CSEP News & Events

NSF Refuses to Give Congressman Access to Review Comments

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:57:00 +0000

As we have mentioned in earlier posts, CSEP is the U.S. partner on a EU project looking at how governments encourage, fund, and assess research and innovation that drives towards the common good (i.e.social desirability). As part of our research, we have been closely studying the proposal review system of the National Science Foundation. NSF users two merit review criteria to review proposals, intellectual merit and broader impacts. This last, which looks at the potential impact the proposed project may "benefit society or advance socially desirable outcomes" has also been used as a way to justify why taxpayer money should be used to support basic research.

The types of projects that NSF has come under fire in the past few years. For example, in March of this year, the Senate added an amendment to a finance bill that severely limits the ability of the NSF t oapprove any grants involving political science unless the agency can certify them as "promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States." This amendment was proposed by Senator Tom Coburn, who has been a sharp critic of the agency.

This Wednesday, Science Magazine published an article on the news section of its site discussion how NSF has recently refused a request from the chairman of the House of Representatives science committee to obtain review comments on five social science outreach projects it is funding. In a letter to Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) the agency defended its need to preserve the confidentiality of the peer-review process. Representative Smith has also drafted a bill called the "High Quality Research Act" which would add a layer of oversight to the peer review process and potentially politicizes decisions about what grants receive NSF funding.

Specifically the bill (as it currently reads) would require the NSF director to post on NSF's web site, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is:

1) "… in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;

2) "… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and

3) "… not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

NSF's current guidelines ask reviewers to consider the "intellectual merit" of a proposed research project as well as its "broader impacts" on the scientific community and society. (original article)

The bill is being justified as a way to make NSF more accountable for how it spends taxpayer money and to stop funding for questionable research. Critics of the bill say that it ignores the importance of duplicate research in science as a way to verify results, and that it would wrongly involve lawmakers in a peer review system that is the "gold standard" for the science community.

So what do you think? Should there be more governmental oversight on the projects funded by agencies like the NSF?

A Governments Moral Obligation to Fund Science....

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:02:00 +0000

The Washington Post today has a really great article discussing how research Patricia Brennan, who has recently been in the spotlight about her federally funded project studying duck genitalia, is defending her work against conservative critics who argue that the U.S. should not be funding such "oddball research."

She argues that if the government wants to support science, it must support all kinds of science, even science that does not, at first glance, seem as if it will make a major difference in taxpayer's lives."Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem," she argues in a Slate article, "Basic science is an integral part of scientific process, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context. Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is not designed for this purpose.....As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy."

What kind of research should taxpayers fund? Should governments step in to make sure research and innovation receiving public funds is socially desirable? What constitutes social desirability in research- is knowledge about the world we live in socially desirable in itself? If we agree that governments have a duty to support responsible research and innovation, what are the best ways of achieving this goal?

These are some of the questions that the Center is trying to answer in our latest project. Working with collaborators from six different continents, this project funded by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme seeks to achieve for major objectives:

1. Link existing international networks of responsible research and innovation with relevant social actors on a global scale to focus innovation on social desireability.
2. Complete a major fact-finding missing comparing science funding strategies and innovation policies in Europe, the U.S., China, Japan, India, Australia, and South Africa.
3. Advocate for a a European normative model for RRI globally, using constitutional values as a driver to inform to inform societal desirability.
4. Develop a strategy for fostering the convergence of regional innovation systems at the global level.

We will keep you updated on our progress as the project moves forward.

Privacy issues in your back seat

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:08:00 +0000

After an interesting IPRO discussion on information ethics this afternoon, I was pleased to stumble on this article from the Washington Post about web-connected cars and some of the privacy issues this raises. Just like smartphones, new, internet-capable vehicles raise all sorts of interesting questions, like what kinds of information should manufacturers, car repair shops, fast food restaurants, and other business have access to? You can see where personalized advertising could go, as local gas stations who know you are running low offer you coupons for car washes and road snacks.

