man, although I am a retired physicist.

The word "ethics" encompasses a wide variety of moral behavior
patterns, most to me are not relevent to physics. From my vantage
points, the physicists that I have known are the most egotistical folks
that I have ever met -- a den of sneaky, pretentious, and jealous
people for whom professional achievement is everything, with one
exception. These are certainly not, in the general sense, very ethical
people, but realize that the advancement of science (man's knowledge of
the universe) would seriously suffer if this were not the case.

The one exception that I refer to above is, for want of a better term,
research integrity -- which deals mostly with the TRUTH and ACCURACY of
a publication or experimental result. History alone reveals who has or
lacks this integrity. Sure, I'll shout it: INTEGRITY!

Pons and Fleishman lacked it, although at one time they were the heros
of millions.

Newton had it although he was personally hated by many.

And, if you are familiar with the written history of the man, Tyco
Brahe, whose experiental observations heavily influenced Kepler's
discoveries, was among the most unethical and hated people that ever
lived. He was a monster, yet he had scientific integrity that remains
unquestioned.

Going to more recent times, it is well documented that that small
family of scientist that introduced man into the nuclear age were
highly unethical, yet the science that they produced propelled manking
into a different era, because while many of their ethics were
questionable, their integrity was never an issue.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this entire issue of Ethics in
Physics being raised by a group of liberal arts folks who are merely
attempting to save themselves from year-by-year sinking into the
quicksand of arcane insignificance? You know the guys, they hang out
is a old building filled with still even older books slapping each
other on the back for the profound accomplishments, while having
contributed not on microgram to the advancement of mankind or its
knoledge since the days of Galileo, and even then only to retard
mankind.

That's about all that I have to say on this subject.

Harry C.






Scott Hedrick wrote:
Perhaps ethics lessons should be a requirement before being permitted to use
the internet- for example, the unethical behavior involved in multiple
cross-posting.

wrote in message
oups.com...
ROFL Scott, excellent point.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
Perhaps ethics lessons should be a requirement before being permitted to
use
the internet- for example, the unethical behavior involved in multiple
cross-posting.

A point you clearly missed.

plonk

wrote:
ROFL Scott, excellent point.

I suppose that here my opinion of Ethics in Physics is divergent from
most opinions. I'm the odd man, although I am a retired physicist.

The word "ethics" encompasses a wide variety of moral behavior
patterns, most to me are not relevent to physics. From my vantage
points, the physicists that I have known are the most egotistical folks
that I have ever met -- a den of sneaky, pretentious, and jealous
people for whom professional achievement is everything, with one
exception. These are certainly not, in the general sense, very ethical
people, but realize that the advancement of science (man's knowledge of
the universe) would seriously suffer if this were not the case.

The one exception that I refer to above is, for want of a better term,
research integrity -- which deals mostly with the TRUTH and ACCURACY of
a publication or experimental result. History alone reveals who has or
lacks this integrity. Sure, I'll shout it: INTEGRITY!

Pons and Fleishman lacked it, although at one time they were the heros
of millions.

Newton had it although he was personally hated by many.

And, if you are familiar with the written history of the man, Tyco
Brahe, whose experiental observations heavily influenced Kepler's
discoveries, was among the most unethical and hated people that ever
lived. He was a monster, yet he had scientific integrity that remains
unquestioned.

Going to more recent times, it is well documented that that small
family of scientist that introduced man into the nuclear age were
highly unethical, yet the science that they produced propelled manking
into a different era, because while many of their ethics were
questionable, their integrity was never an issue.


One physicist to another, please tell me how Feynman was unethical?


Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this entire issue of Ethics in
Physics being raised by a group of liberal arts folks who are merely
attempting to save themselves from year-by-year sinking into the
quicksand of arcane insignificance? You know the guys, they hang out
is a old building filled with still even older books slapping each
other on the back for the profound accomplishments, while having
contributed not on microgram to the advancement of mankind or its
knoledge since the days of Galileo, and even then only to retard
mankind.

That's about all that I have to say on this subject.

Harry C.

