San José State University
Philosophy 133
"Ethics in Science"
Spring 2010

Prof. Janet D. Stemwedel
Department of Philosophy, FOB 232
Office phone: 408-924-4521
jstemwed@email.sjsu.edu
http://www.stemwedel.org

 

Office Hours: Tuesday 9:00 am - 10:30 am
or by appointment.

Course website:

http://www.stemwedel.org/ethicsinscience/

Course description:

The purpose of this course is to explore the ways in which values play a role in the practice of science.  This course will consider the values and practices of scientific countries (including the U.S., Japan, and India), and the historical development of particular scientific values and practices (e.g., objectivity, proper methods for communicating results, proper treatment of human or animal experimental subjects), and the interactions between cultures that influence the development of scientific values and practices (e.g., the particular departures from the western model of science seen in Japan and India).

Another purpose of this course is to recognize that within a country like the U.S. science is a culture, with its own values and practices distinct from those of the lay culture in which it is embedded.  Such mundane matters as choice of research question, experimental design, and relationships within research labs are reflections of the values of a scientific community.  This course will examine the interactions between the embedded culture of science and the larger embedding culture, exploring how the interplay between these cultures affects the values and practices of each.

Readings will draw heavily on case studies, both to illuminate conflicts over values and over the practices that best embody a value, and to illuminate the advantages of taking a pro-active approach to incorporating ethical considerations in real-life research and learning environments.  Since scientific practices embody values, a central goal of this course is to emphasize that ethical considerations are a crucial element of the conduct of science and of good research design.

Prerequisites: Completion of core GE requirements, upper division standing, completion of WST.

Course requirements:

Reading response essays:  For 4 of the reading assignments, you will be asked to write a short essay (300 words, approximately 1 typed, double-spaced page) engaging with some issue or issues in the reading.  (Specific instructions for each reading response essay will be distributed in class.)  The goal of these assignments is to help you read in an active, engaged way, and to encourage you to develop your own views about these issues.  Reading response essays will be assessed for correctness, clarity, and conciseness and returned to you promptly.  You are encouraged to make use of the tutors in the Logic and Philosophy Lab (FOB 231) for additional help with writing for this course.  Reading response essays are due at the beginning of class on the dates listed in the program.  No late reading response essays will be accepted, but I will drop your lowest reading response essay grade before calculating your final grade.  Taken together, the reading response essays will count for 20% of your course grade.

Case study responses:  Over the course of the term, you will write detailed responses (of approximately 300 words) to 5 case studies.  After reading the case, you will defend a course of action for the protagonist, participate in a discussion about the case, and then write a strengthening or reformulation of your original position.  Four of the case study responses will be done in class.  The fifth will be done as an assignment outside of class, making use of online discussion of the case with your classmates.  I will drop your lowest case study response grade before calculating your final grade.  Taken together, the case study responses will count for 20% of your course grade.

Research reports:  Over the course of the term, each student will locate two articles on a topic relevant to the class and report to the class (via our online discussion board) on each of these articles.  One article must be from the popular press and the other must be from the scholarly scientific press.  The research report should highlight the assumptions the article makes about science and the norms these assumptions reflect.  (A detailed list of possible topics will  be distributed in class.)  The two research reports will count for 15% of your course grade.

Longer essay:  You will write one longer essay (900 words, approximately 3 typed, double-spaced pages) on the general topic of "scientific norms as cultural norms".  (Complete details about this essay will be distributed in class.)  The essay will be due on Thursday, May 13, and will count for 15% of your course grade.

Final exam:  The final exam is intended to evaluate your grasp of the material from assigned readings, lectures, and class discussions.  It will include shorter objective items (e.g., definitions of key terms) and longer essays that will require that you reflect critically on the course material.  More details on the format and content of the exam will be distributed later in the term.  The final exam will count for 20% of the course grade.

Class participation:  Dialogue and discussion will play an important role in our project of analyzing and assessing the central issues of the course raised in reading assignments and lectures.  Therefore, I expect that you will come to class with your books, having done the readings and thought about the issues they raise before our class meetings, and ready to participate in general discussion, in-class writing exercises, and periodic small group exercises.  Your class participation will count for 10% of your course grade.

