introduction - uppsala university · 2016-03-06 · prima facie duty ethics ... • prima facie...

Ethics of technology and science Introduction

Thomas Lennerfors & Iordanis Kavathatzopoulos

Today’s class

•  Why ethics? •  General course info •  Two cases •  Ethical theory •  Models for decision making relating to

ethics •  Even more detailed course info

Högskoleförordningen

För doktorsexamen •  – visa intellektuell

självständighet och vetenskaplig redlighet samt förmåga att göra forskningsetiska bedömningar, och

•  – visa fördjupad insikt om vetenskapens möjligheter och begränsningar, dess roll i samhället och människors ansvar för hur den används.

För licentiatexamen •  -visa förmåga att göra

forskningsetiska bedömningar i sin egen forskning,

•  - visa insikt om vetenskapens möjligheter och begränsningar, dess roll i samhället och människors ansvar för hur den används, och

4

The course •  Aims:

–  Get an understanding of ethics in various fields of technology and science: concepts, issues, arguments, guidelines

–  Learn skills and methods to structure moral problems •  Few hours in class •  Literature: Good research practice, links, papers •  Examination:

–  Active participation (be there, discuss, ask questions, comment)

–  2 group projects + 2 presentations, leading of discussion

–  home exam (questions + essay)

Program Date, room Subject Presenter Literature, etc. 3 March, 2115 09.15-12.00

Introduction Iordanis, Thomas Links, papers

10 March, 2115 13.15-16.00

General research issues

Groups Good RP, Papers, links

17 March, 2115 09.15-12.00

Field specific issues

Groups Good RP, Papers, links

31 March, deadline

Home exam

5

The Macchiarini case

•  Paolo Macchiarini, considered pioneer in regenerative medicine using both biological and synthetic scaffolds seeded with patients' own stem cells. Trachea/windpipe. Recruited to KI 2010.

•  6 of 8 patients who received synthetic trachea transplants dead. Andemariam (June 2011: 2.5 yrs). Christopher (Nov 2011: 4 months). Aug 2012: Patient 3 in Sweden. Julia (2012: 2 yrs).

•  2011 Nov: article in the Lancet – “no big complications” •  2013 Oct: right to surgery at KS removed •  In summer 2014 he was accused of having falsified claims in his research by four

former colleagues and co-authors. And Pierre Delaire, a belgian researcher •  Nov 2014: New York Times article. External expert appointed (Bengt Gerdin),

comparing research results with medical records. Opinion sought for KI ethics council •  March 2015: KI ethics council: no misconduct. Vice chancellor: no misconduct •  Result (May 2015): Bengt Gerdin: guilty of misconduct, exaggerations,in 6of7 articles. •  August 2015: After considering the findings and a lengthy rebuttal provided by

Macchiarini, the vice-chancellor of Karolinska Institute Anders Hamsten cleared Macchiarini

•  Jan 2016: Bengt Gerdin has now seen all material and still things this is research misconduct

•  SVT documentary, Jan 2016. 3 episodes. •  Vanity fair article, Jan 2016: Fake CV •  3 Feb 2016: Internal investigator appointed. Critique. External appointed. •  13 Feb: Vice chancellor resigns. 22 Feb dean of research resigns. •  Macchiarini left untitl 30 Nov when contract expires. •  Feb 22: KI will fire Macchiarini within two weeks.

Interesting aspects •  Revolutionary knowledge •  Charisma, aura, … •  Could not understand how it worked, but trusted

Macchiarini •  No animal trials before first transplants •  Downplay risks of transplant •  No time to wait, people were dying •  Research fraud: wrong descriptions of health of

patients, and state of transplants. •  Real-world tests were needed •  Quality brand: KI. •  The future of such organs?

RESEARCH ETHICS

Issues

•  General research ethics issues, such as: –  ethical problems of publishing, plagiarism,

supervising, authorship, funding, career, copyright, fraud, handling of research data, quality of research, codices and guidelines, etc.

•  Field specific research ethics issues, such as: –  Interviews and anonymity, biobanks and privacy,

environmental impact, application of research findings, human life, using of laboratory animals, security, impact on society.

Professional ethics

•  Particular duties stemming from your work •  Does your work role give you any

particular obligations? •  With knowledge comes responsibility?

