Professional Ethics for Scientists

WRIT 335 and CHEM 301

Syllabus, Spring 2003

Instructor: Dr. Linda M. Sweeting, lsweeting@towson.edu

Smith 553, 410-704-3113, home page http://www.towson.edu/~sweeting

Discussion of the integrity of the scientific literature and the responsibilities of scientists to associates and the public. Examination of principles and of case studies with an emphasis on the physical sciences. Prerequisites: 3 courses in: BIOL, CHEM, GEOL, PHYS, or PHSC, at least 2 with laboratory; ENGL 102. Credits: 3 (advanced composition) Contact hours: 3/week, 45 total.

This course fulfils the university requirement for an Advanced Composition Course, Group 1D.

Click here to go straight to the annotated bibliography or page down and select Course Outline for topical links.

ABOUT THIS SYLLABUS

Only the schedule and basic requirements of this syllabus are available on paper; the entire syllabus with annotated bibliography is available on my Web site. The syllabus for this course was the Chemistry Department's first electronic and first WWW syllabus. There are several advantages to the WWW format. 1) It is flexible and powerful, since it can be searched and linked internally and externally 2) It is cheaper to put it on disk than to print on paper. 3) It is less damaging to the environment to put it on disk than to print on paper. DO NOT PRINT OUT THE BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Links connect portions of the syllabus to other portions of the syllabus and to other document, here or anywhere on the WWW. Whenever you see a word highlighted, click on it with the mouse and you will immediately jump to a related subject, such as references or other sites. I have included Internet discussion lists and links (with addresses you can type in or click on) to World Wide Web sites which you can use to obtain further information; don't forget that this information is not subjected to peer review and may be unreliable.

Your browser will enable you to move around in the document, by clicking on the highlighted words to move to a higher level of details, and clicking on your browser's "Back" or other links to return to the previous level or a different set of information. If you are registered in this course, may download this file, the schedule file and the bibliography into your own computer and read it in Netscape by selecting File, Open Page; the bibliography is a very large file. You must use the same filenames as I did or the links will not work between the documents. If, like me, you are not connected to the Internet at home but have a computer, you may download Netscape (free for academic use) onto a floppy disk, and install it at home (make sure the version you choose is compatible with your computer operating system -- the current version is too large for a single floppy, alas). These manipulations will give you quicker access from off-campus and guaranteed access when the Internet is annoyingly slow. Your permission to download this information expires when you have completed the course.

As you can see from the above addresses, I send and receive e-mail, but be forewarned that I do not check it every day. You may communicate with me that way, and get a response within a few days without playing telephone or office tag. To ensure that I do not overlook your message among the junk e-mail, make sure your name and subject are clearly spelled out in the formal address. Do not submit papers by e-mail; our current e-mail system requires significant editing to make decent hard copy from e-mail; moreover, I spend entirely too much time sitting in front of a computer screen.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Science majors do a lot of writing as undergraduates, mostly laboratory notebooks and laboratory reports. The focus of this course is professional issues in science rather than data. You will be required to think, discuss and write about issues that are less technical but nonetheless of great importance to your future. Grades on all activities will depend on your ideas and how you express them. Style cannot be separated from substance - good writing begins with clear thinking.

All submitted work must be typed (except in-class work; journal entries may be typed or handwritten). Computers with Corel WordPerfect or Microsoft Word are available in the Chemistry Learning Center and tutoring center and in several other places on campus - learn how to use them. If you are a Macintosh person, the campus facilities are more limited. Submissions MUST be on paper: I spend too much time each day at a computer anyway, and e-mail messages can go astray too easily.

Class topics are accompanied by reading assignments; all readings are in the bookstore packet or will be distributed in the previous class. You must complete the reading assignments before class and come prepared to discuss them; some questions are included on the first two pages of the packet of readings to guide your thoughts. This is not a lecture course. Note taking on the readings and class discussions is advised; doing so will develop different reading, writing and listening skills from those you use in your science classes. Details on the requirements are explained under Grading, below

TEXTS

ETHICS

Honor in Science, Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1984.

