From BBC News: the British government's chief scientific adviser proposes a code of scientific ethics that he hopes will encourage researchers to think about the impact their discoveries could have on society. He's suggested that all scientists ought to sign it in order to allay public fears/ doubts/ etc. about research and so research can be trusted.
The article gives a brief summary of the seven main points of the oath, all of which I categorize as dealing with either integrity (i.e. don't fudge your research, don't take money from people who have a vested interest in your findings, &c) or responsibility (consider environmental/ social impact of your work)... and at this point I can't see how signing on to uphold these values would be a bad thing for anybody.
The most important part of the oath is the commitment to reflecting on the social impact of scientific research. We are still untangling the ways that our various technologies have affected the way we eat, sleep, live, work, even think; it should absolutely be required of all researchers that, before any new product is made or decision implemented based on their findings, they sit down to thoughtfully and candidly (trans., "sans bullshit") consider how their discovery will change our culture. We've labored for years under the assumption that all progress and innovation are good, without stopping to examine how we define "progress," and in the wake of that the looming global oil crisis is but the most immediately visible result of our failure as a society to ask these difficult questions. Recent articles on Engadget and Slashdot about RFID tags are starting to raise some of these questions as well; can we, in good conscience, make medicine prescriptions and passports digital when doing so also makes them vulnerable to hacking? How widespread might this problem become? Is this outcome better or worse than the problems the system seeks to correct?
Consider this part of an ongoing series concerning the Fall of the American Empire - in which our technocratic priesthood is heavily invested. Someday our hegemony will end; how will we deal with our inevitable post-superpower status? How will the transition come about? Me, I'd rather it happen with a whimper than with a bang... and perhaps an important part of quietly stepping down from the position of Global Bad-Ass is a more responsible attitude toward the development of new technology.
12 September 2007
31 July 2007
Don't read AlterNet...
...if you like your bubble.
I'll skip the article about the drug war; anyone who cares to do a little research can see that it's a fundamentally bogus, for-profit institution serving the interests of the elite at the expense of the poor.
But here's some news:
70% of our intelligence budget goes to "private contractors," according to an article in The Nation (posted on AlterNet, thus). The list of companies who provide private intel operatives ( "mercenary spies," in the vulgar argot) includes Lockheed-Martin, one of the "defense" contractors that manufactures the weapons our government uses to fight the same "war on terror" our intelligence agencies investigate. So let's get this straight: the government is paying multinational corporations for intelligence about terrorist threats, and at least one of these companies makes the weapons that will be used to fight these terrorist threats. So what reason would this company have to ever STOP reporting terrorist threats, or in fact to not report any person or institution they didn't like as a terrorist? According to the Nation article, there is little or no oversight to stop this. Stephenson saw this coming back in the 80s, comrades. Welcome to corporate feudalism, please step to the next window to have your ID scanned.
From the, "What kind of idiot do you take me for? Wait, don't answer that" department: 56 counties in Ohio accidentally lost their 2004 election records. Accidentally. Fifty-six. Let those blend at high speed in your brain, then garnish liberally with the fact that Bush's second term came to us courtesy of the state of Ohio. Don't roll your eyes yet; yes, we all know that the Bush crew is fundamentally corrupt and will basically do anything they can get away with. What I'm telling you is: there is nothing they will not do. Any time their egregious violations of the law, they follow the same strategy: admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations. They never have to prove their innocence, just to delay the process until they can commit another heinous crime that sends everyone spinning.
The people who shredded the election records belong to the same club as the people who sell intelligence and the people who use it. You can label them "Republicans," "capitalists," "criminals" or whatever else you like, but they are Our Corporate Masters and there is nothing they will not do to us to get what they want. Remember: during the early days of the labor movement, company bosses hired Pinkerton guards to machine-gun striking workers. They had no qualms about that and neither did the Pinkertons.
Someday we will have to stop talking and blogging and e-mail protesting about this shit, and put our bodies in harm's way to fight it.
I'll skip the article about the drug war; anyone who cares to do a little research can see that it's a fundamentally bogus, for-profit institution serving the interests of the elite at the expense of the poor.
But here's some news:
70% of our intelligence budget goes to "private contractors," according to an article in The Nation (posted on AlterNet, thus). The list of companies who provide private intel operatives ( "mercenary spies," in the vulgar argot) includes Lockheed-Martin, one of the "defense" contractors that manufactures the weapons our government uses to fight the same "war on terror" our intelligence agencies investigate. So let's get this straight: the government is paying multinational corporations for intelligence about terrorist threats, and at least one of these companies makes the weapons that will be used to fight these terrorist threats. So what reason would this company have to ever STOP reporting terrorist threats, or in fact to not report any person or institution they didn't like as a terrorist? According to the Nation article, there is little or no oversight to stop this. Stephenson saw this coming back in the 80s, comrades. Welcome to corporate feudalism, please step to the next window to have your ID scanned.
From the, "What kind of idiot do you take me for? Wait, don't answer that" department: 56 counties in Ohio accidentally lost their 2004 election records. Accidentally. Fifty-six. Let those blend at high speed in your brain, then garnish liberally with the fact that Bush's second term came to us courtesy of the state of Ohio. Don't roll your eyes yet; yes, we all know that the Bush crew is fundamentally corrupt and will basically do anything they can get away with. What I'm telling you is: there is nothing they will not do. Any time their egregious violations of the law, they follow the same strategy: admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations. They never have to prove their innocence, just to delay the process until they can commit another heinous crime that sends everyone spinning.
The people who shredded the election records belong to the same club as the people who sell intelligence and the people who use it. You can label them "Republicans," "capitalists," "criminals" or whatever else you like, but they are Our Corporate Masters and there is nothing they will not do to us to get what they want. Remember: during the early days of the labor movement, company bosses hired Pinkerton guards to machine-gun striking workers. They had no qualms about that and neither did the Pinkertons.
Someday we will have to stop talking and blogging and e-mail protesting about this shit, and put our bodies in harm's way to fight it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)