And what kinds of information should insurance companies, and the police have access to? Should insurance companies be able to monitor if you are wearing a seat belt?

Anyway, check the article out and let us know what you think?

ProGRess

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:35:00 +0000

The Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions has just received an award of $108,669 to be the the participant for the United States in a project funded by the European Commission called “Promoting Global Responsible Research and Social and Scientific Innovation” or ProGReSS. The project, which also includes universities and ethics center from Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, and South Africa seeks to explore what is meant when we talk about Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) that is, research and innovation which is: a)ethically acceptable, b) is sustainable by avoiding significant adverse effects and b) drives towards the common good, i.e. societal desirability. Dr. Michael Davis and Kelly Laas of the Center will be the primary investigators on this project.

The project will link existing international networks of RRI from all continents with European partners and seek to achieve the following:
1. Link existing international networks of RRI with relevant societal actors on a global scale to focus innovation on societal desirability.
2. Complete a major fact-finding mission comparing science funding strategies and innovation policies in Europe, the US, China, Japan, India, Australia, and South Africa.
3. Advocate a European normative model for RRI globally, using constitutional values as a driver to inform societal desirability.
4. Develop a strategy for fostering the convergence of regional innovation systems at the global level.

You can read more about the project on the European Commission’s CORDIS website.

3-D Printers and Intellectual Property

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:58:00 +0000

Intellectual property is a subject that comes up quite a bit when we are talking with students here at IIT, especially in IPRO classes where the students are working with corporate sponsors or are creating or refining a marketable product. In these classes, students often ask questions about how intellectual property law not only fosters but in some cases can hinder creativity and the spread of new innovations.

This morning NPR had an interesting piece on the radio about copyright and and 3-D printers. 3-D printers have the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, allowing us to easily create everything from toy figurines to guns without ever having to go to a store or order something of the web. Website such as Thingiverse allow people to share their digital designs for 3-D printing with the public. The site currently has designs ranging from pocket fishing poles to jewelry, as well as a number of items that are currently under copyright, such as a bust of Yoda. Recently Moulinart, the company who owns the rights to the cartoon Tintin, served Thingverse with a Millennium Digital Copyright Act takedown notice, requiring the site to remove printing designs of Tintin's cartoon moon rocket.

Supposing 3-D printing continues on its current course, what kinds of impact might it have on engineering patents, where a customer, rather than having to go to a company to buy certain car parts, for instance, might be able to go to a local shop and print out the part for a fraction of the price? Or, will patents change so that the designs of a certain part will be strictly controlled? Technologies of this kind are likely to have a revolutionary impact on the manufacturing world in the next few decades, posing new challenges to he flow of designs and ideas, and how innovators and companies are compensated for their work.

A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:48:00 +0000

A group of educators brought together by Sebastian Thrun, founder of UdaCity, a site that seeks to connect students with hundreds of free, online university courses, has recently published a bill of rights for Learning in the Digital Age. The document seeks to outline a set of "inalienable rights" that the authors say students and their advocates should demand from institutions and companies that offer online courses and technology tools.

Some of these rights include:

The right to access these courses, regardless of race, economic status, physical disabilities, etc.
The right to privacy, including being informed about how personal data might be used by the online course provider.
The right to create public knowledge.
The right to one's own intellectual property.
The right to financial transparency, including, knowing how their participation supports the financial health of the online system in which they are participating.
The right to quality and care.
The right to pedagogical transparecy
The right to have great teachers.

One of the most interesting parts of the document is its origin. Along with connecting students with free online courses, Udacity makes it money by helping companies recruit students who have opted into Udacity's job placement program. When asked about why he helped develop and sign this bill of rights, Mr. Thun said he hoped it would put pressure on the education services industry and traditional colleges and university to focus on the pedagogical objectives of these courses, rather than seeing them as merely a money-making venture.

CSEP Winter Break Schedule

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:25:00 +0000

The Center for the Study in the Professions will be closed December 24-January 1st during IIT's winter break. We will resume normal hours (9-5, Mon-Fri) on January 2nd.