On Becoming a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd Edition, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995 (referred to as OBAS in assignments, numbers are pages)

Readings for Professional Ethics in the Sciences, Dr. Linda M. Sweeting, editor, Towson University Store

WRITING

REQUIRED: Jane E. Aaron, The Little, Brown Compact Handbook, 3rd Ed., Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, New York 1998 or more recent edition. Note: if you have a comprehensive grammar book from a previous college English course, I will be glad to consider it as a possible substitute.

RECOMMENDED: David Porush, A Short Guide to Writing about Science, HarperCollins College Publishing, New York, 1995

GRADING

Your final grade will be based on a weighted average of the following components (links to details):

Exam (1) 12%
Papers (2) 56%
Peer editing 10%
Journal 12%
Class participation
and In-class writing		 10%
Your ethics yes

1. EXAMS

There will be one essay exam, which will require you to discuss some issues we have discussed in class. While a certain amount of knowledge will be required, the emphasis will be on thought, not recall. I may announce some questions in advance, or give the exam as a take-home (no consultation with human beings, only paper or Internet sources). For example, the final exam might ask: "what do you believe is needed as a code of ethics in science; explain the rationale for the aspects of your code or your rejection of the need for a code. If you believe a code of ethics is not feasible, please explain why." References are encouraged for take-home or open-book exams

2. PAPERS

ALL students must complete two papers, from two different categories of the four described below. The topic or book chosen must be approved by the instructor, even if it is from the bibliography. Approval will not be given for two students in a given class to write on the same topic or review the same book.

Each paper should be written for an audience of your peers, at a level appropriate for publication in a science newsmagazine such as Physics Today, Chemical and Engineering News, Science News, Science. The focus of the paper will be professional ethics for scientists, whatever the particular topic. Submitted papers will be graded for their thoughtfulness about the issues, their organization, their expression of ideas, their effective use of examples and references, and their writing style and mechanics. A clear organization supporting your thesis or conclusion is expected. Like any college level paper, it should reflect critical thinking about the issues and intellectual rigor. Especially with book reviews, it is tempting to include your feelings; however, readers are less interested in your feelings than you are, but would like a critical analysis so that they can anticipate how they will react to the book. If you feel strongly about an issue you discuss, try to convince the reader with logic and evidence. Most topics related to ethics raise a lot of questions. In your paper, you must make an attempt to answer any questions you raise, even if all you can do is present the various approaches or sides to the issue.

For the first paper, you will submit at least one preliminary draft which will be read by the instructor and the members of your peer editing / response group (and anyone else you like). Depending on the topic and how you work, the draft may include an outline, some thoughts you had while reading, or a complete paper draft; the most complete drafts will benefit most from the peer editing, but if you haven't pulled your ideas together, by all means put them down in whatever form you can. These preliminary drafts will serve to introduce you to the process of peer editing.

For each paper you will submit a first draft, with most of the paper complete, to your peer editing group and instructor. 25% of your grade for each paper will be based on the draft. Your instructor and peers will provide questions, comments and suggestions by the following week and your group will discuss your paper to help you find ways to improve it. This draft must be submitted on time. Late drafts will not be considered for peer editing except in case of illnes or other major disaster, and then only if the peers are willing and able to review it. Both the draft and the reviewing process receive credit. Except in case of illness, a late first draft will receive no credit and the reviewers will not be penalized for not reviewing it.