 

Grading:
Reading responses: 20%
Case study responses: 20%
Research reports: 15%
Longer essay: 15%
Final exam: 20%
Class participation: 10%
Total: 100%

Your marks on assignments will be converted to percentages (e.g., 15/20 = 75%) and used to compute letter grades as follows:
A+ 98-100% B+ 87-89% C+ 77-79% D+ 67-69%
A 93-97% B 83-86% C 73-76% D 60-66%
A- 90-92% B- 80-82% C- 70-72% F 0-59%

 

                   

Academic Honesty:  I expect you to be familiar with university policies on plagiarism, cheating, and other forms of academic dishonesty.  As well, I expect you to understand the difference between proper attribution of the words and ideas of others and plagiarism.  If you do not understand the difference, please make an appointment with me to discuss proper attribution as soon as possible.  Plagiarism or cheating will result in a failing grade for this course, and offenders may be subject to further administrative sanctions.

Official academic integrity statement from the Office of Judicial Affairs:
Your own commitment to learning, as evidenced by your enrollment at San Jose State University, and the University's Integrity Policy, require you to be honest in all your academic course work. Faculty members are required to report all infractions to the Office of Judicial Affairs. The policy on academic integrity can be found at:

http://sa.sjsu.edu/judicial_affairs/index.html

 

If you need course adaptations or accommodations because of a disability, or if you have emergency medical information to share with me, or if you need to make special arrangements in case the building must be evacuated, please make an appointment with me as soon as possible, or see me during office hours.

Presidential Directive 97-03 requires that students with disabilities requesting accommodations must register with the DRC to establish a record of their disability.

“Ethics in Science” is designed to meet the G.E. learning objectives for Area V (culture, civilization, and global understanding). At the end of the course, students should be able to:


1. “Compare systematically the ideas, values, images, cultural artifacts, economic structures, technological developments, or attitudes of people from different societies.” In particular, you should be able to compare the values of the culture of science, and the way those values are reflected in scientific practices and methodologies, with the values of the larger societies in which scientists are embedded (including the U.S., but also considering Japan and the developing world).


2. “Identify the historical context of ideas and cultural practices and their dynamic relation to other historical contexts.” For example, you should be able to identify the influence the Nazi Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg and the exposure of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in the U.S. had on local and international standards for experiments on human subjects; to assess the ways in which the Nuremberg and Helsinki codes embody the interests of the research subject against the interests of scientific research; and to discuss the pressure placed on these codes by current AIDS research.


3. “Explain how a culture changes in response to internal and external pressures.” For example, you should be able to explain how prominent allegations of scientific fraud recently have influenced definitions of scientific misconduct proposed by governmental and funding agencies; how financial and professional pressures can act as a counterforce to the scientific value of free exchange of information; and how attitudes toward gender and race in the larger society can influence the objectivity of scientific work.

Required texts:

Available at Spartan Book Store:

Carl Djerassi,  Cantor's Dilemma

Deni Elliott and Judy E. Stern (eds.), Research Ethics: A Reader (E&S)

Available at Maple Press:

Philosophy 133 Course Reader (CR)

Available online (linked to course website):

Philosophy 133 Online Articles (WWW)


 PROGRAM:

*Reading assignments are due on the dates for which they are listed.

**Be sure to consult the "Reading Schedule" page for detailed advice (e.g., which pages you can skim or skip) and questions to consider while reading the selections.

 

Tu-Jan. 26  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Distributed in class:

Kenneth D. Pimple, "The ten most important things to know about research ethics"

Muriel J. Bebeau, "Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research"

Case Study: "The Jessica Banks Case"

Th- Jan. 28  HOW DOES SCIENCE WORK?  WHAT DOES SCIENCE DO?

On Being a Scientist (WWW)

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, "The Nature of Science" (CR)

Fred Grinnell, "Doing Science" (CR)

Peter Godfrey-Smith, Merton's norms of science (CR)

Tu- Feb. 2  ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS

Aristotle, "Happiness, Function, and Virtue" CR)

Immanuel Kant, "Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative" (CR)

John Stuart Mill, "Utilitarianism" (CR)

Entry on "relativism" (CR)

Th-Feb. 4  SCIENCE AND IDEOLOGY

Michael Ruse, "Creation Science: The Ultimate Fraud" (CR)

The Biology and Gender Study Group, "The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology"  (CR)

Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, "The Problem of Lysenkoism" (CR)

Mark B. Adams, "Science, Ideology, and Structure: The Kol'tsov Institute, 1900-1970" (excerpt) (CR)

F-Feb. 5 Last day to drop without a "W".