Journalism Ethics: New York Post Photographer Takes Picture of Man on Subway Tracks

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:54:00 +0000

Yesterday, December 4th, a New York Post freelance reporter, R. Umar Abbasi shot an incredible photograph of Ki-Suck Han, a man who had just been pushed onto the subway tracks at New York's Times Square Station. The photograph shows Han facing the oncoming train, reaching up to the platform but unable to get off the tracks. The New York Post published the photograph on its front page, accompanied by the headline, "Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die."

Now, the incident has sparked a national debate, not only about why no one standing near Mr. Han tried to help him, but also about the ethics of taking and publishing this kind of photo.

Mr. Abbasi has defended his actions saying that he kept taking flash pictures in an effort to warn the train driver to stop in time. "It all went so quickly; from the time I heard the shouting until the time the train hit the main was about 22 seconds."

What do you think? Regardless of the actions of the photographer, do you think the New York Post should have published this photograph on its front page? Did the publication of this photo somehow convey a message, or was it just published for its shock value to sell newspapers?

For more news and different viewpoints on this case, check out the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Post and the New York Times,

You may also want to look at media codes of ethics or take a look at a post from the Poynter Institute on the ethics of this case.,

Congratuations to IIT's Ethics Bowl Team!

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:47:00 +0000

On December 1^st, IIT’s Ethics Bowl Team participated in the Upper Midwest’s Regional Ethics Bowl at Loyola’s Watertower Campus in Chicago. The team competed against 17 teams from 14 schools around the Midwest, answering questions from a panel of judges about a collection of cases the students have been discussing since the beginning of the semester. The team won two of the four matches they participated in, and of the two teams who scored higher than IIT, both are part of the only four teams who were able to go on to the National Competition The IIT team members are: Ed Feibel (senior, architecture), Kari Finseth (senior, architecture), Alexis Renk (sophomore, biomedical engineering), and Tom Waller (junior, biomedical engineering). The coach is Stephen Harris, Sawyier Predoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, and assistant coaches Kelly Laas, Librarian of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, and Rui Chen a first year graduate student in information technology and management.

The Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl is an academic competition with rules and procedures designed to model the best approaches to reasoning about practical and professional ethics. Created and developed by IIT Philosophy Professor Robert Ladenson, the IEB has spread to include well over 120 teams from all over the Unites States and Canada.

Congratulations to IIT’s Ethics Bowl Team for all of their dedication and teamwork this semester, and an incredible performance on Saturday! The team will have its first meeting next semester on January 14^th during lunch in Siegel Hall Room 218 to informally discuss the cases from the National Ethics Bowl, and begin planning for next year’s competition. If you are interested in being a part of Ethics Bowl, please send an email to iitethicsbowl@gmail.com.

IIT Ethics Bowl competing in Upper Midwest Ethics Bowl, December 1st.

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:32:00 +0000

Come support the IIT Ethics Bowl team as they compete in the Upper Midwest Regional Ethics Bowl Competition on December 1st at Loyola's Watertower campus from 9:30 to 5. The team, who has been debating a series of ethics case studies since the beginning of the semester will be competing against 18 other teams from the Midwest.

Check out CSEP's Ethics Bowl website for more information.

CSEP Senior Fellow Michael Davis quoted in Forbes

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:25:00 +0000

CSEP Senior Fellow Dr. Michael Davis was mentioned in a recent article in Forbes Magazine called, "Memo to New SEC Chief: Ask the FAA How to Stop the Next Flash Crash." The article cites Davis's recent article in Science and Engineering Ethics discussing ethics and high frequency trading.

Privacy and the Professional Librarian in an Age of Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:37:00 +0000

One of my colleagues at Galvin just sent a me really interesting article from the Chronicle of Higher Education, "As Libraries Go Digital, Sharing of Data Is at Odds With Tradition of Privacy." The article discusses the the growth of social media use in libraries and how this culture of sharing personal information comes into conflict with librarians' tradition of protecting patrons' privacy.