After receiving the comments of your peer group and instructor, you will then revise the paper for final submission. Drafts and final paper must be typed; if you are not used to composing on a word processor, this is a good time to learn, as it is by far the easiest way to do revisions. Just remember one important thing, you must read your submitted paper and check for spelling errors, as the computer cannot correct all spelling mistakes (and it won't correct any if you don't use the spell-checker)

The editing and revising stages provide the major difference between this course and most other writing courses you have taken. In order to take advantage of the process, you need to plan much farther ahead and bring in rough drafts a couple of weeks before the deadline (see the schedule). You may wish to consult your peer editors, instructor or other advisors/editors during that time. You may use the Writing Lab (LLT 308); they will mark grammatical errors but not correct them. Although other people will help you analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your paper, the writing and ideas must be your own.

I will NOT discuss basic writing mechanics in class - I assume you know basic grammar; your writing text will provide assistance. Some very common errors can be prevented by remembering the following: a) "this" must have a clear antecedent; b) nouns may be used as adjectives but not as adverbs (which modify nouns); c) tenses must be internally consistent in any essay; d) pronouns must agree with their noun antecentent in number. A list of additional books and articles on writing, including some that will help you with writing scientific papers, are included in References IV. The final paper will be due several weeks later and will be graded by the instructor. However, I will discuss some aspects of style, such as organization and audience and I will discuss in detail the structure of scientific papers and process of publication.

Your sources must be included in footnotes or endnotes. A simple bibliography is inadequate as a record of your sources. Each piece of information must have a specific reference to an article (periodical, year, volume, pages) or a book (author, title, year, location and page number). You may use any style accepted by a scientific journal; the references I have given you are in the American Chemical Society's style. If you use an Internet reference you must characterize it completely. There is no standard for WWW information, but I must be able to obtain the same information using the reference you give; give the URL for the site and the selections made, plus the author and the date it was accessed. Be careful about Internet information - there is no editor or fact-checker on the Web; it is to your benefit to determine the sponsor of each site, so that you can detect any potential conflict of interest.

When you submit your final paper, it should have attached to it any drafts with the comments of your peer group and instructor on them. I will use those comments to help me decide on a grade for the editing and to help me understand the process by which you developed your paper.

I STRONGLY recommend that you begin working on your first paper immediately and your second paper before you finish the first (at least decide on a topic and evaluate availability of resources so that you can use spring break to get organized).

Paper Types:

Don't forget that prior approval is required. To be effective, that prior approval most be obtained at least one week before the first draft is due.

A. BOOK-ORIENTED PROJECTS

1. A review of a selected fictional, autobiographical or biographical account (book) of scientific activities focussed on an analysis of the ethical issues raised for scientists therein. The paper will include a brief synopsis of the book's plot and characters, style, relevance and accessibility. The main focus of the paper will be an examination of the ethical issues raised by the book, an examination that includes and goes beyond those explicitly raised by the author. This is NOT a traditional book review. Be creative about organization - remember you need to keep the attention of your classmates / audience. Try to minimize quotes - they usually interrupt the flow of your thoughts and they are hard work because you must refer to a page number for each. See References III for some examples of possible books. I recommend this as your first writing project, since it should be the easiest, but many students elect to do this last when the pressures of other courses are greater. No two students may review the same book of fiction or (auto)biography in a given semester. 4-5 pages (at least 1000 words), excluding references or illustrations.

2. A critical review of one of the books in References II. This paper must be more than a summary or a book review, just as paper A is more than a book review. Your critical evaluation of the ideas in the book and even your emotional response to it are what make this a paper. Many of these books are quite thought-provoking and well worth the effort. Try to minimize quotes - they usually interrupt the flow of your thoughts and they are hard work because you must refer to a page number for each. 4-5 pages (at least 1000 words), excluding references or illustrations.

B. TOPIC-ORIENTED PROJECTS

1. A presentation of the issues and evidence in a recent case of an dispute about misconduct in scientific research, using books, newspapers and scientific magazines, such as the articles in the reference list, as sources. Don't be shy about drawing conclusions. Examples: David Baltimore and Thereza Imanishi-Kari, Robert Gallo, cold fusion, M. W. Washabaugh. 4-5 pages (at least 1000 words), excluding references or illustrations. See References IIB-H for ideas and sources.