Tu-Feb. 9  WHAT SCIENCE OWES TO SOCIETY (AND WHY)

Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Ethics of Scientific Research:
Chapter 2, "Professional Codes and the Duty to Do Scientific Research" (WWW)

Chapter 4, "Basic Principles: Promoting the Public Good"  (WWW)

 

Th-Feb. 11  THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE

Philip Kitcher, "Subversive Truth and Ideals of Progress"  (CR)

Khor Kok Peng, "Science and Development: Underdeveloping the Third World"  (CR)

Michael Dummett, "Ought Research to be Unrestricted?" (CR)

F-Feb. 12 Last day for late adds.

 


Tu-Feb. 16  SPECIAL CONDITIONS, SPECIAL DUTIES

Jean-Baptiste Meyer, "Science and Technology in South Africa: A New Society in the Making"  (CR)

V. V. Krishna, "A Portrait of the Scientific Community in India: Historical Growth and Contemporary Problems"  (CR)

Third World Network, "Modern Science in Crisis: A Third World Response"  (CR)

Th-Feb. 18  DATA MANAGEMENT

Barbara Mishkin, "Urgently Needed: Policies on Access to Data by Erstwhile Collaborators"  (CR)

"Data Management Guidelines Issued by British Medical Research Council" (WWW)

"Instructions for Authors," Journal of Bacteriology (WWW)

"NRC Reports on Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials" (WWW)

Donald L. Pavia, Gary M. Lampman, and George S. Kriz, Jr., "Advance Preparation and Laboratory Records"  (CR)

Daniel J. Kevles, The Baltimore Case (excerpts)  (CR)

Recommended: Kevles, "A Beautiful Paper" (WWW)

TAKE HOME ASSIGNMENT:

Case Study: "The Bob Bailey Case"

Due Friday, Feb. 19 by 6:00 PM

Tu-Feb. 23  THE PROBLEM OF OBJECTIVITY: SOME HISTORY

Bruce Bower, "Objective Visions: Historians track the rise and times of scientific objectivity" (CR)

Marie Boas Hall, "The Frame of Man and Its Ills" (excerpts) (CR)

Peter Machamer, " The Concept of the Individual and the Idea(l) of Method in Seventeenth-Century Natural Philosophy"  (CR)

Recommended: Vandana Shiva, "Modern science as patriarchy's project" (WWW)

Recommended:  Helen Longino, "Gender and Racial Biases in Scientific Research" (WWW)

Th-Feb. 25  THE PROBLEM OF OBJECTIVITY: CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES

National Academy of Sciences, "Methods and Values in Science"  (CR)

Pamela J. Asquith, "Japanese Science and Western Hegemonies: Primatology and the Limits Set to Questions"  (CR)

Donna Haraway, "The Bio-politics of a Multicultural Field"  (CR)

Reading response essay #1 due.
Tu-Mar. 2  FURLOUGH DAY -- CLASS WILL NOT MEET

Th-Mar. 4  Case Study: "The Marty Brown Case"

Tu-Mar. 9  ANIMAL RESEARCH

Andrew Rowan, "The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research"  (CR)

Neal D. Barnard and Stephen R. Kaufman, "Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading"  (CR)

Jack H. Botting and Adrian R. Morrison, "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine"  (CR)

Madhusree Mukerjee, "Trends in Animal Research" (CR)

Recommended: D. Elliott and M. Brown, "Animal Experimentation and Ethics"  (E&S)

Recommended:  Richard P. Vance, "An Introduction to the Philosophical Presuppositions of the Animal Liberation/Rights Movement"  (E&S)

Th-Mar. 11  Case Study: "The Jenny Ito Case"

Tu-Mar. 16  HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH: HISTORY

Telford Taylor, "Opening Statement of the Prosecution, December 9, 1946," "Judgment and Aftermath" (CR)

Charles C. Mann, "Radiation: Balancing the Record"  (E&S)

James H. Jones, "A Moral Astigmatism"  (CR)

James H. Jones, " Nothing Learned will Prevent, Find, or Cure a Single Case"  (CR)

Recommended:  John C. Fletcher, "A Case Study in Historical Relativism: The Tuskegee (Public Health Service) Syphilis Study"  (WWW)

Th-Mar. 18  HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH: REGULATIONS AND THE SHIFTING INTERPRETATION OF "JUSTICE"

The Hippocratic Oath  (CR)

David C. Lindberg, "Hippocratic Medicine"  (CR)

The Nuremberg Code  (E&S)

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 1989 Version  (E&S)

The Belmont Report (WWW)

Robert M. Veatch, "Abandoning Informed Consent"  (CR)

Anna Mastroianni and Jeffrey Kahn, "Swinging on the Pendulum: Shifting Views of Justice in Human Subjects Research"  (CR)

