Bill Allison
The World Daily
Originally published April 29, 2017
The federal ethics agency is reviewing every waiver of conflict-of-interest rules that President Donald Trump’s appointees have received.
A memorandum from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics seeks documentation of waivers granted to appointees ordinarily required to recuse themselves from matters in which they or family members have a financial interest.
Issued by the agency’s director, Walter Shaub, it specifies that all agencies and appointees, “including White House officials,” must comply with the notice, which covers appointees in the administrations of Trump and Barack Obama.
The article is here.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Ethics office says it wasn’t consulted about Ivanka Trump job
CNN Wire
Originally published May 2, 2017
The White House brought Ivanka Trump on as an adviser without consulting the Office of Government Ethics, the ethics office says.
The New York Times and Politico reported March 20 that the president’s older daughter was working out of a West Wing office. A White House official told CNN that she would get a security clearance but would not be considered a government employee.
The next day, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer assured reporters that Ivanka Trump would follow the ethics restrictions that apply to federal employees. He said she was acting “in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics.”
But the ethics office, in a letter made public Monday, said it was not consulted. Director Walter Shaub said he reached out to the White House and to Ivanka Trump’s lawyer on March 24 to tell them that Ivanka Trump should be considered a federal employee, subject to those rules.
Teaching Ethics Should Be a STEM Essential
Ann Jolly
Middle Web
Originally posted October 11, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Do you have ethics built into your STEM curriculum? What does that look like? For a start I’m envisioning kids in their teams debating solutions to problems, looking at possible consequences of those solutions, and examining the trade-offs they’d have to make.
Some types of real-world problems lend themselves readily to ethical deliberations. Proposed environmental solutions for cleaner air, for example, resulted in push-back from some industries that faced investing more money in equipment, and even from some citizens who feared a rise in price for the products these industries produce. So how do you lead your students through a productive discussion of these issues?
In my search for answers to that question I located a free Ethics Primer from the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research (downloadable as a PDF). This publication strongly recommends that the study of ethics begin through exploring a case study or a scenario.
A STEM lesson provides a perfect kickoff for an ethics discussion, since a scenario generally accompanies the real-world problem kids are trying to solve. From there, ethics principles and practices can be built naturally into the lesson.
The article is here.
Middle Web
Originally posted October 11, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Do you have ethics built into your STEM curriculum? What does that look like? For a start I’m envisioning kids in their teams debating solutions to problems, looking at possible consequences of those solutions, and examining the trade-offs they’d have to make.
Some types of real-world problems lend themselves readily to ethical deliberations. Proposed environmental solutions for cleaner air, for example, resulted in push-back from some industries that faced investing more money in equipment, and even from some citizens who feared a rise in price for the products these industries produce. So how do you lead your students through a productive discussion of these issues?
In my search for answers to that question I located a free Ethics Primer from the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research (downloadable as a PDF). This publication strongly recommends that the study of ethics begin through exploring a case study or a scenario.
A STEM lesson provides a perfect kickoff for an ethics discussion, since a scenario generally accompanies the real-world problem kids are trying to solve. From there, ethics principles and practices can be built naturally into the lesson.
The article is here.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Ethics office details conflict of interest rules for Ivanka Trump
Olivia Beavers
The Hill
Originally posted May 1, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Shaub said the ethics rules prevent top White House appointees “from participating personally and substantially in particular matters directly and predictably affecting their financial interests.” They typically do so by recusing themselves from “particular issues that would affect the appointee's personal and imputed financial interests.”
The ethics office plans to review Ivanka Trump’s disclosures after they are filed.
“After the report is revised, OGE seeks information about how the White House is addressing any potential conflicts of interest identified during the review process,” Shaub continued. “OGE then makes a determination regarding apparent compliance with financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules and either certifies or declines to certify the financial disclosure report.”
The article is here.
The Hill
Originally posted May 1, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Shaub said the ethics rules prevent top White House appointees “from participating personally and substantially in particular matters directly and predictably affecting their financial interests.” They typically do so by recusing themselves from “particular issues that would affect the appointee's personal and imputed financial interests.”
The ethics office plans to review Ivanka Trump’s disclosures after they are filed.
“After the report is revised, OGE seeks information about how the White House is addressing any potential conflicts of interest identified during the review process,” Shaub continued. “OGE then makes a determination regarding apparent compliance with financial disclosure and conflict of interest rules and either certifies or declines to certify the financial disclosure report.”
The article is here.
AI Learning Racism, Sexism and Other Prejudices from Humans
Ian Johnston
The Independent
Originally published April 13, 2017
Artificially intelligent robots and devices are being taught to be racist, sexist and otherwise prejudiced by learning from humans, according to new research.
A massive study of millions of words online looked at how closely different terms were to each other in the text – the same way that automatic translators use “machine learning” to establish what language means.