2. An analysis of the ethical issues for scientists in one area of scientific activity, one that intrigues you beyond the depth of the class discussions. Examples: ethical issues in mentoring, sex or race and science, attempts to develop codes of ethics, pesticide use, biological warfare, drug development and testing, population control, medical economics, the human genome project, genetic engineering. Your analysis must focus on issues in professional ethics for scientists; discussions of issues of technology and medicine are only acceptable if they focus on the ethics of the professional in the field. 4-5 pages (at least 1000 words), excluding references or illustrations. See References IIB-H for ideas and sources.

3. PEER EDITING

Each of you will serve as editors for your classmates. Students will be divided into groups of 3-5. You will have some choice about your group-mates: groups may be uni-major but not uni-sex. Each person will read the draft paper of each the others in their group and write comments and suggestions. (I may give the groups an anonymous piece for practice.) The comments may be in the margin or on a separate piece of paper, and should be marked to identify the peer reviewer.

Peer editors can help in a variety of ways, but the most important help they can give, in my experience, is to analyze the paper for things it is hard for the author to see, such as logical development. I suggest that as you read each others' papers, you look at the following things, in order: 1) Does the paper have a point and is it clearly presented? 2) Are there gaps ion the logic -- where? 3) Is there anything about the writing -- style or organization -- that interferes with the presentation of the argument? 4) Where are ther specific grammatical problems, especially those that interfere with understanding? 5) What are the spelling errors? (I will circle them). The written comments may be in the form of questions, or suggestions for improving focus and organization, clarity, grammar, etc. The most useful comments are those which probe the issues and how they are presented; mechanical details like spelling can be examined by the author and his or her computer.

In addition to the written comments, 1-2 hours of class time will be set aside for discussion of the drafts of papers by the groups, after each person has read the other group members' papers. These peer editing sessions are meant to be constructive, to suggest how you might improve your papers, not to pick nits. They are also intended to be more than a reading of the written comments. As the individuals in the group provide input and ask questions, new ideas should develop which will help the author to focus and improve a variety of aspects of the paper; grammar and spelling errors should not be discussed in the peer group but given in writing. The instructor will assist the groups as needed. The purpose of this activity is to help all the students of the group earn the highest possible grade on their papers. This is not an easy task - editors must be generous, kind and encouraging and at the same time critical and honest; editees must try to listen and not be defensive. You will find that these sessions will teach you to edit your own work more effectively. Each writer has something important to say and their own unique way of saying it; it will be our job to help each of us communicate most effectively and develop a "voice". I encourage the peer editing groups to meet outside of class as well.

Each author will submit an evaluation of the peer reviewers' contribution for each paper draft, describing how helpful the input of each individual in the group was (a form is available but not required). I will keep these comments confidential and use them to assist me in deciding on that part of the grade given for editing. Exceptional assistance should be acknowledged in a short formal acknowledgement at the end of the paper. You may include comments on and suggestions for your instructor's editorial assistance in your evaluations at the end of the semester (I usually provide extra time for evaluations). Your grade for peer editing will be determined by the evaluations of your group members and by my evaluation of your written (and to some extent oral) comments which will be submitted with the paper.

4. JOURNAL

Students will keep a journal or diary of their thoughts on the readings and on the class discussions and turn them in on a regular basis. At least one of your journal entries must respond directly to the assigned readings, one to a newspaper or periodical article(s) and one to an article in our new journal Science and Engineering Ethics; I encourage you to read a newspaper and/or scientific magazine on a regular basis during the semester. Other journal entries may reflect on the learning process, on your response to the assignments, on the peer editing, on the syllabus, on ethics in the university, on something you found on the WWW related to scientific ethics, ethics on the job, ethics on TV, etc. I will use these to help me understand the class' comprehension of the issues and its ways of thinking about them, plus a small part of the grade. I will occasionally use your comments in class (anonymously or with permission) so please don't submit anything that is too private to be read to others. Six journal entries of one page each must be submitted, distributed through the semester; deadlines are included in the schedule, but you are encouraged to write these journal entries when you want to think something out and turn them in when they are written (before the deadline). Early submissions are strongly encouraged. Since this is a diary, perfection in style is not expected, but it must be correct enough to be understood. Your grade for this portion of the course will be determined primarily by your thoughtfulness about the issues. DO NOT keep the journal in a single book, since you may wish or need to write another entry while I have the book.