Recommended:  Jonathan D. Moreno, "Goodbye to All That: The End of Moderate Protectionism in Human Subjects Research"  (WWW)

Recommended:  Wendy K. Mariner, "AIDS Research and the Nuremberg Code"  (WWW)

Reading response essay #2 due.
Tu-Mar. 23  FURLOUGH DAY -- CLASS WILL NOT MEET

Th-Mar. 25  HUMAN SUBJECT RESEARCH: GLOBAL ISSUES

Marcia Angell, "The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World"  (CR)

Harold Varmus and David Satcher, "Ethical Complexities of Conducting Research in Developing Countries"  (CR)

NBAC, "Ethical Issues in International Research — Setting the Stage"  (CR)

Recommended:  S. R. Benatar and P. A. Singer, "A new look at international research ethics"  (WWW)

Recommended:  E. Emanuel, "Fair Benefits for Research in Developing Countries"  (WWW)

SPRING BREAK: MARCH 29 - APRIL 2.

Tu-Apr. 6  SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Stephanie J. Bird and David E. Housman, "Reporting and Funding Research"  (E&S)

Patricia K. Woolf, "Pressure to Publish and Fraud in Research"  (E&S)

Th-Apr. 8  AUTHORSHIP ISSUES

Paul J. Friedman, "A new standard for authorship"  (CR)

Carlos Galindo-Leal, "Explicit Authorship"  (CR)

Roderick Hunt, "Trying an Authorship Index"  (CR)

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "Guidelines on Authorship"  (CR)

Ivan Amato, "Rustum Roy: PR Is a Better System Than Peer Review"  (E&S)

Charles W. McCutchen, "Peer Review: Treacherous Servant, Disastrous Master"  (E&S)

Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold, "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review"  (CR)

Tu-Apr. 13  PATENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES

Vandana Shiva, "The Role of Patents in History"  (CR)

Vandana Shiva, "The Myth of Patents"  (CR)

Vandana Shiva, "Biopiracy"  (CR)

Th-Apr. 15  Case Study: "The Charlie West Case"

Tu-Apr. 20  INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES FOR SCIENTIFIC DIALOGUE

Sharon Traweek, "Kokusaika, Gaiatsu, and Bachigai: Japanese Physicists' Strategies for Moving into the International Political Economy of Science"  (CR)

Sharon Traweek, "Border Crossings: Narrative Strategies in Science Studies and among Physicists in Tsukuba Science City, Japan"  (CR)

Reading response essay #3 due.

Th-Apr. 22  TELLING THE PUBLIC: PITFALLS OF THE POPULAR PRESS

Edward S. Herman, "Corporate Junk Science in the Media"  (CR)

Mark Dowie, "What's Wrong with the New York Times's Science Reporting?"  (CR)

Tu-Apr. 27  MENTORING ISSUES

Vivian Weil, "Mentoring: Some Ethical Considerations"  (CR)

Carl Djerassi, Cantor's Dilemma

Reading response essay #4 due.

Th-Apr. 29  COMMUNITY STRUCTURES IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD

Steven Fuller, "How Japan Taught the West the Secret of Its Own Success"  (CR)

Vivian Weil and Robert Arzebaecher, "Relationships in Laboratories and Research Communities"  (E&S)

Tu-May 4  Case Study: "The Diane Archer Case"
Th-May 6   FURLOUGH DAY -- CLASS WILL NOT MEET

Tu-May 11  MISTAKES AND MISCONDUCT

D. E. Buzzelli, "The Definition of Misconduct in Science: A View from NSF"  (E&S)

Howard K. Schachman, "What is Misconduct in Science?"  (E&S)

W. Leibel, "When Scientists are Wrong: Admitting Inadvertent Error in Research"  (CR)

David Goodstein, "Scientific Fraud"  (CR)

Charles J. List, "Scientific Fraud: Social Deviance or Failure of Virtue?"  (CR)

Michael J. Zigmond and Beth A. Fischer, "Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science"  (CR)

C.K. Gunsalus, "How to Blow the Whistle and Still Have a Career Afterwards" (CR)

Th-May 13  TAKING STOCK

Longer essay due.

FINAL EXAM:

Section 1 (Bashaw, 10:30-11:45 AM) Monday, May 24, 2010, 9:45 AM - 12 noon.

Section 2 (Stemwedel, 12:00-1:15 PM) Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 9:45 AM - 12 noon.

 
course home course information handouts assignments instructor information research links research ethics resources