Some of the results were stunning.
(cut)
“We have demonstrated that word embeddings encode not only stereotyped biases but also other knowledge, such as the visceral pleasantness of flowers or the gender distribution of occupations,” the researchers wrote.
The study also implies that humans may develop prejudices partly because of the language they speak.
“Our work suggests that behaviour can be driven by cultural history embedded in a term’s historic use. Such histories can evidently vary between languages,” the paper said.
The article is here.
The Independent
Originally published April 13, 2017
Artificially intelligent robots and devices are being taught to be racist, sexist and otherwise prejudiced by learning from humans, according to new research.
A massive study of millions of words online looked at how closely different terms were to each other in the text – the same way that automatic translators use “machine learning” to establish what language means.
Some of the results were stunning.
(cut)
“We have demonstrated that word embeddings encode not only stereotyped biases but also other knowledge, such as the visceral pleasantness of flowers or the gender distribution of occupations,” the researchers wrote.
The study also implies that humans may develop prejudices partly because of the language they speak.
“Our work suggests that behaviour can be driven by cultural history embedded in a term’s historic use. Such histories can evidently vary between languages,” the paper said.
The article is here.
Would You Become An Immortal Machine?
Marcelo Gleiser
npr.org
Originally posted March 27, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
"A man is a god in ruins," wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson. This quote, which O'Connell places at the book's opening page, captures the essence of the quest. If man is a failed god, there may be a way to fix this. Since "The Fall," we "lost" our god-like immortality, and have been looking for ways to regain it. Can science do this? Is mortality merely a scientific question? Suppose that it is — and that we can fix it, as we can a headache. Would you pay the price by transferring your "essence" to a non-human entity that will hold it, be it silicone or some kind of artificial robot? Can you be you when you don't have your body? Are you really just transferrable information?
As O'Connell meets an extraordinary group of people, from serious scientists and philosophers to wackos, he keeps asking himself this question, knowing fully well his answer: Absolutely not! What makes us human is precisely our fallibility, our connection to our bodies, the existential threat of death. Remove that and we are a huge question mark, something we can't even contemplate. No thanks, says O'Connell, in a deliciously satiric style, at once lyrical, informative, and captivating.
The article is here.
npr.org
Originally posted March 27, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
"A man is a god in ruins," wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson. This quote, which O'Connell places at the book's opening page, captures the essence of the quest. If man is a failed god, there may be a way to fix this. Since "The Fall," we "lost" our god-like immortality, and have been looking for ways to regain it. Can science do this? Is mortality merely a scientific question? Suppose that it is — and that we can fix it, as we can a headache. Would you pay the price by transferring your "essence" to a non-human entity that will hold it, be it silicone or some kind of artificial robot? Can you be you when you don't have your body? Are you really just transferrable information?
As O'Connell meets an extraordinary group of people, from serious scientists and philosophers to wackos, he keeps asking himself this question, knowing fully well his answer: Absolutely not! What makes us human is precisely our fallibility, our connection to our bodies, the existential threat of death. Remove that and we are a huge question mark, something we can't even contemplate. No thanks, says O'Connell, in a deliciously satiric style, at once lyrical, informative, and captivating.
The article is here.
Monday, May 1, 2017
Is Healthcare a Right? A Privilege? Something Entirely Different?
Brian Joondeph
The Health Care Blog
Originally published April 8, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Most developed countries have parallel public and private healthcare systems. A public option covering everyone, with minimal or no out-of-pocket expense to patients, but with long wait times for care and limited treatment options. And a private option allowing individuals to purchase the healthcare or insurance they want and need, paying for it themselves, without subsidies, tax breaks or any government assistance. One option a right, the other a privilege.
For an analogy, think of K-12 schools. A public option available without cost to students. For most, a good and more than adequate education. And a free-market private school option for those who desire and have the means. Shop around, pay as much as you want, or default to the public option.
Each system has its pros and cons, but they are separate and distinct. Instead we are trying to combine both into a single scheme — Obamacare, Ryancare or whatever finally emerges from Congress. We get the worst of both systems – bureaucracy and high cost. And the best of neither – no universal coverage and limited freedom of choice.
The blog post is here.
The Health Care Blog
Originally published April 8, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Most developed countries have parallel public and private healthcare systems. A public option covering everyone, with minimal or no out-of-pocket expense to patients, but with long wait times for care and limited treatment options. And a private option allowing individuals to purchase the healthcare or insurance they want and need, paying for it themselves, without subsidies, tax breaks or any government assistance. One option a right, the other a privilege.
For an analogy, think of K-12 schools. A public option available without cost to students. For most, a good and more than adequate education. And a free-market private school option for those who desire and have the means. Shop around, pay as much as you want, or default to the public option.