5. CLASS PARTICIPATION

Although this is a small part of your formal grade, attendance is clearly essential for earning a good grade. If you aren't there you can't particpate in discussions or in peer editing. If you are ill when a writing project is due, you must contact me that day or earlier to make other arrangements. You will have a reading and a writing assignment almost every week; if you know ahead of time that you will miss a class, turn the assignment in early. Your participation grade will reflect your attendance and my observations and opinions about your thoughtful interest and understanding of ethical issues in science, especially your response to the assignments. If you are shy, you are not necessarily at a disadvantage in the discussion; someone who dominates the discussion and has little to say is participating less effectively than someone who says little but makes good points. Shy people will get a chance to contribute when we have small group discussions -- in fact you might volunteer to report on the group's ideas. During the course we will develop our own set of ethical guidelines for students and professional scientists and we will be discussing case studies; these are other ways you can participate besides talking if you are shy.

6. IN-CLASS WRITING

Most students are interested enough that they look forward to the readings and are prepared for class. In case you should be tempted to skip these assignments, please be aware that advanced writing courses are required to have in-class, free-writing assignments. I will give occasional in-class writing assignments that are essentially quizzes on the content of the readings for that class. Moreover, you have a responsibility to the class to be prepared so that you can participate in the discussions. Don't leave the readings to the last minute -- several, like the Bell & Esch article, are long or complex. If you do have a disaster and cannot complete the readings, do what you can and come to class anyway; if you skip class because you are poorly prepared you will miss even more.

7. ETHICS EXPECTED OF STUDENTS

Any use of the words or ideas of others without permission or acknowledgement is plagiarism. It may also be a copyright violation: publication of a document automatically grants permission for use but not multiple copying. We will discuss intellectual property laws and conventions and the copyright laws in the course. Be careful to keep track of your sources as you work on your paper, including discussions with and editorial assistance of others. In general, I will follow the standards for plagiarism used in the scientific community - you may use anything in the published literature or from a conversation provided you give credit for the information. Your "use" should incorporate the concepts smoothly into the narrative but you may not simply paraphrase; rephrasing, or paraphrasing is plagiarism, just as if you were copying text without quotation marks and reference. In academia and in science, it is also not permitted to plagiarize yourself by publishing the same paper twice, since copyright passes to the publisher. So don't submit a recycled paper to this course either.

Collaboration by students where not specifically allowed is cheating. (Does this sound like "what is not required is forbidden"?) Plagiarism or cheating will result in an F in the course. We will discuss academic ethics during the course. If you are at all uncertain about the ethics of any procedure you use to obtain or transmit information, ask. Some of the academic definitions of cheating are arbitrary and may vary from instructor to instructor, but generally plagiarism is forbidden. I will use the standards used by professional scientists in their work.

COURSE PHILOSOPHY

Why Ethics?

In general, the science majors are expected to learn the high standards of their chosen profession by example and by osmosis. I believe that such an expectation is too chancy and that explicit discussion of situations which require ethical considerations is needed. Modern science, like other fields, has some behavioral pathologies among its practitioners; we all need to learn to recognize them, avoid them and deal with them. Moreover, we are often ill-equipped to deal with making choices between two good things, each with possible consequences. We all need to develop the habit of looking ahead, evaluating consequences, and mentally rehearsing responses to situations that may occur in a career while we have time to ponder a response, to rehearse the thinking needed to deal with difficult situations. This course is designed to be practical, to provide an opportunity for science majors to learn something about how science is really done, the standards of behavior in science and some of the ethical problems; ethical lapses can disrupt the scientific world and threaten the reliability of scientific information and the public confidence in science. What we all want for ourselves and the world is excellence, especialy in our science. This course will illuminate the standards of excellence by examples of the best, the worst and the very human in behavior among scientists.

