Philosophy 133
Professor Stemwedel
Spring 2008
Reading response questions
1.
Shrader-Frechette writes, "Because researchers are professionals who
have received training, education, and benefits from society, they have an
implicit contract with society. Hence researchers arguably have the
traditional trustee's responsibility to preserve, develop, and extend the
intellectual assets that they have received (in part) from the public and
that they hold in trust for that society." (p. 24)
Briefly, explain how Shrader-Frechette supports this claim. Then, offer
the best argument you can against this claim. To what extent
do you agree (or disagree) with Shrader-Frechette's view? Explain your
reasons. (Due Feb. 7)
2.
Asquith notes that Western primatologists have usually refrained from "provisioning"
(feeding) the animals they study of the grounds that doing so would interfere
with normal primate behavior. However, she asserts, "To put it
simply, the Japanese methodology allowed them to 'see more' of primate behavior
and its proximate causes." (p. 253)
Briefly describe the Western and Japanese approaches to "provisioning"
the primates being studied. What are the potential advantages and disadvantages
of each of these competing methodological approaches? In what sense
does each of the two approaches produce "better knowledge" (i.e.,
how do these two approaches depend on different understandings of what counts as objective knowledge)?
(Due Feb. 28)
3. What are the most striking differences in emphasis between the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report? What do these differences suggest to you about the starting assumptions being made by each of these documents about scientists, human research subjects, and the nature of scientific research? What is your theory about how historical context might account for these differences? (Due Mar. 20)
4. Explain how, according to Traweek, foreign physicists in the AMY group at KEK took advantage of being bachigai ("out of place") within the community of Japanese physics to put forward controversial data. What were their goals in presenting the data in the forum they selected? What kinds of authority (or perceived lack of authority) did they take for granted in coming up with this strategy? More generally, what does this episode show about relations between physicists, both within Japan and within the larger international community of physics? (Due Apr. 17)
5. What should Cantor have done in response to the anonymous note (p. 93) and why? In particular, explain how the course of action you propose addresses both Cantor's interests as a scientist and Jerry's interests as Cantor's mentee. (In answering these questions, of course, you will have to spell out Cantor's interests as a scientist and Jerry's interests as Cantor's mentee.) (Due Apr. 29)
| course home | course information | handouts | assignments | instructor information | research links | research ethics resources |
