Zen Faulkes, an invertebrate neuroethologist at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg, questions on his blog whether every person made enough of a contribution to be credited as an author.
Faulkes questions whether every other has made "enough" of a contribution to be credited as an author.
In rare cases, a questionable, published paper may acquire“orphan” status (Rennie & Flanagin, 1994, p. 469), as allconcerned try to wash their hands of it, invoking hyperlaborspecialization as grounds for exoneration. Such a scenario isinconceivable under the standard model, where authorshipand accountability are isomorphic. But when authorship/ownership of a study is distributed across multiple contrib-utors, many of whom may have zero or weak relation-ships—whether personal or institutional—with their myriadcoworkers (Katz & Martin, 1997), the practical (i.e., en-forceable) allocation of accountability may pose intractableproblems
orphan papers: where everybody washes hand of poor results by saying it wasn't their specialisation. [[Why is this a problem, actually? The point is that we catch fraudulent or wrong papers, not that we have somebody to blame.
eceiving credit under false pretenses,are cause for grave concern (Anderson, 1991).
on receiving credit under false pretences
ow, for instance, should a promotion andtenure committee view the contribution of the 99th listedauthor on a particle physics paper or the 36th author on agenome sequencing study? What may seem to constitute aminiscule portion of a single journal article may, in fact,have consumed a significant amount of that individual’sprofessional time and energy. T
what is value of middle authorship?
owever, multipleauthorship and hyperauthorship are not problematized byphysicists as they are by the biomedical community.
Multiple authorship is not problematised in the HEP community as it has in biomedicine.
ennieand Yank (1998, p. 829), when “the number of collaboratorsgrows arithmetically, it becomes exponentially harder toaffix responsibility.”
responsibility and authorship
he practice of promiscuous coauthor-ship puts considerable stress on this tried and tested model.
The practice of promiscuous coauthorship calls model into question
e need toconsider how multiple authorship, in extremis—what I havechosen to term ‘hyperauthorship’— undermines commonlyheld assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments ofauthorship, and how, in exceptional cases, it can lead tofundamental questions about the integrity of the researchcommunity as a whole. Unfortunately, little effort is madein the biomedical literature to distinguish systematicallybetween what might be termed acceptable levels of multipleauthorship and unacceptable levels of hyperauthorship.Studies of coauthorship trends, as will become clear,
makes distinction between "acceptable levels of multiple authorship and unacceptable levels of hyperauthorship.
scaleofthephenomenonandassociatedethicalabuseshaveprovedtobesingularlyproblematicinthebiomedicaldo-main(e.g.,Houston&Moher,1996
Bibliography on how medical area is where ethical abuses have occurred.
any respect unethical.
The courts are not responsible for finding a behavior ethical or un-ethical. Their purpose is to determine legal or illegal
Doug Muder points out that "freedom" is often invoked by people who want to deny rights to others. He says "big government" is often required to enforce rights. A strong example is the southern states during the century following the Civil War -- and even still today.
I agree. But it is also true that our big government has some serious problems. It is too often an abuser of rights, rather than a defender. As usual, these abuses fall mainly on minorities and the poor. But they affect almost everyone.
http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html<br> Jonathan Wallace gives a strong argument that "natural rights" don't exist. Rights are determined by the consensus of a society. They do not have or need any stronger justification.
We strived to make our work as participant-researchers transparent and dialogic by sharing tentative findings and engaging in dialogue about our inquiries into learning in CLMOOC online, as well as offline in conferences with CLMOOC participants in attendance.
Being open about what we are doing as participant researchers is vital - always give opportunities for opt out and remind folk that conversations might be used.
“moderate disguise”
Noting this phrasing for my own proposal
Responding participants either requested to have their online identities remain connected to their professional learning artifacts by affirming the use of their first names, or indicated they would like a pseudonym used.
I think this is important. Creators have a right not to be anonymised in research if they wish
Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
The idea was to pinpoint the doctors prescribing the most pain medication and target them for the company’s marketing onslaught. That the databases couldn’t distinguish between doctors who were prescribing more pain meds because they were seeing more patients with chronic pain or were simply looser with their signatures didn’t matter to Purdue.