Why Writing?

This writing course will provide science majors an opportunity to write something about science other than laboratory reports, an opportunity to organize a non-fiction essay, and an opportunity to rewrite and improve with a lot of editorial feedback. A required journal will help you to reflect on your learning, your future, your career choices. The writing you do in this course will make you more aware of your audience and help you with your technical writing too. And of course, this course fulfils an important General Education Requirement (Group 1.D.)

COURSE OUTLINE

The letters coding the sections in the course outline below -- A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I -- are ALSO used:

  • in the course schedule, to link it to the outline;
  • in the reference lists, to classify the references by topic;
  • within each reference annotation, to indicate the range of topics for each book and article.
For example, CDE would indicate information about interactions of peers, bosses and employees / students.

Note that the links in this outline will take you to the corresponding section in the Bibliography. Click here to go to the top of the Bibliography

Course planning materials for teachers of ethics in science (see also the materials linked to the outline below.)

  1. Introduction (Web Sites)
    1. Approaches to identifying moral and ethical standards by philosophy / religion
    2. The nature of science, with some philosophy of science.
    3. The ethical dilemmas in academia for students and teachers.
    4. The life in a scientist in research and development.
    5. Professional ethics in science - are the ethical issues different?
    6. Related professional ethics

  2. Scientists and their Experiments (Web Sites)
    1. The scientific method: myth and reality. How science is really done.
    2. Design and execution of experiments: opportunities for error and fraud
      1. Research questions and intent
      2. Anticipation and prevention of systematic errors
      3. Data collection and records
      4. Data analysis and software reliability
      5. Statistical methods, their use and misuse (sometimes deliberate)
    3. Publishing experiments: the scientific literature
      1. Expected content of publications: experiments, analysis, replicability, connections, conclusions
      2. Peer review, publication and ownership
    4. The role of error in science and technology
      1. Self-deception, wishful thinking and seduction by data which confirm the hypothesis
      2. Carelessness, sloppy science, and the rush to publish
    5. Scientific Misconduct -- Deliberate misrepresentation of data and analysis.
      1. Examples of that clearly represent fraudulent science.
      2. Why do scientists commit fraud -- fabrication, falsification and plagiarism?
      3. Is it fraud or error? How can you distinguish?
      4. Is the process of selecting and analyzing data intrinsically a misrepresentation?
    6. Standards for scientific behavior and information
      1. Federal (NIH, NSF) and NAS definition of fraud and misconduct
      2. Procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct.
      3. Statements of good practice for publication of research results, codes of ethics for scientific societies
      4. Publication pressure: the minimum publishable unit, evaluation standards.

  3. Scientists and their Peers (Web Sites)
    1. The roles of colleagues
      1. Collaborators and credit: coauthors, acknowledgements and references
      2. Reviewers of manuscripts and proposals: privilege and responsibility with prepublication information, ensuring the integrity of the literature, fair evaluations, protection of the ownership of the ideas.
      3. Sources of information: papers, web pages, seminars, meeting presentations
      4. Organizers of symposia and editors of books
      5. Evaluators of careers: jealousy, personality, sex and race
    2. Ensuring the integrity of the research literature:
      1. Standards of behavior for authors
      2. Detecting and reporting fraud and error - does peer review do this?
      3. Protecting the existence of the scientific literature. Copyrights and plagiarism with paper journals. Fair use of copyrighted materials. On-line journals and copyright laws.
    3. Bias in peer interactions
      1. Gender and race discrimination
      2. Science used to justify discrimination
      3. Ideological bias
    4. Conflict of interest: unavoidable with peers and bosses
      1. Time and effort conflicts
      2. Money and ownership conflicts
      3. Scientific conflicts
      4. Loyalty conflicts
      5. Disclosure or disqualification from some activities.

