Katherine Mangan
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally posted January 7, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
The Oregon university’s institutional review board concluded that Boghossian’s participation in the elaborate hoax had violated Portland State’s ethical guidelines, according to documents Boghossian posted online. The university is considering a further charge that he had falsified data, the documents indicate.
Last month Portland State’s vice president for research and graduate studies, Mark R. McLellan, ordered Boghossian to undergo training on human-subjects research as a condition for getting further studies approved. In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian’s behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."
Boghossian and his supporters have gone on the offensive with an online press kit that links to emails from Portland State administrators. It also includes a video filmed by a documentary filmmaker that shows Boghossian reading an email that asks him to appear before the institutional review board in October. In the video, Boghossian discusses the implications of potentially being found responsible for professional misconduct. He’s speaking with his co-authors, Helen Pluckrose, a self-described "exile from the humanities" who studies medieval religious writings about women, and James A. Lindsay, an author and mathematician.
The info is here.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Kaiser settled 2014 patient-dumping class-action suit earlier this year
Michael McCough
The Sacramento Bee
Originally posted December 20, 2018
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan recently settled a 2014 class-action lawsuit stemming from two allegations that it dumped patients with severe mental illness.
Plaintiffs Douglas Kerr and Barbara Knighton alleged that in separate incidents, Kaiser psychiatrists told them their sons needed to be transferred to locked residential facilities called IMDs (institutions for mental disease) for treatment, according to court documents. Knighton and Kerr claimed they were both told they should remove their children from their Kaiser health plans in 2014 to be transferred to these county-run institutions — a change that shifted the costs of treatment from Kaiser to government-funded programs such as Medi-Cal.
Despite the settlement, Kaiser said in a statement it continues to dispute some of the claims included in the lawsuit.
“In certain relatively rare cases, Kaiser Permanente members entered a specialized type of locked mental health facility that often preferred Medi-Cal coverage to private insurance,” Kaiser Vice President of Communications John Nelson said in an emailed statement. “In some of these cases, cancellation of Kaiser Permanente coverage was required to enter the facility. However, this was not Kaiser Permanente’s requirement, and we cover many members’ care at such facilities. Any decision to cancel coverage was made by a court-appointed conservator.”
The info is here.
The Sacramento Bee
Originally posted December 20, 2018
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan recently settled a 2014 class-action lawsuit stemming from two allegations that it dumped patients with severe mental illness.
Plaintiffs Douglas Kerr and Barbara Knighton alleged that in separate incidents, Kaiser psychiatrists told them their sons needed to be transferred to locked residential facilities called IMDs (institutions for mental disease) for treatment, according to court documents. Knighton and Kerr claimed they were both told they should remove their children from their Kaiser health plans in 2014 to be transferred to these county-run institutions — a change that shifted the costs of treatment from Kaiser to government-funded programs such as Medi-Cal.
Despite the settlement, Kaiser said in a statement it continues to dispute some of the claims included in the lawsuit.
“In certain relatively rare cases, Kaiser Permanente members entered a specialized type of locked mental health facility that often preferred Medi-Cal coverage to private insurance,” Kaiser Vice President of Communications John Nelson said in an emailed statement. “In some of these cases, cancellation of Kaiser Permanente coverage was required to enter the facility. However, this was not Kaiser Permanente’s requirement, and we cover many members’ care at such facilities. Any decision to cancel coverage was made by a court-appointed conservator.”
The info is here.
Monday, January 21, 2019
Do Recruiters Need a Code of Ethics?
Steve Bates
Society for Human Resource Management
Originally posted January 9, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Most recruiters behave ethically, knowing that their reputation and their company's brand are on the line, said Joe Shaker Jr., president of Oak Park, Ill.-based Shaker Recruitment Marketing. "They're selling the organization."
But for some external recruiters attempting to beat their competitors, "there's a tremendous temptation to be unethical," said Kevin Wheeler, founder and president of the Future of Talent Institute, a think tank in Fremont, Calif.
