Ezra Klein
Vox.com
Originally posted March 9, 2017
Here is the conclusion from the video:
In reality, what I think we’re seeing here is Republicans trying desperately to come up with something that would allow them to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise aimed at fulfilling that promise. But “repeal and replace” is a political slogan, not a policy goal. This is a lot of political pain to endure for a bill that won’t improve many peoples’ lives, but will badly hurt millions.
Read further analysis here and stories of legislative history here.
Monday, March 13, 2017
Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds
Elizabeth Kolbert
The New Yorker
Originally published February 27, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.
Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.
The article is here.
The New Yorker
Originally published February 27, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.
Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.
The article is here.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Ethics Watchdogs Want U.S. Attorney To Investigate Trump's Business Interests
Jim Zarolli
NPR.org
Originally published March 8, 2017
With Congress showing no signs of taking action, a group of ethics watchdogs is turning to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara to look into whether President Trump's many business interests violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Published reports indicate that the Trump Organization and related Trump business entities have been receiving payments from foreign government sources which benefit President Trump through his ownership of the Trump Organization and related business entities," according to a letter sent to Bharara.
(cut)
The Emoluments Clause says that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the U.S. government], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The letter says "there is no question" the clause applies to Trump and that he is violating it, because of the Trump Organization's extensive business operations, many of them tied to foreign governments.
The article is here.
NPR.org
Originally published March 8, 2017
With Congress showing no signs of taking action, a group of ethics watchdogs is turning to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara to look into whether President Trump's many business interests violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Published reports indicate that the Trump Organization and related Trump business entities have been receiving payments from foreign government sources which benefit President Trump through his ownership of the Trump Organization and related business entities," according to a letter sent to Bharara.
(cut)
The Emoluments Clause says that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the U.S. government], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The letter says "there is no question" the clause applies to Trump and that he is violating it, because of the Trump Organization's extensive business operations, many of them tied to foreign governments.
The article is here.
Is the Trump Administration Skirting Its Own Ethics Rules?
The hiring of three former lobbyists to work in the White House raises questions about the president’s executive order on ethics.
Justin Elliott
The Pacific Standard
Originally published on March 7, 2017
The Trump administration appears to be either ignoring or exempting top staffers from its own watered-down ethics rules.
As we have detailed, President Donald Trump in January issued an order weakening Obama-era ethics policies, allowing lobbyists to work at agencies they had sought to influence. The Trump order did limit what lobbyists could do once they entered government, banning them from directly handling issues on which they had lobbied.
But the administration may not be even following that.
We’ve found three hires announced this week who, in fact, are working on the same issues on which they were registered lobbyists while in the private sector.
The article is here.
Justin Elliott
The Pacific Standard
Originally published on March 7, 2017
The Trump administration appears to be either ignoring or exempting top staffers from its own watered-down ethics rules.
As we have detailed, President Donald Trump in January issued an order weakening Obama-era ethics policies, allowing lobbyists to work at agencies they had sought to influence. The Trump order did limit what lobbyists could do once they entered government, banning them from directly handling issues on which they had lobbied.
But the administration may not be even following that.
We’ve found three hires announced this week who, in fact, are working on the same issues on which they were registered lobbyists while in the private sector.
The article is here.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
The Moral and Legal Permissibility of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Mina Henaen
Princeton Journal of Bioethics
Princeton University
Originally posted August 15, 2016
Leaders of research ethics organizations have made placebo-controlled trials illegal whenever placebo groups would not receive currently existing treatment for their ailment, slowing down research for cheaper and more effective treatments. In this essay, I argue that placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) are both morally and legally permissible whenever they provide care that is better than the local standard of care. Contrary to what the anti-PCT often put forth, I argue that researchers conducting PCTs are not exploiting other developing nations, or subjects from these nations, when they conduct their research there. I then show how these researchers are also not especially legally required to provide treatment to their placebo-group subjects. I present some of the benefits of such research to the placebo groups as well and consider the moral impermissibility of making such research illegal.
The article is here.