  4. Scientists and their Protegees / Employees (Web Sites)
    1. Roles of teachers, mentors and bosses.
    2. Responsibility for safety and security
    3. Responsible mentoring and evaluation
    4. Bias in power relationships - more conflict of interest
      1. Irresponsible mentoring
      2. Gender and race, sexual harassment,
      3. Other discrimination is similar to that among peers
    5. Credit, appropriate authorship, and letters of ecommendation

  5. Scientists, their Bosses and their Funding (Web Sites)
    1. Characteristics of work environments
      1. Power structures
      2. Academia: Administration and Public Funding
      3. Academia: Private funding of research and conflict of interest
      4. Industry: Management, funding, external regulation, e.g. by law
      5. Consulting: Divided loyalties / conflict of interest.
      6. Government: supervisors and taxpayers (see Funding)
      7. Proprietary and classified research (see politics, secrecy and war).
    2. Disagreements about
      1. scientific methods, facts and interpretation
      2. uses of discoveries
      3. people, e.g. credit, intellectual property, sexual harassment and discrimination.
    3. Resolving disagreements and conflicts
      1. From within the organization
      2. Outside the organization, an action commonly called Whistle-blowing
    4. Career choice with these factors in mind.

  6. Scientists and the Public (Web Sites)
    1. The roles of science in society
    2. Occasions when scientists interact with the public
    3. Demands on scientists by society
      1. Politics, secrecy and war, esp. physics and chemistry.
    4. Responsibility of scientists
      1. Research relevance, outcomes, accuracy, esp. of publicly funded research
      2. The letter of the law: RCRA, OSHA, etc.
      3. Beyond the letter of the law: public responsibility.
      4. Anticipating consequences of science and technology (e.g. pollution, drug side effects), contributing to constructive use of inventions.
      5. Educating the public regarding facts, uncertainty, risk assessment.
      6. Correcting pseudoscience and myth.
    5. Responsibilities of all citizens, society
      1. Democracy should support good science and shun politics and religion disguised as science
      2. Funding of science by government agencies - what are appropriate expectations?
      3. Civil liberties and national security
      4. Proprietary rights and public safety

  7. Special Topics: Issues in Biology, Medicine, Engineering and Computer Science which differ from the other sciences
    8. (Web Sites)
    1. Research in Biology
      1. General issues
      2. Use of animal and human subjects
      3. Ecosystem impact by scientists
      4. Genetic engineering and its dangers and implications
    2. Medicine
      1. Who should have the power to make decisions?
      2. The impact of genetic testing on privacy, insurance, etc.
      3. Selection of human subjects
      4. Effect on human life expectancy and quality
    3. Engineering and Computer Science
      1. Software and hardware reliability
      2. Software ownership and rights to use
      3. Engineering and the public trust

  8. Scientists and the Future of the Earth (Web Sites)
    1. Philosophical approaches to environmental ethics
    2. The major issues: human population, pollution, quality of life
    3. Other specific environmental issues
    4. Do scientists have environmental responsibilities beyond other citizens?

  9. Codes of Ethics for Scientists
    1. NAS/NAM/NAE
    2. AAAS
    3. Chemistry Societies
    4. American Physical Society
    5. Biological Societies
    6. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

  10. Questioning the premises of scientific thought and practice (references to come).
    1. The feminist critique -- perhaps scientific models and practice would be different if devised by women, with their focus on connections rather the heirarchies.
    2. The postmodernist critique -- scientific observations and models are certainly colored by our mental models and consciousness -- perhaps there is no scientific reality.

E-mail me at: lsweeting@towson.edu, especially if you have suggestions for other references or had trouble with any of the links.

Last revision February 2000