Course Syllabus
STS 6674 Ethical Considerations of Science, Technology and Policy
Summer 2003
Tuesdays, 6:30-9:15pm
Instructor: Mark S. Frankel, Ph.D.
Phone: 202.326.6793
Fax: 202.289.4950
Email: mfrankel@aaas.org
Office: 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005
Office Hours: By appointment. Contact me by phone or email to arrange an
appointment, as needed.
Course Description
This course will focus on the ethical dimensions of science and technology in the context
of policy making. Ethics is essentially about doing the “right thing.” Simple in principle,
but much more complicated in the policy environment, where so much can be at stake.
On the one hand, people may not know what the “right thing” to do is in a complex
situation, and will look to whatever guidelines and policies exist to help them. On the
other hand, people know precisely the “right thing” to do, but fail to follow through
because of external influences (e.g., political pressure, promise of financial gain, the rush
to publish first). The course will examine both situations by focusing on specific policy
debates, some of which have been highly visible during the past few years.
The course will begin with an introduction to ethical analysis. Students will be
introduced to various ethical theories and concepts that have been used to interpret and
assess both individual and institutional behavior. Students will be expected to apply this
knowledge to the specific policy debates covered in the course. For each policy debate
examined, students should seek to answer the following questions: What are the values
at stake and the ethical issues in the particular debate? How were they handled by key
participants in the debates? To what extent did ethical considerations shape the
outcomes/policy? What is your assessment of how the ethical issues were
resolved/unresolved? What outcome(s) would you have preferred and why? These will
be the core questions that will frame our class discussions and that should frame your
out-of-class assignments as well.
We will apply those questions (and others) to the policy debates surrounding: research
misconduct, stem cell research, human subjects research in the social and behavioral
sciences, the increasing connection between science and commerce, how the events of
9/11 and broader national security concerns affect the conduct, use, and dissemination of
science, the uses and abuses of anonymity in the context of information technologies, and
how science is used by the courts and the ethics associated with scientists and engineers
serving as an expert witness.
Course Requirements
The course consists of readings, lectures, in-class student presentations, and writing
assignments. A list of required readings for each class session appears below.
I will introduce the topic for each session. After that, students will be asked to make
short presentations (15-20 minutes). There may be more than one student presentation
for each session. A form for listing your session preferences will be handed out at the
first class and due the following week. Prior to each session, I will distribute a list of
questions that will help focus the student presentations, but students are encouraged to
expand the list. Students presenting are expected to consult source materials beyond the
required readings.
During the course, I will distribute “case scenarios” related to some of the topics covered.
I anticipate 3-4 such cases during the term. The week after distribution, students will be
expected to hand in a 3-5 page (double spaced) analysis of the case, and we will begin the
class with a brief discussion of that case.
Final Exam Paper: The assignment is to prepare a paper on a scientific advance or
technology not covered in the course and to map out its social implications, identify the
specific ethical issues it raises, and recommend policy for its (non) development and use.
On August 5, students will present their papers for class discussion and my critique.
Students will then revise their papers and submit a final version to me by August 8. What
will be key to my evaluation of this paper is how well your analysis and documentation
support your recommendations. The paper should be no more than 12 double-spaced
pages plus references.
Grading
50% Class participation. Students will receive a grade for their assigned presentations;
all students will be graded on their general participation.
25% Written analyses of the case scenarios
25% Final exam paper
Session Topics and Required Readings
(Readings are subject to change.)
May 20
Introductions and Course Overview
May 27
Ethical Theory and Concepts
Excerpts from Peter Y. Windt, et al., Ethical Issues in the Professions (NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1989), pp. 9-16, pp. 527-534 (handout)
William Gellermann, Mark S. Frankel, & Robert F. Ladenson, Values and
Ethics in Organization and Human Systems Development: Responding
To Dilemmas in Professional Life (CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990), pp.