CUDOS

•  CUDOS (Merton, 1940s) – Communism/communalism – Universalism – Disinterestedness – Organized Scepticism

What is this thing called ethics? •  “Ethics is about good and evil, right and

wrong. It’s about what we as human beings [and researchers] should or should not do. How we should live our lives [and do our work].”

•  Ethics: moral philosophy, philosophy of morals/morality?

•  Ethics and morality are synonymous? •  Ethics and law •  Ethics and etiquette

Different strands of ethics •  Ethics as the study of what

different ethicists have said (philosophers, historians of philosophy)

•  Meta-ethics: are there objective goodness? What can we know about it? Etcetc (philosophers)

•  Descriptive ethics: what do people think about X? How do people respond to situation X? (Economists, anthropologists, psychologists)

•  Normative ethics: scholarly work regarding what is the right thing to do, for example concerning authorship? (philosophers, theologians)

•  Practical ethics: how could/should we handle different situations of ethical character?

Consequentialism •  Bentham, Mill. •  An action is morally right if the consequences of

that action are more favorable than unfavorable. •  Often called teleological theories (Greek. Telos) •  For Me, You, Us, All? •  Maximize what? Pleasure-pain, utility, preference

satisfaction, or “that which we intuitively consider to be good”?

•  Utilitarianism’s slogan: “the greatest good for the greatest number”

A simple consequentialist analysis

•  Determine the alternative courses of action •  Determine stakeholders and the

consequences of each alternative for each stakeholder (entity that is affected)

•  Assign good and bad consequences for each alternative.

•  Calculate the net benefit (cost) for each alternative

•  Choose the alternative which optimizes net benefits

Duty ethics •  Often called deontological

ethics (Deon from Greek “Duty”)

•  Not consequentialist, some actions are wrong in themselves.

•  List of duties, e.g. Ten Commandments (God)

•  “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself”

•  “One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated”

•  1. To abstain from taking the lives of living beings. 2. To abstain from taking that which is not given. 3. To abstain from sexual misconduct. 4. To abstain from telling falsehoods. 5. To abstain from distilled and fermented intoxicants, which are the occasion for carelessness

Duty ethics •  Immanuel Kant: duty ethics based on reason •  Motives:

–  Hypothetical “if…, then…”. A means. You should sometimes obey.

–  Categorical “You ought to do X”. An end in itself. You should always obey.

•  "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

•  “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”

•  “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

•  What is the point? – To derive duties and maxims from an

overarching rational principle

Prima facie Duty ethics •  W.D. Ross (1877-1971) •  Fidelity: the duty to keep promises •  Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we

harm them •  Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us •  Justice: the duty to recognize merit •  Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of

others •  Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and

intelligence •  Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others •  Prima facie duties vs. absolute duties

Virtue ethics •  Good actions stem from good character… stresses the

importance of developing good character traits, by developing habits, by acting. Processual/historical.

•  Focus on agent/person rather than action •  Moral virtues:

–  Cowardliness – Courage – Too courageous •  What are the virtues of a scientist? •  Phronesis:

–  Skill of judgment –  A virtue that mediates between the universal and the

particular –  The ability to see what aspects of a problems are morally

important, moral imagination

Responsibility •  Capacity: moral agency. Are children, people

with mental disorders, animals, machines capable of ascription of moral agency?

•  Causality: Agent has caused the wrong-doing in some way

•  Knowledge: did the person know what he/she was doing? (is there a duty to know?)

•  Freedom: was the person doing this freely or was he/she coerced? (is there even a free will? My genes? Social heritage?)

•  Outcome: what happened? Good or bad?

Normative principles in applied ethics

•  Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.

•  Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.

•  Principle of benevolence: help those in need. •  Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests

when they cannot do so themselves. •  Principle of harm: do not harm others. •  Principle of honesty: do not deceive others. •  Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law. •  Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her

actions or physical body. •  Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair

compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits. •  Rights: acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy,

free expression, and safety.

Good research practice, p. 12 •  tell the truth about your research. •  consciously review and account for the purpose(s) of

your studies. •  openly account for your methods and results. •  openly account for commercial interests and other

associations. •  not steal research results from others. •  keep your research organized, for instance through

documentation and archiving. •  strive to conduct your research without harming

people, animals or the environment. •  be fair in your judgement of others’ research.