Each system has its pros and cons, but they are separate and distinct. Instead we are trying to combine both into a single scheme — Obamacare, Ryancare or whatever finally emerges from Congress. We get the worst of both systems – bureaucracy and high cost. And the best of neither – no universal coverage and limited freedom of choice.
The blog post is here.
Are Moral Judgments Good or Bad Things?
Robb Willer & Brent Simpson
Scientific American
Originally published April 10, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Beyond the harms, there is also hypocrisy. It is not uncommon to discover that those who make moral judgments—public evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of others’ behavior—do not themselves conform to the moral norms they eagerly enforce. Think, for instance, of politicians or religious leaders who oppose gay rights but are later discovered soliciting sex from other men. These examples and others seem to make it clear: moral judgments are antisocial, a bug in the code of society.
But recent research challenges this view, suggesting that moral judgments are a critical part of the social fabric, a force that encourages people to consider the welfare of others. Our work, and that of others, implies that—while sometimes disadvantageous—moral judgments have important, positive effects for individuals and the groups they inhabit.
(cut)
To summarize, we find that moral judgments of unethical behavior are generally viewed as a legitimate means for maintaining group-beneficial norms of conduct. Those who use them are generally seen as moral and trustworthy, and individuals typically act more morally after communicating judgments of others.
The article is here.
Scientific American
Originally published April 10, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
Beyond the harms, there is also hypocrisy. It is not uncommon to discover that those who make moral judgments—public evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of others’ behavior—do not themselves conform to the moral norms they eagerly enforce. Think, for instance, of politicians or religious leaders who oppose gay rights but are later discovered soliciting sex from other men. These examples and others seem to make it clear: moral judgments are antisocial, a bug in the code of society.
But recent research challenges this view, suggesting that moral judgments are a critical part of the social fabric, a force that encourages people to consider the welfare of others. Our work, and that of others, implies that—while sometimes disadvantageous—moral judgments have important, positive effects for individuals and the groups they inhabit.
(cut)
To summarize, we find that moral judgments of unethical behavior are generally viewed as a legitimate means for maintaining group-beneficial norms of conduct. Those who use them are generally seen as moral and trustworthy, and individuals typically act more morally after communicating judgments of others.
The article is here.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Why Expertise Matters
Adam Frank
npr.org
Originally posted on April 7, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The attack on expertise was given its most visceral form by British politician Michael Gove during the Brexit campaign last year when he famously claimed, "people in this country have had enough of experts." The same kinds of issues, however, are also at stake here in the U.S. in our discussions about "alternative facts," "fake news" and "denial" of various kinds. That issue can be put as a simple question: When does one opinion count more than another?
By definition, an expert is someone whose learning and experience lets them understand a subject deeper than you or I do (assuming we're not an expert in that subject, too). The weird thing about having to write this essay at all is this: Who would have a problem with that? Doesn't everyone want their brain surgery done by an expert surgeon rather than the guy who fixes their brakes? On the other hand, doesn't everyone want their brakes fixed by an expert auto mechanic rather than a brain surgeon who has never fixed a flat?
Every day, all of us entrust our lives to experts from airline pilots to pharmacists. Yet, somehow, we've come to a point where people can put their ignorance on a subject of national importance on display for all to see — and then call it a virtue.
Here at 13.7, we've seen this phenomenon many times. When we had a section for comments, it would quickly fill up with statements like "the climate is always changing" or "CO2 is a trace gas so it doesn't matter" when we a posted pieces on the science of climate change.
The article is here.
npr.org
Originally posted on April 7, 2017
Here is an excerpt:
The attack on expertise was given its most visceral form by British politician Michael Gove during the Brexit campaign last year when he famously claimed, "people in this country have had enough of experts." The same kinds of issues, however, are also at stake here in the U.S. in our discussions about "alternative facts," "fake news" and "denial" of various kinds. That issue can be put as a simple question: When does one opinion count more than another?
By definition, an expert is someone whose learning and experience lets them understand a subject deeper than you or I do (assuming we're not an expert in that subject, too). The weird thing about having to write this essay at all is this: Who would have a problem with that? Doesn't everyone want their brain surgery done by an expert surgeon rather than the guy who fixes their brakes? On the other hand, doesn't everyone want their brakes fixed by an expert auto mechanic rather than a brain surgeon who has never fixed a flat?
Every day, all of us entrust our lives to experts from airline pilots to pharmacists. Yet, somehow, we've come to a point where people can put their ignorance on a subject of national importance on display for all to see — and then call it a virtue.
Here at 13.7, we've seen this phenomenon many times. When we had a section for comments, it would quickly fill up with statements like "the climate is always changing" or "CO2 is a trace gas so it doesn't matter" when we a posted pieces on the science of climate change.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)