Till KTH:s startsida Till KTH:s startsida

Gruppwebben som samarbetsyta stängs 1 oktober 2026. Då upphör redigeringsmöjligheterna. Du som administratör kan redan nu välja att exportera gruppens innehåll och radera gruppen.

Mer information och instruktioner hittar du i nyheten: Gruppwebben som samarbetsyta stängs 1 oktober 2026.

Homework 9

  • Read Walliman Chapter 4 Research ethics
  • Read Ethical dilemmas from David Resnik: The Ethics of Science
  • For each of the twelve dilemmas:
    • Write down two different action plans (what to do)
    • For each action plan - give one argument to support it, and one argument against it.
  • Reading about utilitarianism and duty ethics in last years lecture notes on ethics will make this task easier!

In seminar 9 you will be paired with another student in the group, and you will be randomly assigned one of the dilemmas and asked to give a short presentation of your action plans and arguments.

Assistant Linda Kann created page 26 November 2015

commented 27 November 2015

The link for me (lecture notes on ethics) doesn't work. I can't see the slides. It's like the link is not broken but there is no content. 

Report abuse
Assistant commented 27 November 2015

Are you using Chrome?

Report abuse
Assistant commented 27 November 2015

I have uploaded the file instead of linking, hope this works better for you (but I am still interested in which browser you were using).

Report abuse
commented 27 November 2015

Yup, I was using Chrome :)

Report abuse
Assistant commented 27 November 2015

OK now?

Report abuse
commented 28 November 2015

Do you really want us to come up with a total of 48 (12 dilemmas * 2 action plans * 2 arguments) different arguments? Isn't that a bit excessive? Also, what do we do if we can't come up with a solid argument against or in favour of a certain action plan? Besides, to me it seems like the arguments for one action plan would tend to simply be the arguments for the other action plan swapped; do we still need to argue against/in favour of both action plans separately, or is it enough to simply present arguments for and against a single action plan in those cases?

Report abuse
Assistant commented 28 November 2015

An action plan does not need to be long, nor does the argument. An example;

      "She should report this to the police ... because it is against the law."

Please write down all the arguments, even if they turn out to be similar - this will make the presentation easier.

The papers handed in so far have been two or three pages long - shorter than homework 8.

Report abuse
commented 28 November 2015

So going by your example, you're saying that our arguments don't actually have to contain any kind of ethical discussion?

Speaking of ethics, what is the "ethical dilemma" supposed to be in "The first author"? To me it just looks like a rather mundane quarrel among colleagues, I don't see what this has to do with ethics.

Regarding explicitly writing down every argument: So you basically want us to write something like the following?

  • Do X, which is good because Y but bad because Z
  • Don't do X, which is good because Z but bad because Y

Also, you didn't answer my question on what to do if we honestly cannot come up with a good argument for a given position (e.g. because the argument in favour of the opposite position is too strong to be countered).

Report abuse
Assistant commented 29 November 2015

Your arguments do have to contain ethical discussion. Try to look at each problem from a utilitarian or duty ethics perspective.

Ethical questions are not necessarily about life and death. The problem in "The first author" may seem mundane to you, but it is still a problem for the people involved. And here it is obvious that the choice is not only between X and not-X.

We have not asked you to come up with an argument that you think is right. You may argue from a position that does not reflect your own personal opinions.

If your work is incomplete then you will have to redo it.

Report abuse
commented 29 November 2015

I take it that your own example, "because it is against the law", would not be an appropriate argument here, then? I mean, I guess you could connect it to e.g. duty ethics, but then (at least in my opinion) you'd have to argue why laws are a good reflection of morals and so on, which seems to not really be the level of discussion you're aiming for with this assignment.

I'm not saying that it can't be an ethical dilemma because it's mundane; I just don't understand where the "ethical" part comes in in the dilemma. The other dilemmas don't deal with "life and death" questions either, but in those it's still easy to see what the ethical dilemma is.

Report abuse
Assistant commented 29 November 2015

We´re aiming for that level of discussion at the seminar! But, as you pointed out before, there are 12 dilemmas, so we will not expect you to produce a full chain of arguments in the written assignment.

In all the dilemmas (including "The first author") you can ask the question What is the right thing to do, and why? This is what ethics is about.

If you got stuck on this dilemma, try googling "first author". There is a lot of discussion about this...

Report abuse
commented 30 November 2015

I'm confused about the "Politics of disease", if 70% of the funds went to white men, and now other groups will get UP TO 30%, that just means they will, at best, get what they're already getting?

Or did that 30% previously go to something else and these groups got nothing? If yes, will these funds just be transferred to the new groups or will the new groups get up to 30% and the something else still gets 30% of funds while white men will get between 40-70%?

So basically, either the policy they want to implement is the one they already use, or there is not enough information? (other than that the most "fair" distribution will now be 40% to white men and 30% to literally everyone else)

Also, a comment on "Sex determination": all sperm carry X chromosomes so the first drug will kill every single sperm, not just female ones

Report abuse
Assistant commented 30 November 2015

Ah, I can see that "Politics of disease" needs some explanation.

The 70% is over the last 30 years, not a snapshot of today's distribution of funds.

Also, the text says 70% of funds "have supported research on white, male populations". You may assume that this means research on diseases prevalent in the entire population (such as heart disease), but that tests and medical trials have been carried out on white males.

When NIH says that it will set aside 30% of funds to "sponsor research on diseases that primarily affect these populations" this means research on diseases like ovarian cancer and sickle-cell anemia.

About "Sex determination": sperm is haploid - it usually only has one sex chomosome, either X or Y. When it combines with an egg cell (which has X) you get XX or XY. So the statement "In mammals, males carry an X and a Y chromosome" refers to the individuals, not the sperm.

Report abuse
One user removed his/her comment
commented 2 December 2015

What was the idea behind having 12 dilemmas? Why not have fewer dilemmas and promote deeper discussion? 

Report abuse
6 persons like the comment
Assistant commented 2 December 2015

We decided that 12 dilemmas would give you enough practice, yet not be too time-consuming.

Is it OK if we discuss your second question at seminar 10 next week?

Report abuse
One person like the comment