Immortalist wrote:
Let us look at arithmetic as taught in the public schools. What could
be more educational? By that I mean, what could be more pure,
objective, factual, and untainted by doctrine? Watch out. Do you
remember the examples used in your elementary-school arithmetic text?
Most of the examples dealt with buying, selling, renting, working for
wages, and computing interest. As Zimbardo, Ebbesen, and Maslach point
out, these examples do more than simply reflect the capitalistic system
in which the education is occurring: They systematically endorse the
system, legitimize it, and, by implication, suggest it is the natural
and normal way. As a way of illustrating multiplication and
percentages, the textbook might have Mr. Jones borrowing $15,000 at 12
percent interest from a bank in order to purchase a new car. Would this
example be used in a society that felt it was sinful to charge
interest, as early Christian societies believed? Would this example be
used in a society that believed people shouldn't seek possessions they
can't afford? I am not suggesting it is wrong or evil to use these
kinds of illustrations in arithmetic books; I am merely pointing out
that they are a form of propaganda and that it might be useful to
recognize them as such.

The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/


Isn't capitalism the natural order? I believe that the market should
decide the way we live not liberal ethicists. Let us take the
development of the automobile which has had great social consequences.
It is up to business and society to structure itself for cars - and if
this means out of town shopping as opposed to city center - so be it.
There is nothing sacrosanct about city center shopping.

In fact social effects and "we must take social effects into account"
might be translated as "we must think short term" my point is the more
august and "right thinking" a body is - the more short term its
thiking.

All scientists I think have a duty to speak their minds and to present
issues in as fair and unbiased way as they can. To some extent it stops
there.


After the research data is used shouldn't the scientist point out
newely discovered side effects and help people become aware of this new
ongoing issue?

There is also the question of enforcement. In the medical and legal
professions which deal directly with the public there is are
professional bodies which control ethics and regulate membership. You
do not have to register as a physicist - there is no register. Should
there be? No for 2 main reasons.


This is a good criterion/standard but you seem to be permenantly making
them seperate. I would prefer a stard that claims that as long as
science ans social science are like physics and medical science we need
no professional bodies but when physics opens up many social influences
by its discoveries they should be ready to also incorperate
professional bodies?

Professional bodies are forces for conservatism. The West has suffered
through an excess of caution not because science became rampant.

In the Middle East the failure of Western countries to develop nuclear
power, and the consequent rise of oil producers like Saudi Arabia is a
major political factor.

Can we build a Von Neumann machine? My estimate is 20 years max. if we
do not have ethics committees! If we do NOT go ahead the consequences
for us could be serious. To be mirrors are the only long term answer to
global warming. VN technology is the best way, lightweight 55kg/km^2
mirrors may be a partial solution.

Here's something for the 19th century august bodies -
http://gaytlv.blogspot.com/2006/11/a...ial-lover.html

I found this article from my Artificial Intelligence alert on Google.
Again I don't know why it is regarded as a gay issue. After all gynoids
are just as easy to construct as androids. With a Web AI - obviously
Without a Web a gynoid would be the most logical route into human
society. After all we will be building one ourselves in the next 10
years.

Should we go for it? Well if prostitutes were gynoid it would certainly
cut down on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. One thing I
don't want a lot of right thinking worthies dictating. I want the
market place to decide.

1) As stated previously physicists do not deal directly with the
public.
2) A regulatory body would I think be a force for conservatism.
Physicists should be unconventional - should I say "dynamic" in their
outlook. An example of this is the following. In the 19th century the
august medical bodies talked about masturbation being harmful. Now they
talk about sex and all things sexual being "good for you". To me an
ethical point arises here. They have de facto admitted they were
talking crap in the past. The medical profession would not put it that
way - they would um and ah.

The last question to be considered is what should a physicist do if
their organisation (not necessarily the Pentagon) is behaving in an
unetical way. If it is "illegal" as opposed to simply unethical, they
should go to the Police and give them a tip off. In effect they are in
the same position as anyone else.


Diatribe on Civil Disobediance;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...a23760369867bc

I think it would be irresponsible for any academic or institution to
advocate civil disobedience.

