Back to The North American Bioethics
Home Page
From psuedfeld@cortex.psych.ubc.ca Mon Jan 20 13:39:08 1997
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 97 11:46:00 PST
From: Peter Suedfeld <psuedfeld@cortex.psych.ubc.ca>
To: furedy@psych.utoronto.ca
Subject: Jack's reply transmitted to board
I agree with Jack, and I think that in fact the point should be made more
than once.
Peter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------REPLY FROM: Peter Suedfeld
Return-Path: <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Received: from mail-relay.ubc.ca by cortex.psych.ubc.ca id
<32D805C5@cortex.psych.ubc.ca>; Sat, 11 Jan 97 13:27:33 PST
Received: from psych.utoronto.ca (psych.utoronto.ca [128.100.69.32]) by
mail-relay.ubc.ca (8.7.6/1.14) with SMTP id NAA12446 for
<psuedfeld@cortex.psych.ubc.ca>; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by psych.utoronto.ca via SMTP
(950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI) id QAA19560; Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:21:45
-0500
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:21:45 -0500 (EST)
From: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
To: board <davis@upei.ca>, furedy@psych.utoronto.ca, granatstein
<jlgranat@yorku.ca>, kimura@uwo.ca, Murray Miles
<mmiles@spartan.ac.brocku.ca>, Peter Suedfeld
<psuedfeld@cortex.psych.ubc.ca>, rgruhn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, phil sullivan
<sullivan@utias.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Jack's reply transmitted to board
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.970111160056.18813A-100000@psych.utoronto.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------By the way, Jack says he can't reply to multiple recipients, but I think this can be done by
using r command either in pine or in unix. Can some hacker on the board (or someone on
the board who knows a hacker) resolve this dispute between Jack and me, and let us
know (by replying to multiple recipients)?
Doreen and I should be ready to do the board version by early next week, so those of you
who haven't responsded, please do so. Thanks, John.
John J. Furedy, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and President,
Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (email: safs@psych.utoronto.ca)
Department of Psychology 100 St. George Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
Web: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy
---------- Forwarded message ---------Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "J.L Granatstein" <jlgranat@YorkU.CA>
To: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Mentinoed all over the nets...but not from SAFS (fwd)
John, I agree with the changes you propose in Doreen's letter (yr email of 5 Jan. I would
add one suggestion. These rules are TRI-Council so theyaffect soc sci and humanities. I
know that "scientific standards" can mean much but it can also be misinterpreted to
meanb only experimentalist science. Can I suggest that you say at least once: "meet
international standards in science, social sciences, and the humanities." Just to remind the
ministers that the constituency they are offending is very wide. JLG
J.L. Granatstein (jlgranat@yorku.ca)
53 Marlborough Avenue
Toronto M5R 1X5 Canada
** Please note my new e.mail address **
From mmiles@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA Mon Jan 20 13:39:56 1997
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:56:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Murray Miles <mmiles@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
To: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Cc: board <davis@upei.ca>, granatstein <jlgranat@yorku.ca>, kimura@uwo.ca,
Peter Suedfeld <psuedfeld@cortex.psych.ubc.ca>,
rgruhn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca, phil sullivan <sullivan@utias.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Tri-Council Code
I've now read (and thought) over your correspondence a first time. I'll divide my
comments as John suggests.
1. (a) I agree with John that it would be unwise strategically (whatever the truth of the
matter) to impugn in any way the qualifications of the ctee members. Stick to the
recommendations and leave credentials out of it.
(b) Regarding McDonald's claim about numbers, I agree with John, whom I take to be
saying that this is a red herring. This point is related to the first one: it's not a matter of
who or how many people favour or object to the code's recommendations but the validity
of the arguments on each side. Leave numbers out of it.
2. Reformulations may be premature at this point -- before the rest of the Board have had
their input. I'll be happy to try later.
