Student Response to Conference by the Faculty: Technology Session

By Blaine Hadfield

A conflict that burdens the ethics of technology is the abstruse nature of technology itself. People are becoming less and less aware of how technology functions within particular applications of industry. As technology becomes better equipped to serve the specific requirements of an industry, it is more difficult to maintain up-date knowledge on the normative role of technology in a broad sense. Furthermore, the progression of technology loads the task of informing oneself with greater difficulty. So that it is not just the case that people are less informed about technology, but that it is more difficult to become so informed. To the extent that this is true, a conversation vis-à-vis the ethics of technology is outside of what most people can speak intelligently about.

Technology is powerful enough to rub up against issues of real ethical consequence. Today’s technology isn’t just exploring how to build a more efficient refrigerator, it seeks to extend life, end life, and grant real intelligence to the tools of our own creation. The problem is that as technology increases in capability, a person seems to be able to say less about the tasks that technology ought to serve. This results because of two reasons. One, people are less informed about what technology can accomplish. For example, there are many who would regard as science fiction the creation of biological robots that, when introduced into the blood stream, may perform medical tasks therein. Yet, nanotechnology is at the moment of this kind of creation. The second reason is that the ethical issues themselves are increasingly nuanced. A person says less about the morality of technology because they are less sure of their own ethical opinions regarding technology as it ought to be employed. For example, a person may have a strong ethical opinion about murder. We should not actively cause death to another. However, medical technology has the power to sustain life. And to the extent that it does, technology gives scenarios that may or may not constitute murder. Whichever stance a person wishes to assume on this issue, they are usually less inclined to maintain the position with the same fervor that would characterize their opinion on murder that is cold blooded. The point is that technology allows for nuanced ethical scenarios; the morality of which people are less decided about.

Thus, it seems as though our technology has outpaced our ethics. In which case, what kind of technology shall slide around our ethical thinking as that thinking fails to understand technology? Is it even possible that technology should be stalled for ethics? How does one legislate for such a pause when one does not understand the purposiveness of technology nor find agreement in ethics? These are difficult questions and yet these conditions are already set into play. And so, we have arrived. We have arrived and are without the answers.

Student Response to "Informed Consent"

By Rachel Draper



Dave Knowlton is an anthropologist that discussed the form of an "informed consent form". He said that is was putting a space between patient and researcher that could be damaging to research. He wanted to make it so that there is a feeling of equality between those being tested and tester. I think this is slightly idealistic because the tester must be an expert on the subject and must be treated as such. Maybe I think this because I am in my late teens and still respond to authority quite well. I think if there is little to no formality in research conducted this also could be damaging. Knowlton wants research to be more relational than contractual. The informed consent form creates a brick wall to the relational research that Knowlton thinks is optimal. Maybe medical studies and anthropological studies are so distant that medical studies should be more contractual because of legality, whereas anthropological studies are more observation and might not need informed consent forms. There is a problem in his want, because legalities need to be taken care of, especially in research. His want is almost idealistic in its criteria. Won't the casualness of research conducted alter results?

Student Response to "Pharmaceutical Ethics"

By Rachel Draper




David Yells discussed the politics of pharmaceutical trials and their publications. There are various problems with how the general public is informed about drug experiments. Only positive results are published in medical journals for the obvious reason of negative results seem like bad publicity for the Drug Company and medical journal. I wonder if there is a way that there could be a regulation on the publications of these experiments. Some are disgusted with how much the government interferes with our daily life, but if truth is remaining untold with regards to a drug that I could, would, or should take, then I think something needs to happen. When you watch a TV show you can't get through your episode without seeing a drug commercial or drug test advertisement. The nature of pharmacy is becoming more and more part of our every day lives. The politics of drug representatives is almost nauseating. I’ve seen medical clinics taken to lunch by pharmaceutical representatives at least weekly. These reps "invite" medical doctors to prescribe said drug. I want my treatment to be educated and uninfluenced by where the doctor went to lunch that day. Can the power of money not influence this part of human life? Can politics be set aside in one aspect of life? Curious isn’t it?

Student Response to "Detainee Interrogations"

By Rachel Draper



A person commented that he thought it was significant that we were just having a discussion about what happened in Abu Graib. I do think that it was beneficial but significant is questionable. What happened in Abu Graib is staggering. One of the speakers gave the audience a handout that had the link http://www.prisonexp.org/ that would lead you to a slide show of what occurred in AbuGraib. I think that although it was only a small number of soldiers doing terrible things in AbuGraib, it is still unacceptable. I wonder what the punishment will be to those who are in higher position of authority who saw what happened in Abu Graib. I hope the punishment is just. Ron Fischer showed us the new handbook that is for used interrogation of subjects. I see this as almost irrelevant because obviously rules were not kept and people's rights were violated. My questions are: What is going to be done to punish those who saw what happened to those in Abu Graib? How is the military going to keep from this happening again? What can I do to help in this cause? I do see military personnel as a responsible whole but when things like Abu Graib occur it is hard to support the war effort when we are doing the damage. I realize that it is a small occurrence and a very small amount participated in the events of Abu Graib. I still think that the militia should do everything in its power to prevent this from happening again.

Successful 2007 Conference by the Faculty

This year's faculty conference was a success and came off nicely. We had sessions over two days rather than one and got to hear twice as many great papers from UVSC faculty. We're beginning to collect a sub-set of those papers to publish in the Proceedings. Recently we announced a new process of paying students for blog entries that describe their response to an Ethics Center event, and we're looking forward to the next several entries coming from students who did just that. Also, several faculty may be joining the blogging here, so look for their posts.

In the meantime, photos for the conference are available at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ethics/sets/72157594506744787/

These photos are a set within the larger ethics photo collection.

Print ready images are available by clicking on a photo, choosing "all sizes" and downloading the largest size.