This tradition, which grew out of incidents in the 70's and 80's where the FBI tried to figure out what scholars were studying by getting library clerks to reveal the reading habits of their patron, led to the passage of laws in may states to protect this data. Librarians' commitment to protect the confidentiality of patron information has been in the American Library Association's Code of Ethics since 1939, and this commitment has only become more strongly voiced over time, with the 2008 code stating, " We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or recevied and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted," in article 3 of the code.

However, as anyone who has walked in to Galvin or another library knows, the use of social media is spreading, from the use of Twitter to connect with students and to share new book purchases, to allowing users to add their own tags to materials in the online catalog. If librarians did end up using patron information in the same way that Amazon or Google did, librarians could develop exciting new search features that go far beyond showing what books and articles other scholars researching your topic have consulted, and who knows what else.

Many libraries, as the article points out, have contractual agreements with Amazon that allow library users with a Kindle to check out books for free, and Amazon keeps track of what these patrons check out. So how far can we go in sharing user information when we have the aim of improving the library user experience? Is librarians' dedication to article 3 of ALA's Code of Ethics outdated, or is this a standard we should continue to uphold?

The Presidential Campaign and Online Information about You

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:54:00 +0000

Companies use your online searching history to personalize the adds that show up in Google and the New York Times, and now, the Romney and Obama campaigns are doing the same, reports Charles Duhigg of the New York Times on October 13th. According to the article, the campaigns are mining data on individuals, and then are using this data to try and get voters to the polls. In the weeks before the election, millions of voters will get calls from volunteers who will be guided by scripts with detailed information about your life. They will ask questions about how you are planning on spending election day, how you plan on getting to the nearest polling station near you, etc. Later that week, you might find that someone has divulged information about how frequently you or your neighbors have voted in the past. The thought is (and research backs this up), if you are asked questions about voting, or know that your neighbor or friend is going to go and vote, you might be motivated to also get to the polls on election day.

In the article, both campaigns emphasized their dedication to voter's privacy, but consultants to both campaigns said they had bought demographic data from companies that study details like voter's shopping histories, dating preferences ,and financial problems, put cookies on voters' computers to see what kind of websites they visit, and examine exchanges on social networks to see what issues they care about.

This kind of data mining is not new, just new to presidential campaigns. But it does raise some more interesting ethical questions about if this kind of data should be harvested and used for these kinds of purposes. Is this use better that using it for marketing purposes? Worse? The same? Let us know what you think.

An Ethics Case for Sports Professionals...

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 18:55:00 +0000

We have been following the story for a few days now and thought it might be an interesting case for the blog.

According to a story on NPR on October 5, American speedskater Simon Cho has admitted to yielding to pressure from his coach, Jae Shu Chun, and tampering with another skater's blades at the World Short Track Team Championships in Poland earlier this year. Cho won a bronze medal in the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and is now the world champion in the 500 meter short track event.

Cho claims that Jae Su Chun, the head coach of the U.S. Speedskating short track team, approached him at the March 2011 championship event in Poland and asked him to tamper with a Canadian rival's skates. Cho alleges that he refused to a number of times before he finally relented.

The article goes on to describe charges of physical, psychological, and verbal abuse that have been lodged against Coach Chun by current and former speedskaters from the U.S. team, and the power that a coach has over their athletes.

If these allegations are proven to be correct, what kind of punishment do you think would be fair for Coach Jae Shu Chun? And perhaps more interesting, what, if any kind of punishment should Simon Cho face, remembering that he came forward on his own and admitted his wrongdoing, and taking into account the pressure he faced from his coach?

New Study Shows that Many Science Faculty Have Subtle Gender Biases and Favor Male Students

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:54:00 +0000

The New York Times on Monday reported on a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in this field. The researchers interviewed 127 science faculty and asked them to rate a student with either a male or female name for a laboratory management position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more qualified for the position then the identical female applicant, and selected a higher starting salary, $26,508 for the female student, and $30,328 for the male student.. Both female and male faculty were found to exhibit bias against the female students, and the bias had no relation to the faculty's age, sex, teaching field or tenure status.