Princeton Journal of Bioethics
Princeton University
Originally posted August 15, 2016
Leaders of research ethics organizations have made placebo-controlled trials illegal whenever placebo groups would not receive currently existing treatment for their ailment, slowing down research for cheaper and more effective treatments. In this essay, I argue that placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) are both morally and legally permissible whenever they provide care that is better than the local standard of care. Contrary to what the anti-PCT often put forth, I argue that researchers conducting PCTs are not exploiting other developing nations, or subjects from these nations, when they conduct their research there. I then show how these researchers are also not especially legally required to provide treatment to their placebo-group subjects. I present some of the benefits of such research to the placebo groups as well and consider the moral impermissibility of making such research illegal.
The article is here.
Friday, March 10, 2017
Why genetic testing for genes for criminality is morally required
Julian Savulescu
Princeton Journal of Bioethics [2001, 4:79-97]
Abstract
This paper argues for a Principle of Procreative Beneficence, that couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others. If there are a number of different variants of a given gene, then we have most reason to select embryos which have those variants which are associated with the best lives, that is, those lives with the highest levels of well-being. It is possible that in the future some genes are identified which make it more likely that a person will engage in criminal behaviour. If that criminal behaviour makes that person's life go worse (as it plausibly would), and if those genes do not have other good effects in terms of promoting well-being, then we have a strong reason to encourage couples to test their embryos with the most favourable genetic profile. This paper was derived from a talk given as a part of the Decamp Seminar Series at the Princeton University Center for Human Values, October 4, 2000.
The article is here.
Princeton Journal of Bioethics [2001, 4:79-97]
Abstract
This paper argues for a Principle of Procreative Beneficence, that couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others. If there are a number of different variants of a given gene, then we have most reason to select embryos which have those variants which are associated with the best lives, that is, those lives with the highest levels of well-being. It is possible that in the future some genes are identified which make it more likely that a person will engage in criminal behaviour. If that criminal behaviour makes that person's life go worse (as it plausibly would), and if those genes do not have other good effects in terms of promoting well-being, then we have a strong reason to encourage couples to test their embryos with the most favourable genetic profile. This paper was derived from a talk given as a part of the Decamp Seminar Series at the Princeton University Center for Human Values, October 4, 2000.
The article is here.
A Hippocratic Oath for AI Developers?
Benedict Dellot
RSA.org
Originally posted February 13, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The largest tech companies – Apple, Amazon, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Facebook – have already committed to creating new standards to guide the development of artificial intelligence. Likewise, a recent EU Parliament investigation recommended the development of an advisory code for robotic engineers, as well as ‘electronic personhood’ for the most sophisticated robots to ensure their behaviour is captured by legal systems.
Other ideas include regulatory ‘sandboxes’ that would give AI developers more freedom to experiment but under the close supervision of the authorities, and ‘software deposits’ for private code that would allow consumer rights organisations and government inspectors the opportunity to audit algorithms behind closed doors. Darpa recently kicked off a new programme called Explainable AI (XAI), which aims to create machine learning systems that can explain the steps they take to arrive at a decision, as well as unpack the strengths and weaknesses of their conclusions.
There have even been calls to instate a Hippocratic Oath for AI developers. This would have the advantage of going straight to the source of potential issues – the people who write the code – rather than relying on the resources, skills and time of external enforcers. An oath might also help to concentrate the minds of the programming community as a whole in getting to grips with the above dilemmas. Inspiration can be taken from the way the IEEE, a technical professional association in the US, has begun drafting a framework for the ‘ethically aligned design’ of AI.
The article is here.
RSA.org
Originally posted February 13, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The largest tech companies – Apple, Amazon, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Facebook – have already committed to creating new standards to guide the development of artificial intelligence. Likewise, a recent EU Parliament investigation recommended the development of an advisory code for robotic engineers, as well as ‘electronic personhood’ for the most sophisticated robots to ensure their behaviour is captured by legal systems.
Other ideas include regulatory ‘sandboxes’ that would give AI developers more freedom to experiment but under the close supervision of the authorities, and ‘software deposits’ for private code that would allow consumer rights organisations and government inspectors the opportunity to audit algorithms behind closed doors. Darpa recently kicked off a new programme called Explainable AI (XAI), which aims to create machine learning systems that can explain the steps they take to arrive at a decision, as well as unpack the strengths and weaknesses of their conclusions.