61-108 (handout)
Larry R. Churchill, Rationing Health Care in America: Perceptions and
Principles of Justice (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987),
pp.43-69 (handout)
June 3
Scientific Misconduct & Research Integrity
National Academy of Sciences, Responsible Science: Ensuring the
Integrity of the Research Process, Vol. I (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1992), pp. 36-46 (handout)
Frederick Grinell, The Scientific Attitude, 2nd Edition (N.Y.: The Guilford
Press, 1992), pp.153-57 (handout)
Albert H. Teich & Mark S. Frankel, Good Science and Responsible
Scientists (Washington, DC: AAAS, March 1992); (handout)
Howard Schachman, “What is Misconduct in Science?” Science, vol.
261:148-49, July 9,1993 (handout)
Nicholas H. Steneck, “Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded
Research,” Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on
Research Integrity, November 2000;
http://ori.hhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/papers/steneck.pdf
Federal Policy on Research Misconduct;
http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html
Bruce Alberts and Kenneth Shine, “Scientists and the Integrity of
Research,” Science, vol. 266: 1660-1661, December 9, 1994 (handout)
PHS Policy on Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research
(RCR)—Suspended; http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/finalpolicy.asp
Institute of Medicine, Integrity in Scientific Research (2002), Executive
Summary (handout)
June 10
Stem Cell Research
Audrey R. Chapman, Mark S. Frankel, & Michele S. Garfinkel, Stem Cell
Research and Its Applications (Washington, DC: AAAS, November 1999);
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/stem/main.htm
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem
Cell Research (1999), Executive Summary;
http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/execsumm.pdf
National Institutes of Health Policy on Stem Cell Research (2001);
http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/082701list.htm
Institute of Medicine, Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative
Medicine, Executive Summary, 2002;
http://books.nap.edu/html/stem_cells/report.pdf
President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An
Ethical Inquiry (2002), Executive Summary;
http://www.bioethics.gov/cloningreport/execsummary.html
U.S. Department of Justice position on human cloning, May 15, 2002
(handout)
California Senate Bill No. 253, Stem Cells, Human Tissue, Research
(2002) (handout)
George J. Annas, “Cloning and the U.S. Congress,” New England Journal
of Medicine 346: 1599-1602, May 16, 2002 (handout)
Janet D. Rowley, et al., “Harmful Moratorium on Stem Cell Research,”
Science 297: 1957, September 20, 2002 (handout)
June 17
Human Subjects Research
The Belmont Report (1978);
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
Common Rule;
http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
American Association of University Professors, “Protecting Human
Beings: Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research” 2001;
http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/repirb.htm
C.K. Gunsalus, “Rethinking Protections for Human Subjects,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 2002 (handout)
NHRPAC Social & Behavioral Science Working Group, “Draft
Recommendations Regarding Risk and Harm”;
http://www.asanet.org/public/humanresearch/riskharm.html
Mark S. Frankel & Sanyin Siang, Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human
Subjects Research on the Internet, November 1999;
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/intres/report.pdf
June 24
Science & Commerce I
Michael S. Pritchard, “Conflicts of Interest: Conceptual and Normative
Issues,” Academic Medicine, vol. 71:1305-1313, December 1996
(handout)
Mark S. Frankel, “Perception, Reality, and the Political Context of
Conflict of Interest in University-Industry Relationships,” Academic
Medicine, vol. 71: 1297-1304, December 1996 (handout)
Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn, “The Kept University,” The Atlantic
Monthly, March 2000;
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/03/press.htm
Kenneth J. Rothman, “Conflict of Interest: The New McCarthyism in
Science,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 269:
2782-2784, June 2, 1993 (handout)
July 1
Science & Commerce II
Public Health Service, “Objectivity in Science,” (1995);
http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not95-179.html
Association of American Universities, Report on Individual and
Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest (October 2001);
http://www.aau.edu/research/COI.01.pdf
Association of American Medical Colleges, Protecting Subjects,
Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress (December 2001);
http://www.aamc.org/members/coitf/firstreport.pdf
Association of American Medical Colleges, Protecting Subjects,
Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress II (October 2002);
http://www.aamc.org/members/coitf/2002coireport.pdf
July 8
Science and National Security I
Harold C. Relyea (ed.), Striking a Balance: National Security and
Scientific Freedom, First Discussions (Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science, May 1985), pp. 1-5, 29-46,
51-55, 68-74 (handout)
“On Balancing Openness and Secrecy At U.S. Weapons Laboratories,”
U.S. National Academies, November 19, 1999 (handout)
Committee on Science & Technology for Countering Terrorism, Making
the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Countering
Terrorism (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002), pp. 25-38
(handout)
“On Scientific Openness and National Security,” U.S. National
Academies, May 21, 1999 (handout)
“The Universality of Science and Freedom in the Conduct of Research,”
AAAS Board of Directors, June 25, 1999;
http://www.aaas.org/spp/scifree/resolution.shtml
“Current Visa Restrictions Interfere with U.S. Science and Engineering
Contributions to Important National Needs,” U.S. National Academies,
December 13, 2002 (handout)
July 15
Science and National Security II
Faith McLellan, “Academic Freedom or Speaking with the Enemy,” The
Lancet, 360: 731, September 7, 2002 (handout)
H. Res. 514, U.S. House of Representatives, July 26, 2002;
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/hres514.html
Raymond A. Zilinskas & Jonathan B. Tucker, “Limiting the Contribution
of the Open Scientific Literature to the Biological Weapons Threat,”
Journal of Homeland Security, December 2002;
http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/tucker.html
“Statement on Scientific Publication and Security,” February 2003;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/299/5610/1149
Statement from Bruce Alberts, Wm. A. Wulf, and Kenneth I. Shine, U.S.
National Academies, October 29, 2001 (handout)
The White House, National Security Decision Directive 189, “National
Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering
Information,” September 21, 1985 (handout)
Mitchel B. Wallerstein, “Science in an Age of Terrorism,” Science, 297:
2169, September 27, 2002;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/297/5590/2169.pdf
William Matthews, “OMB Weighs Info Classification,” FCWCOM,
September 16, 2002; http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/0916/newsomb-09-16-02.asp
“Science and Security in an Age of Terrorism,” U.S. National Academies,
October 18, 2002 (handout)
July 22
Information Technology
John C. Dvorak, “Pros and Cons of Anonymity,” PC Magazine, December
30, 2002; http://www.pcmag.com/print_article/0,3048,a=35187,00.asp
Helen Nissenbaum, “The Meaning of Anonymity in an Information Age,”
The Information Society, 15: 141-144, April-June 1999 (handout)
John Markoff, “Pentagon Plans a Computer System that Would Peak at
Personal Data of Americans,” The New York Times, November 9, 2002
(handout)
John Markoff, “Agency Weighed, but Discarded, Plan Reconfiguring the
Internet,” The New York Times, November 22, 2002 (handout)
“AOL loses Internet Privacy Ruling,” Reuters/MSNBC News, November
4, 2002 (handout)
Rob Kling, et al., “Assessing Anonymous Communications on the
Internet: Policy Deliberations,” The Information Society, 14: 79-90,
April-June 1999; http://www.slis.Indiana.edu/TIS/readers/full-text/152%20kling.pdf
July 29
Science in the Legal System
Stephen G. Breyer, “The Interdependence of Science and Law,” 1998;
http://www.aaas.org/meetings/1998/breyer98.htm
Margaret A. Berger, “Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules,”
Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2000;
http://www.nap.edu/issues/16.4/berger.htm
John Hardwig,” Toward an Ethics of Expertise,” in Daniel E. Wuesta
(ed.), Professional Ethics and Social Responsibility (Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1994), pp.83-101 (handout)
William W. Schwarzer, “Ethics and the Expert Witness,” Shepard’s
Expert and Scientific Evidence, vol. 2 (3): 587-592, Winter 1995
(handout)
Mark S. Frankel, “Ethics and the Forensic Sciences: Professional
Autonomy in the Criminal Justice System,” Journal of Forensic Sciences,
vol. 34 (3): 763-771, May 1989 (handout)
Anthony Champagne, et al., “Are Court-Appointed Experts the Solution to
the Problems of Expert Testimony?” Judicature, vol. 84 (4): 178-183,
January-February 2001(handout)
Ned Miltenberg, “Myths About ‘Neutral’ Scientific Experts,” TRIAL,
January 2000 (handout)
August 5
Presentation and Discussion of Final Exam Papers