Comment cf. ethics in Physics (Score 1) 216
After having perused this thread, I am moved to de-lurk. It is a sin for which I am sure I will receive due compensation; but to mitigate it, I will confine myself to a point about ethics in the Physics field, and to a mini-rant.
I earned my Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics last summer, after eight years in graduate school and four years undergrad. In that time, I do not recall a single instance of a professor even mentioning ethical behavior in research. Certainly no class in ethics was required (though they may have been offered, I don't remember). The only words on the matter I read were in one of Feynman's books, which stated that, as a researcher, one is compelled to disprove one's own conclusions as vigorously as possible. From this lack of attention, does it then follow that physicists are in need of a document to sign, in order to reinforce their dedication to the persuit of the truth? I argue "no": science in general is built upon an innate ethical underpinning, which inherits from its beginnings in Aristotle's Natural Philosophy. Perhaps because of its pedigree, there is no need explicitly to state a "Physicist's Credo." It is understood.
Ethical violations nonetheless occur often in Physics: faking of data, stealing of ideas, backstabbing, politics; all the wonderful things that make us humans and not TeleTubbies. But I believe that there is inherent self-correction here, so that the unethical do not long remain.
(As an aside, I will remain mute on the relative morality of Science and "pseudo-science", about which some small debate may arise.)
The connection I see with "Technology" (could we come up with a broader term?) is that the same ethical skeleton is already in place. With some exceptions, techies do not plagiarize code; they do not write deliberately ineffective or destructive programs; they do not claim that their work can do what it cannot. Those delighting in such chicanery are quickly relegated to the fringes of techno-society, or jail, or both.
To the guffaw, "What about Micro$oft?!" I reply: I refuse to believe that the engineers working on the guts of Windows 2000 are a bunch of evil, ignorant slobs (damning with faint praise? :) How their work is used, and the constraints on what that work may be, is arguably immoral. To extend the metaphor with Physics, those working on the Manhatten Project were incredibly smart, dedicated, upright folk, who put together one of the most wicked devices in the history of beings specializing in wicked devices. Would it have been more moral for them to refuse participation? I don't know; but, I think some separation between the individuals and the gestalt in which they swim is necessary.
There are "pugwash" societies that address the ethics of scientific work in broader context. They are of relatively recent vintage (I believe). Maybe some similar organizations for "hackers" are due, if they do not already exist...
To summarize, I don't feel that a pledge of ethics is any more required in technical fields than in Physics. Vigilance will expel the inimical, and I'm confident that the shady behavior of some software companies will lead to the same kind of outcry that spawned the EPA. Of course, somebody actually has to take the first step there!
Now for the rant. I take exception to one poster's "let them eat cake" attitude toward the masses and their (our!) ability to buy computers and thus fully participate in the modern world. When my father was unemployed and my mother was working at McDonald's *and* doing home day-care, in order to feed five kids on blocks of government surplus cheese, a computer, even a $200 one if such existed at the time, was an unthinkable luxury. That kind of money goes to mortgage payments, to food, to utilites. And we were lower middle class. Do you really think that those in poverty, whose numbers are growing not shrinking, *ever* consider buying a computer over basic needs? Can you tell me exactly how advertisers are reaching them? Is Microsoft putting up billboards in inner cities, or on reservations, or in Spanish? I don't know how to resolve the disparity in access to technology, but to deny it even exists seems to me ignorant at best and, at worst, willfully obtuse.
Please forgive the length of this post; I now sink back into the ether, having (rather immorally) wasted some time on it while on the clock.
-Mike
I earned my Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics last summer, after eight years in graduate school and four years undergrad. In that time, I do not recall a single instance of a professor even mentioning ethical behavior in research. Certainly no class in ethics was required (though they may have been offered, I don't remember). The only words on the matter I read were in one of Feynman's books, which stated that, as a researcher, one is compelled to disprove one's own conclusions as vigorously as possible. From this lack of attention, does it then follow that physicists are in need of a document to sign, in order to reinforce their dedication to the persuit of the truth? I argue "no": science in general is built upon an innate ethical underpinning, which inherits from its beginnings in Aristotle's Natural Philosophy. Perhaps because of its pedigree, there is no need explicitly to state a "Physicist's Credo." It is understood.
Ethical violations nonetheless occur often in Physics: faking of data, stealing of ideas, backstabbing, politics; all the wonderful things that make us humans and not TeleTubbies. But I believe that there is inherent self-correction here, so that the unethical do not long remain.
(As an aside, I will remain mute on the relative morality of Science and "pseudo-science", about which some small debate may arise.)
The connection I see with "Technology" (could we come up with a broader term?) is that the same ethical skeleton is already in place. With some exceptions, techies do not plagiarize code; they do not write deliberately ineffective or destructive programs; they do not claim that their work can do what it cannot. Those delighting in such chicanery are quickly relegated to the fringes of techno-society, or jail, or both.
To the guffaw, "What about Micro$oft?!" I reply: I refuse to believe that the engineers working on the guts of Windows 2000 are a bunch of evil, ignorant slobs (damning with faint praise?
There are "pugwash" societies that address the ethics of scientific work in broader context. They are of relatively recent vintage (I believe). Maybe some similar organizations for "hackers" are due, if they do not already exist...
To summarize, I don't feel that a pledge of ethics is any more required in technical fields than in Physics. Vigilance will expel the inimical, and I'm confident that the shady behavior of some software companies will lead to the same kind of outcry that spawned the EPA. Of course, somebody actually has to take the first step there!
Now for the rant. I take exception to one poster's "let them eat cake" attitude toward the masses and their (our!) ability to buy computers and thus fully participate in the modern world. When my father was unemployed and my mother was working at McDonald's *and* doing home day-care, in order to feed five kids on blocks of government surplus cheese, a computer, even a $200 one if such existed at the time, was an unthinkable luxury. That kind of money goes to mortgage payments, to food, to utilites. And we were lower middle class. Do you really think that those in poverty, whose numbers are growing not shrinking, *ever* consider buying a computer over basic needs? Can you tell me exactly how advertisers are reaching them? Is Microsoft putting up billboards in inner cities, or on reservations, or in Spanish? I don't know how to resolve the disparity in access to technology, but to deny it even exists seems to me ignorant at best and, at worst, willfully obtuse.
Please forgive the length of this post; I now sink back into the ether, having (rather immorally) wasted some time on it while on the clock.
-Mike