Judgment/phronesis

•  Phronesis: – Skill of judgment – A virtue that mediates between the universal

and the particular – The ability to see what aspects of a problems

are morally important, moral imagination •  Monism or pluralism? •  Is balancing ever needed?

Decision making processes

1.  Problem formulation 2.  Information gathering 3.  Identifying alternatives 4.  Evaluation of consequences and actions, for whom,

where, when? 5.  Probabilities: how likely is it that the consequences will

happen? 6.  Valuation 7.  Decision 8.  Action 9.  Post-action evaluation

Göran Collste

Is this normative or descriptive?

OLE questionnaire •  1. Will there be any ethical problems or conflicts in the context, in the

organisation or in the group where your decision will be applied or your solution will be used (e.g. your research findings)?

•  2. Will your decision or solution cause any ethical problems or conflicts? •  3. Are there any alternatives to your solution? •  4. What groups, individuals, organisations, etc, will in any way be affected

by or have a stake in the development, use, application or mere existence of your decision and solution? (Including society at large and the environment.)

•  5. What values, interests, duties, standpoints and attitudes are involved in the use of your solution and of the possible alternatives?

•  6. What effects will your solution (and the alternatives) have on each of these values? What are the strengths/possibilities and the weaknesses/risks of each solution to each value? Will these solutions fit certain values and conflict with others? What values and how?

•  7. What will you do to make sure that the use of the solution will be optimal with regards to ethical aspects? For instance, adapt the design of the product, use of research methods, cooperation with industry, information to stakeholders, etc? How exactly are you going to succeed with this?

Problem owner: ………………………………………………. The dilemma: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Autonomy All principles, values, interests, duties, feelings, needs etc. of all involved parts

Matrix

All r

easo

nabl

e al

tern

ativ

e ac

tions

to

solv

e th

e pr

oble

m Possibilities:

Risks:

Possibilities: Risks:



































How to make the evaluation in the end, some ideas

•  Calculate the right answer, operationalize •  Prioritize: This value/stakeholder is more important

than this one, which is more important than this one.… •  Put yourself behind a veil of ignorance, what would

you choose? •  WWJHD? •  Throw a dice •  Establish a set of minimal ethical thresholds, as long

as those are not breached, everything is OK •  Reason / make evaluation which is the best course of

action •  Dialogue with involved stakeholders in “a perfect

communication space”

Good research practice •  1 WHAT ETHICS DICTATE AND THE LAW

DEMANDS. •  2 ABOUT RESEARCH – WHAT, WHY, HOW AND fOR

WHOM? •  3 ETHICS REVIEW AND OTHER APPROVAL

REVIEW •  4 HANDLING Of RESEARCH MATERIAL •  5 RESEARCH COLLABORATION •  6 PUBLISHING RESEARCH RESULTS •  7 OTHER ROLES Of THE RESEARCHER •  8 RESEARCH MISCONDUCT •  9 KEY DOCUMENTS RESEARCHERS SHOULD BE

fAMILIAR WITH

Group assignment 1 •  Group assignment 1 (before next class): “internal research

ethics issues”. Every group is assigned one chapter. Inspired by the topic of the assigned chapter. Create/choose/invent an ethical dilemma, and solve it with OLE”

•  In class: •  Present an ethical dilemma (abt 3 minutes)

–  It must be related to the chapter content –  It must be interesting

•  The class divides into five groups and discusses the dilemma (for 5 minutes). Each of the presenting group member joins a group to facilitate discussion.

•  Present your solution based on OLE (abt. 7 minutes) •  This is followed by a ten-minutes discussion

Group assignment 2 •  Group assignment 2 (before 17 march): field specific. Every

group sreate/choose/invent an ethical dilemma that has some connection to the particular research fields of your group (all members do not have to share the dilemma), and solve it with AM

•  In class: •  Present an ethical dilemma (abt 3 minutes)

–  It must be related to the some particular research field from the group

–  It must be interesting •  The class divides into five groups and discusses the dilemma

(for 5 minutes). Each of the presenting group member joins a group to facilitate discussion.

•  Present your solution based on AM (abt. 7 minutes) •  This is followed by a ten-minutes discussion

Individual home exam

•  Questions •  Essay •  Submit before March 31

introduction - uppsala university · 2016-03-06 · prima facie duty ethics ... • prima facie...

Documents