The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work
Bureaucratic cultures tend to discourage people from speaking candidly. Lack of candor can be a deterrent to success, before it ever reaches the level of outright lies. Lack of candor means:
"Investing Between the Lines: How to Make Smarter Decisions by Decoding CEO Communications", L.J. Rittenhouse (recommended by Warren Buffet in his 2012 Shareholder Letter)
Truth-Telling: Confronting the Reality of the Lack of Candor Inside Organizations We need to build cultures where "opposing views are debated and more effective solutions and innovations are created." -- Lynn Harris
The universal voice of mankind is always declaring that justice and virtue are honourable, but grievous and toilsome; and that the pleasures of vice and injustice are easy of attainment, and are only censured by law and opinion.
This is Glaucon's primary argument in a sentence. He says that justice is not intrinsically good; it's merely a requirement for living in society. People don't want to be just. They need to be just according to law and to prevent people from hating them.
This predicament, which is entirely unavoidable, refigures ethics as something beyond individual choice. Yes, I make decisions about who or what might enter my home, who or what has access to my Twitter feed, but this only happens in the face of an ever-present exposedness to others. Prior to the large-scale availability of networked computational devices, Levinas described the relation that defines networked life. Levinas likens this predicament to that of the hostage, and he suggests that if “we” as humans share anything at all, it is this experience of being held hostage by another that resists representation, that arrives over and beyond our attempts to make sense of that other.
The basis for a networked ethics...the fact that we are all always and already connected to others.
. Psychologists have thought about morality primarily as a system of rules that prevents people from hurting each other and taking their possessions. But I believe that morality is much richer and more balanced. Most people don’t want to rape, steal, and kill. What they really want is to live in a moral community where people treat each other well, and in which they can satisfy their needs for love, productive work, and a sense of belonging to groups of which they are proud. We get a visceral sense that we do not live in such a moral world when we see people behave in petty, cruel, or selfish ways. But when we see a stranger perform a simple act of kindness for another stranger, it gives us a thrilling sense that maybe we do live in such a world.
We rely more on what we feel than what we think when solving moral dilemmas. It’s not that religion and culture don’t have a role to play, but the building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity. We recognize them in our primate relatives, with empathy being most conspicuous in the bonobo ape and reciprocity in the chimpanzee. Moral rules tell us when and how to apply our empathic tendencies, but the tendencies themselves have been in existence since time immemorial.
As an aside, do you believe in “self-sufficiency”?
a question for the ages, and probably a good place to start the discussion
After all, don’t we tend to examine our motivations for doing something only when we have reason to doubt that we are doing the right thing?
change:
'only'
to:
'primarily'
It also doesn’t lessen the value and the potential power of the example one sets for others.
Add:
'need to'
Between:
'doesn't' and 'lessen'
aspect of
aspects of
take be
take to be
possible actions and outcomes
Add:
'motivations,'
Between:
'possible' and 'actions'
It migh
http://dev-stem-ethics.gotpantheon.com/node/53
Replace
"It might provide..."
With:
"This fatalistic attitude..."
Hence rhetoric may be regarded as an offshoot of dialectic, and also of ethical (or political) studies.
of philosophical and of ethical or political studies
It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity -- one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it.
Much as it is not the criminal defense lawyer's place to judge their client regardless of how guilty they are, it is not the doctor's place to force experimental treatment upon a patient regardless of how badly the research is needed, and it is not the priest's place to pass worldly judgement on their flock, it is not the programmer's place to try and decide whether the user is using the software in a "good" way or not.
Taking this to heart / putting it on my wall.
neglected all the good things which this study affords, and became nothing more than professors of meddlesomeness and greed
For they taught their art for a good purpose, to be used against enemies and evil-doers, in self-defence not in aggression, and others have perverted their instructions, and turned to a bad use their own strength and skill. But not on this account are the teachers bad, neither is the art in fault, or bad in itself; I should rather say that those who make a bad use of the art are to blame. And the same argument holds good of rhetoric; for the rhetorician can speak against all men and upon any subject,—in short, he can persuade the multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases, but he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other artist of his reputation merely because he has the power; he ought to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers.
Ethics of rhetoric.