If I were a student I would not wish for an ethics course for all the
above reasons. Masturbation is to me quite persuasive in convincing me
of the evils of having Physics, or anything else controlled by an
"establishment" professional body.

From my point of view, ethics specific to physicists is obligation to
truth.

At least when doing actual science, the goal is to learn about the
basic structure of our world and about it's laws.


A question that is raised again and again is the one of the effects of
a discovery.

Actually one can't tell ahead what way this will change reality. Otto
Hahn didn't know about the possible effects of fission.

And what if Fineman hadn't been part of Manhattan project?

Well, maybe nothing, since others would have done that work, but what
if the whole project wouldn't have taken place?

How many world wars would have taken place in the meantime? How many
people would have died?

Could anybody here actually tell whether nuclear weapons are a curse or
a blessing?

How much less is it possible to tell ahead what way a scientific
discovery will effect our world?

Physicists shouldn't interfere with politics, except they chose to
become politicians.

What they are obliged to is scientific truth, nothing else.


The other question is when and how to publish one's discoveries.
First of all one has to take care published results are valid - there
are strict guidlines for good scientific practice.

Since science is about lots of money there is the problem of possible
fraud.

Independent of actual fraud one should not rush to conclusions (there
is quite some pressure to publish, so too many publications are
premature), not publish incomplete information (e.g. observer bias),
but as well not to hesitate (even if the results don't match one's
ideas or expectations).

Immortalist wrote:
...

[I've re-ordered these questions to group them by subject]

Does a particular individual deserve co-authorship on a paper?

The question of theft of ideas, discoveries. One should consider this
as serious as the theft of material goods, since the impact might be
similar.


For example, can we be sure that our data have been analysed and
reported fairly? Are the projections we made in our grant proposal
realistic?

Good scientific practice.


When we are asked by someone outside the scientific community for our
expert opinion on a particular topic, do we have enough expertise to
provide it?

In case we don't we should make clear where our limits are - or where
the limits of current science is.


Are we taking our share of the responsibility for ensuring that
society is getting adequate technical advice from the physics
community?

Different problems: How much should the physics community interfere,
above all if not actively asked for advice - should the community
interfere in politics?

When asked, one has to have the courage to tell truth, even if this is
not what people want to hear.


Are we providing guidance and training to our students that is
appropriate for the current job market?

Is it the job market we want to prepare them for, or do we want to make
them good scientists?

This might actually be a question that can't be answered easily.


Teaching students ethics

One way of helping physicists to appreciate the role that ethics plays
in their lives is to include it in the undergraduate curriculum. At
Eastern Michigan University in the US, we offer a seminar course in
ethics for our physics majors, who meet for one hour each week to
discuss readings from a wide range of resources. We begin by
discussing the five basic principles of ethics that were described in
1993 by the philosopher and ethicist David Resnik. According to him,
one should

not harm others needlessly
(the non-malificence principle);

promote the welfare of others
(the beneficence principle);

allow rational people the right
to self-determination
(the principle of autonomy);

treat equals as equal
(the formal principle of justice);

distribute goods on the basis
of need or merit (the material
principle of justice).

These principles can be viewed as the foundation of scientific ethics.

Sorry, but from my point of view this is not specifically scientific
ethics.

It's surely a good idea to tell studenty to be nice people, but this is
ethics that could/should be taught at school independent of one's
profession. The questions you've raised above are more relavant to
scientists.


For instance, the principles of non-malificence and beneficence
presumably help guide our choice of research topics....

Should this actually guide us? Are we able to estimate the effects of
our possible discoveries good enough?

As far as benefice is concerned: Doesn't this mean completely to switch
to applied science, since this is more likely quickly to cause benefit,
than basic research?

Or do you decide to minimize expected malificence and, assuming a
special area in basic research (e.g. astrophysics) wouldn't have an
effect in the foreseeable future anyway, you would swith to basic
research?

Anyway I don't like this argumentation.

Better seek what you consider benefit to our understanding of the world.


Marshall Thomsen, professor of physics in the Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Eastern Michigan University, USNorbert Vance;
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/12/3/2/1



--