3. Regarding 'beefing up' the argument, it seems to me that the two 'utilitarian' arguments
made in the draft letter (decline in the quality and international prestige of Canadian
research) sound a little one-sided; they should probably be balanced by some explicit
acknowledgement that the *rights* of subjects in research of this kind *are* a important
consideration from SAFS' perspective, though the specific restrictions being proposed are
not warranted by such considerations. Again, strategically it's probably not a good idea to
slam the ctee members as being "swayed" (John's word) by considerations of PC.
So leave PC out of it as well.
Best,
Murray
_______________________________________________________________
Murray Miles, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy
Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1 CANADA
Office: Schmon Tower, Rm. 1133
Tel.: (905)688-5550 (x 4116) Fax: 688-5550(pause)(pause)4103
Home Tel./Fax: (905)682-3457 (answering machine attached)
E-mail address: mmiles@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA
** Web Site: http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~mmiles/ **
________________________________________________________________
From dkimura@uwovax.uwo.ca Mon Jan 20 13:41:13 1997
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 09:13:27 EDT
From: "D. KIMURA" <dkimura@uwovax.uwo.ca>
To: furedy@psych.utoronto.ca
Subject: ethics response
John, perhaps you could e mail the Board with my version (entire)
and your comments. The only respectable researcher added is Linda Siegel. Cannie Stark
Adamec was also added, god help us, and s'one else from SSHRC whose name I don't
know. I am surprised that you think my tone is sharp, I thought we needed to make an
impression. I'm not sure invoking "international standards" will do it. However, I am
content to let the Board read both and we can come up with some compromise. DK From
furedy@psych.utoronto.ca Mon Jan 20 13:41:28 1997 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:02:30 0500 From: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: response to Doreen's
draft Re: Tri-Council code
I will be away until December 29, 1996. I will respond to all email messages ASAP after
my return. Thanks, John Furedy.
John J. Furedy, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (email:
safs@psych.utoronto.ca)
Department of Psychology
100 St. George Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
From dkimura@uwovax.uwo.ca Mon Jan 20 13:41:53 1997
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 97 14:31:12 EDT
From: "D. KIMURA" <dkimura@uwovax.uwo.ca>
To: furedy@psych.utoronto.ca
Subject: Tri-Council code
I am going to fax you the little bit I could get together on this, to
to the two ministers responsible. I presume this will come from SAFS Board, so perhaps
it should be sent to them for comments. I don't think a long letter at this point will be read
but at least I have suggested that there are negative responses they may not know about
and should read. DK From furedy@psych.utoronto.ca Mon Jan 20 13:43:12 1997
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:18:37 -0500 (EST)
From: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
To: kimura@uwo.ca
Cc: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Subject: note from Jack re tricouncil Re: Mentinoed all over the nets...but not from SAFS
(fwd)
Doreen, for some reason he didn't circulate this to board, but I'm forwarding it to you
because I think he has a good sense to this sort of stuff. In any case, independently of our
disagreements along the Murray Miles-type topics, I think the point about broadening to
science, social science, and humanities is a good one.
John J. Furedy, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and President,
Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (email: safs@psych.utoronto.ca)
Department of Psychology
100 St. George Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
Web: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy
---------- Forwarded message ---------Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 08:39:01 -0500 (EST)
From: "J.L Granatstein" <jlgranat@YorkU.CA>
To: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Mentinoed all over the nets...but not from SAFS (fwd)
John, I agree with the changes you propose in Doreen's letter (yr email of 5 Jan. I would
add one suggestion. These rules are TRI-Council so theyaffect soc sci and humanities. I
know that "scientific standards" can mean much but it can also be misinterpreted to
meanb only experimentalist science. Can I suggest that you say at least once: "meet
international standards in science, social sciences, and the humanities." Just to remind the
ministers that the constituency they are offending is very wide. JLG J.L. Granatstein
(jlgranat@yorku.ca)
53 Marlborough Avenue
Toronto M5R 1X5 Canada
** Please note my new e.mail address **
From furedy@psych.utoronto.ca Mon Jan 20 13:43:32 1997
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:07:58 -0500 (EST)
From: John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
To: "D. KIMURA" <dkimura@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Cc: newsletter safs <safsn@psych.utoronto.ca>,
John Furedy <furedy@psych.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: paper and tricouncil letter (P.S. is for possible use in newsletter).