IIT Ethics Bowl Team

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:18:00 +0000

IIT's Ethics Bowl team is meeting Mondays and Wednesdays from 12:50-1:40 in Siegal Hall to discuss the cases for the APPE Regional Ethics Bowl on December 2, 2012 at Loyola University. If you are interested in joining our discussions, feel free to stop by!

What impact should biological tests have on the sentencing of criminals?

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:47:00 +0000

In the August 17th edition of Science Magazine an article reports on an interesting study done by the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. In the study, 181 state trial judges were asked to review the details of mock case and were asked to imagine how they would rule in a sentencing hearing. In the case, the imaginary Jonathan Donahue is convicted of beating the manager of a fast food restaurant so badly that he is left brain damages. The details of the case make it clear that Mr. Donahue is a textbook psychopath. All of the judges who participated in the study read testimony from a psychiatrist who testified that Donahue had been diagnosed as a psychopath. However, some of these judges also read testimony from a neurobiologist who presents results of a genetic test that Donahue possessed a specific genetic variant linked to violent behavior.

The judges who read this biological explanation of why Donahue may have behaved in this way handed out moderately smaller sentences, 13 years, as compared with judges who only saw the testimony from the psycholgist, who game Donahue 14 years. The authors of this study concluded that the introduction of expert testimony giving a biological explanation for behaviors can be a "double-edged sword in the courtroom." They could either be seen as evidence that a defendant is hard-wired for bad behavior and destined to re-offend, or it could be seen as evidence that the defendant's behavior was out of his control.

Should genetic tests and brain scans that show biological factors for individuals' behavior be allowed as evidence in sentencing hearings of this kind?

In Mock Case, Biological Evidence Reduces Sentences by Greg Miller. Science Magazine. Vol. 377, no. 6096. p. 788.

Discover IIT Days

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:17:00 +0000

Know a high school student who might be interested in attending the Illinois Institute of Technology? Urge them and their parents to attend Discover IIT Days on August 4, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 3 pm. Students will get a tour of the campus, information on academic programs and campus life, as well as information about the admission and financial air process.

You can find out more information and register Discover IIT here.

What Limits Are Needed for Research Involving Highly Infectious Viruses?

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:50:00 +0000

Back in January of 2012, a number of top influenza researchers agreed to a voluntary moratorium on any research involving contagious, lab-altered forms of one strain of bird flu. This week, a number of flu researchers are meeting in New York for the annual conference of the U.S. government-funded Centers for Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance. One part of the agenda for this conference will be to discuss if the moratorium should be lifted, or if it should stay in place.

Some scientists and researchers are concerned that if mutant bird flu viruses somehow got out of the lab, they could cause a devastating pandemic. Others argue that lifting this ban is crucial to making sure that public health officials are reading for any possible threat of a flu pandemic that might emerge naturally, as bird flu viruses mutate in the wild.

Meanwhile, the U.S. National Institutes of Health will be watching and and participating in the conversation about what should be done about overseeing research involving high-risk pathogens. To read more, check out NPR's article, "Bird Flu Researchers To Meet About Research Moratorium" from July 24, 2012.

The World Health Organization will also be having an open meeting sometime next year on these issues, and has recently released some guidelines on what kinds of risk-control measures should be used by labs researching mutant bird flu viruses.

Are these kinds of voluntary guidelines enough, or do international governments need to step in and provide some oversight when research involves the use of highly contagious viruses? Or, should it be up to the scientific community to decide when research of this kind should continue, and what kinds of limitations should be put in place to protect the public?

Japan Commission finds Fukushima a "profoundly man-made disaster"

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:44:00 +0000

The Japanese government's Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission concluded in a report released last week that the nuclear incident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant was a "profoundly man-made disaster," rather than a result of a natural disaster.