There have even been calls to instate a Hippocratic Oath for AI developers. This would have the advantage of going straight to the source of potential issues – the people who write the code – rather than relying on the resources, skills and time of external enforcers. An oath might also help to concentrate the minds of the programming community as a whole in getting to grips with the above dilemmas. Inspiration can be taken from the way the IEEE, a technical professional association in the US, has begun drafting a framework for the ‘ethically aligned design’ of AI.
The article is here.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Florida Doctors May Discuss Guns With Patients, Court Rules
Lizette Alvarez
The New York Times
Originally posted February
Here is an excerpt:
A federal appeals court cleared the way on Thursday for Florida doctors to talk to their patients about gun safety, overturning a 2011 law that pitted medical providers against the state's powerful gun lobby.
In its 10-to-1 ruling, the full panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concluded that doctors could not be threatened with losing their license for asking patients if they owned guns and for discussing gun safety because to do so would violate their free speech.
"Florida does not have carte blanche to restrict the speech of doctors and medical professionals on a certain subject without satisfying the demands of heightened scrutiny," the majority wrote in its decision. In its lawsuit, the medical community argued that questions about gun storage were crucial to public health because of the relationship between firearms and both the suicide rate and the gun-related deaths of children.
A number of doctors and medical organizations sued Florida in a case that came to be known as Docs v. Glocks, after the popular handgun.
The article is here.
The New York Times
Originally posted February
Here is an excerpt:
A federal appeals court cleared the way on Thursday for Florida doctors to talk to their patients about gun safety, overturning a 2011 law that pitted medical providers against the state's powerful gun lobby.
In its 10-to-1 ruling, the full panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit concluded that doctors could not be threatened with losing their license for asking patients if they owned guns and for discussing gun safety because to do so would violate their free speech.
"Florida does not have carte blanche to restrict the speech of doctors and medical professionals on a certain subject without satisfying the demands of heightened scrutiny," the majority wrote in its decision. In its lawsuit, the medical community argued that questions about gun storage were crucial to public health because of the relationship between firearms and both the suicide rate and the gun-related deaths of children.
A number of doctors and medical organizations sued Florida in a case that came to be known as Docs v. Glocks, after the popular handgun.
The article is here.
Why You Should Donate Your Medical Data When You Die
By David Martin Shaw, J. Valérie Gross, Thomas C. Erren
The Conversation on February 16, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
But organs aren’t the only thing that you can donate once you’re dead. What about donating your medical data?
Data might not seem important in the way that organs are. People need organs just to stay alive, or to avoid being on dialysis for several hours a day. But medical data are also very valuable—even if they are not going to save someone’s life immediately. Why? Because medical research cannot take place without medical data, and the sad fact is that most people’s medical data are inaccessible for research once they are dead.
For example, working in shifts can be disruptive to one’s circadian rhythms. This is now thought by some to probably cause cancer. A large cohort study involving tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals could help us to investigate different aspects of shift work, including chronobiology, sleep impairment, cancer biology and premature aging. The results of such research could be very important for cancer prevention. However, any such study could currently be hamstrung by the inability to access and analyze participants’ data after they die.
The article is here.
The Conversation on February 16, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
But organs aren’t the only thing that you can donate once you’re dead. What about donating your medical data?
Data might not seem important in the way that organs are. People need organs just to stay alive, or to avoid being on dialysis for several hours a day. But medical data are also very valuable—even if they are not going to save someone’s life immediately. Why? Because medical research cannot take place without medical data, and the sad fact is that most people’s medical data are inaccessible for research once they are dead.
For example, working in shifts can be disruptive to one’s circadian rhythms. This is now thought by some to probably cause cancer. A large cohort study involving tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals could help us to investigate different aspects of shift work, including chronobiology, sleep impairment, cancer biology and premature aging. The results of such research could be very important for cancer prevention. However, any such study could currently be hamstrung by the inability to access and analyze participants’ data after they die.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)