Doreen, please see replies in caps below
John J. Furedy, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
(email: safs@psych.utoronto.ca)
Department of Psychology
100 St. George Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
Web: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~furedy
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, D. KIMURA wrote:
> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 14:20:02 EDT
> From: "D. KIMURA" <dkimura@uwovax.uwo.ca>
> To: furedy@psych.utoronto.ca
> Subject: paper
>
> I feel like a total slacker, with you and Heinz having finished > your papers. I am on
page 12 but stymied about where to go with > it, i.e., how to end. WHY DON'T YOU
EMAIL ME WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. SOMETHING HELPLFUL MAY OCCUR
TO ME.
I note that you still have a "freezing fear" > there, CAN YOU SAY WHERE? I
THOUGHT CHRIS GOT RID OF ALL OF THEM. ANYWAY, I'LL DO A WORD
SEARCH AS WELL. I AGREE HER QUALIFIERS ARE BETTER, AND ALSO LESS
CONFUSING THAN "CHILLING". THE DISTNCTION BETWEEN CHILLY AND
FREEZING MAY BE OK IN A LOGIC CLASS, BUT WON'T WASH IN THIS
CONTEXT, AS I NOW SEE. hope it gets lost before the final version, stifling fear >
much better. >
On the Ethics thing, I think we must keep in mind that we are > writing to politicians, not
academics, therefore numbers DO count, > and we need to somehow convey that there
has been widespread > disapproval and negative response to this document. perhaps we >
can just say s'thing like "All responses of which we are aware > have been negative,
including that from CAUT". YES I AGREE WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN,
BUT NOT MAKE IT A MAIN POINT. I ALSO AGREE THAT MURRAY'S TAKE IS
RATHER ESOTERIC, BUT THERE IS THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE
ON THE COMMITTEE ARE BETTER PLACED TO REFUTE ANY NUMBERS
ARGUMENT THAN WE ARE. AND DON'T FORGET THAT IF ONE WERE TO DO
A HEAD COUNT, MOST ACTIVE RESARCHERS HAS SAID NOTHING, JUST
LIKE MOST FACULTY HAVE BEEN APATHETIC ABOUT PC ABUSES.
It is naive to > think that politicians will take the high falutin atitude > Murray seems to
think they will. TRUE, EXCEPT IF THE ARGUMENT CAN BE PUT SIMPLY
ENOUGH THAT MY PROVERBIAL INTELLIGENT SHOP ASSISTANT CAN
UNDERSTAND, THEN THAT WILL MOVE POLITICANS ALSO. I DO SEE A
PARALLEL TO TEH WAY IN WHICH THE "EQUITY" POSITION IS NOW
BECOMING UNMASKED AS UNFAIR IN TERMS THAT A 6 YEAR OLD CAN
UNDERSTAND (E.G., THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS INIATIVE VOTE, AND,
TO SOME EXTENT, THE POLLS CATCH-UP BY THE ONTARIO TORIES AS
SOON AS THEY BEGAN TO EXPLICITLY OPPOSE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY.
ANYWAY, LET'S SEE WHAT OTHER BOARD MEMBERS COME UP WITH.
ALL THE BEST, JOHN.
P.S. JUST HAPPENED TO BE READING A PAPER THAT CITED ORWELL'S 1984
(P. 213, TORONTO: REGIOINAL SUANDERS & CVO.,LT, 1949) ON SELF
CENSORSHIP WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS "INCLUDING THE POWER OF NOT
GRASPING ANALOGIES (LINDA SIEGEL?), OF FAILING TO PERCEIVE
LOGICAL ERRORS, OF MISUNDERSTANDING THE SIMPLEST OF
ARGUMENTS" AND, I MIGHT ADD, OF FAILING TO GRASP FUNDAMENTAL
DISTINCTIONS. THIS SEEMS TO NICELY CHARACTERIZE THE CTEE'S
INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF OPERATION. I'M COPYING THIS TO CHRIS, IN
CASE SOME VERSION OF IT CAN BE USED IN THE NEWSLETTER.