The earthquake of March 2011 which hit at a magnitude of 9.0, was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan, as well as one of the most powerful earthquakes ever measured. It sent a 133 foot tsunami crashing onto the coast that killed over 15,000 people and triggered the chain of events leading to the nuclear disaster.

The commission found that the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) had many opportunities for taking preventative measures prior to when the earthquake and tsunami hit. The commission criticized TEPCO as being too quick to dismiss earthquake damage as a cause of the fuel meltdowns at three of of the plant's six reactors, which overheated when the site lost power. TEPCO has contended that the plant withstood the earthquake, and instead placed the blame on the tsunami that followed. TEPCO executives that the earthquake followed by the huge tsunami was beyond the scope of contingency planning.

According to the commission, the Fukushima nuclear incident shows the danger of "regulatory capture" in which a government agency acts on behalf of the industry it tries to oversee instead of representing the public interest. The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, part of the economy industry that promotes nuclear energy, allowed TEPCO to delay upgrades and ignore problems, the report found. The report faults the Japanese nuclear industry and regulators for not learning lessons from Three Mile Island or the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, and also cites lack of communication between scientists and the government in sharing information that could help improve the safety of Japanese nuclear plants.

The commission ended its report by calling for the creation of an independent and professional nuclear regulatory body to help build a stronger safety culture in the Japanese nuclear industry.

Read more:

Tabuchi, Hiroko. "Inquiry Declares Fukushima Crisis a Man-Made Disaster." New York Times. July 5. 2012
"Official Fukushima Report Blames Japanese Culture, Not Nuclear Power". The Atlantic. July 11, 2012
Normile, Dennis. "Commission Spreads Blame for 'Manmade' Disaster." Science Magazine. July 13, 2012.

The Legacy of Henrietta Lacks

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:42:00 +0000

What kind of control should individuals have of tissue samples from their own bodies?

Henrietta Lacks is arguably one of the most famous individuals in this debate. In 1951, a scientist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore created the first immortal cell line with a tissue sample taken from a young black women with cervical cancer. That young woman was Henrietta Lacks. The cells taken from her, called HeLa cells, quickly became invaluable to medical research. Henrietta Lacks never knew that her doctor had taken a piece of her tumor without her consent, and she and her family received no benefits or recognition for her contribution to the medical science field. 25 years after her death, Mrs. Lacks' family found out what was being done with the cells, and launched a campaign to get some of what they were owed financially.

A books was published in 2010 by Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, that does an excellent job exploring the story. Part of the proceeds of her book went to set up the Henrietta Lacks Foundation whose mission is to provide financial assistance to individuals who have made important contributions to scientific research without personally benefiting from their contributions, particularly contributions made to research without their knowledge and consent.

Do we own our own tissues after they are removed from our body? If so, then it seems reasonable that we should expect to have some say in how they are used and have the right to demand payment when a profitable discovery derives from them. Or, if we can't treat tissues samples from our own body as property, what other rights do we have, and kinds of obligations do researchers have to tissue donors?

For more information, see:

Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishers, 2010.

Troug, Robert D., Aaron S. Kellselheim, and Steven Joffe. "Paying Patients for Their Tissue: The Legacy of Henrietta Lacks. Science Magazine. 337(6090) 37-38. July 6, 2012. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6090/37.full?sid=b30262f0-c4d4-44e9-a4e4-2515e9234841

Ziellinski, Sarah. "Henrietta Lacks' 'Immortal' Cells". Smithsonian.com. January 22, 2010. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Henrietta-Lacks-Immortal-Cells.html

Animal Welfare: When is Regulation Needed?

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:27:00 +0000

Back in February, NPR reported on an agreement reached by Gene Gregory, the president of the United Egg Producers, and Wayne Pacelle, the president of the U.S. Humane Society, to lobby for new rules for egg farmers which would require them to provide larger cages for egg-producing chickens, along with perches and nest-boxes. The compromise came after years of bitter argument about the practice of crowding chickens into wire cages.

Now, the compromise is under attack, not by egg farmers, but by America's hog and beef producers. The National Pork Producers Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association are lobbying against any kind of regulation because they fear that it might turn into a slippery slope. If Congress passes regulation that makes it mandatory for farmers to follow new laws for the housing of chickens, the next step might be new regulation that mandates the living conditions of hogs and cattle.

That National Pork Producer's Council has called the egg legislation a "Federal Farm Takeover Bill" and has been lobbying Republican members of congress, saying that the new bill is likely to lead to higher prices for eggs. And it looks as if organizations who oppose the bill are winning. The egg producers and the Humane Society had hoped to attach their proposal to the farm bill which is currently making its way through congress. The Senate has not brought up this proposal for a vote however. Its best chance, some analysts say, might be after elections are held in November.

Meanwhile, one hopes that this partnership between United Egg Producers and the Humane Society will bear fruit, and even be emulated in other areas where the welfare of animals is under debate.

For more information, check out NPR's article from June 11, "U.S. Pig and Cattle Producers try to Crush Egg Bill."

New Books to Check Out

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:57:00 +0000

CSEP Library has just gotten a large batch of news books in that are available to check out...too many to list, but here are some of the highlights.

Engineers of Revolutionary Russia: Iurii V. Lomonsov (1876-1952) and the Railways by Anthony Heywood

Hold Paramount: The Engineer's Responsibility to Society by P. Aarne Vesilind and Alastair S. Gunn. (2nd ed)

Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer

The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp

We should be getting another batch in early July, so please be sure to check back for the new titles!

Informed Consent & Use of Information for Other Purposes

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:48:00 +0000

A recent article in Nature by Ericka Check Hayden talks about some of the problems that can come up in the informed consent process when participants in research don't feel very informed by the process. In an age where data about individuals is getting gathered and used on am much larger basis, participants in research and the researchers themselves are often not entirely clear about how data may be used in the future, or if this data will remain protected. With all this confusion, some people are less willing to participate in research than they used to be, and researchers often feel confused about how they should approach this issue.

So what should we do? The article discusses some better potential models for consent, including the potential for new technology that will allow participants to control and track how their data is used.

Let us know what you think! How can the informed consent process catch up to the reality of research today?

Boeing Scholars Academy Ethics Bowl - July 5th, 1:30-5 pm

noreply@blogger.com (Kelly Laas) — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:16:00 +0000

On July 5^th, 100 high school students will be participating in the second annual Boeing Scholars Academy Ethics Bowl as part of the Boeing Scholars Academy summer program. During the afternoon, teams of students will discuss a series of two cases directly related to this summer’s theme, “local action, broader impact.” The ethics cases studies were developed based on ideas from a brainstorming session held with Boeing Scholars Academy students on June 19^th, and center around the issues of social media, the ethical gathering and use of data, and issues of public health and environmental sustainability.

In an ethics bowl competition, a moderator poses questions to teams of students based on cases they have read and discussed. A panel of judges then evaluates the answers based on the following criteria; intelligibility, focus on ethically relevant considerations, avoidance of ethical irrelevance, and deliberative thoughtfulness. The Ethics Bowl competition was first started by Dr. Robert Ladenson at IIT in 1993, and has grown in popularity ever since, now encompassing the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl in which over 132 teams of undergraduate students around the U.S. compete in, as well as the newly formed National High School Ethics Bowl which will be holding its first national competition in Chapel Hill in April of 2013.

The Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions has been working closely with Boeing Scholars Academy program staff to organize this event. We have a number of distinguished judges who have volunteered to be a part of this event, including Ethics and Compliance Officers from a number of major Chicago-area companies, IIT faculty, and students from IIT’s Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl team. We look forward to an exciting and thought-provoking afternoon, and invite everyone to come and watch the fun! The competition will be held in the E-1 building from 2:45-3:45 pm, and signs will be posted showing participants and visitors where to go. For more information, please email Kelly Laas at laas@iit.edu.