"You'll hear about the good, the bad and the ugly," said Wanda Parker, president of The HealthField Alliance, a physician recruiting and consulting firm in Danbury, Conn. She is also president of the National Association of Physician Recruiters (NAPR), which is based in Altamonte Springs, Fla. "There are some recruiters who cut all kinds of corners and will do whatever they can to make a buck."
"It's very much like the Wild West," said Fred Coon, founder, chairman and CEO of Stewart, Cooper & Coon, a human capital strategies firm based in Phoenix. "It's a free-for-all."
The info is here.
Society for Human Resource Management
Originally posted January 9, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Most recruiters behave ethically, knowing that their reputation and their company's brand are on the line, said Joe Shaker Jr., president of Oak Park, Ill.-based Shaker Recruitment Marketing. "They're selling the organization."
But for some external recruiters attempting to beat their competitors, "there's a tremendous temptation to be unethical," said Kevin Wheeler, founder and president of the Future of Talent Institute, a think tank in Fremont, Calif.
"You'll hear about the good, the bad and the ugly," said Wanda Parker, president of The HealthField Alliance, a physician recruiting and consulting firm in Danbury, Conn. She is also president of the National Association of Physician Recruiters (NAPR), which is based in Altamonte Springs, Fla. "There are some recruiters who cut all kinds of corners and will do whatever they can to make a buck."
"It's very much like the Wild West," said Fred Coon, founder, chairman and CEO of Stewart, Cooper & Coon, a human capital strategies firm based in Phoenix. "It's a free-for-all."
The info is here.
The fallacy of obviousness
Teppo Felin
aeon.co
Originally posted July 5, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The alternative interpretation says that what people are looking for – rather than what people are merely looking at – determines what is obvious. Obviousness is not self-evident. Or as Sherlock Holmes said: ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ This isn’t an argument against facts or for ‘alternative facts’, or anything of the sort. It’s an argument about what qualifies as obvious, why and how. See, obviousness depends on what is deemed to be relevant for a particular question or task at hand. Rather than passively accounting for or recording everything directly in front of us, humans – and other organisms for that matter – instead actively look for things. The implication (contrary to psychophysics) is that mind-to-world processes drive perception rather than world-to-mind processes. The gorilla experiment itself can be reinterpreted to support this view of perception, showing that what we see depends on our expectations and questions – what we are looking for, what question we are trying to answer.
At first glance that might seem like a rather mundane interpretation, particularly when compared with the startling claim that humans are ‘blind to the obvious’. But it’s more radical than it might seem. This interpretation of the gorilla experiment puts humans centre-stage in perception, rather than relegating them to passively recording their surroundings and environments. It says that what we see is not so much a function of what is directly in front of us (Kahneman’s natural assessments), or what one is in camera-like fashion recording or passively looking at, but rather determined by what we have in our minds, for example, by the questions we have in mind. People miss the gorilla not because they are blind, but because they were prompted – in this case, by the scientists themselves – to pay attention to something else. The question – ‘How many basketball passes’ (just like any question: ‘Where are my keys?’) – primes us to see certain aspects of a visual scene, at the expense of any number of other things.
The info is here.
aeon.co
Originally posted July 5, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The alternative interpretation says that what people are looking for – rather than what people are merely looking at – determines what is obvious. Obviousness is not self-evident. Or as Sherlock Holmes said: ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ This isn’t an argument against facts or for ‘alternative facts’, or anything of the sort. It’s an argument about what qualifies as obvious, why and how. See, obviousness depends on what is deemed to be relevant for a particular question or task at hand. Rather than passively accounting for or recording everything directly in front of us, humans – and other organisms for that matter – instead actively look for things. The implication (contrary to psychophysics) is that mind-to-world processes drive perception rather than world-to-mind processes. The gorilla experiment itself can be reinterpreted to support this view of perception, showing that what we see depends on our expectations and questions – what we are looking for, what question we are trying to answer.
At first glance that might seem like a rather mundane interpretation, particularly when compared with the startling claim that humans are ‘blind to the obvious’. But it’s more radical than it might seem. This interpretation of the gorilla experiment puts humans centre-stage in perception, rather than relegating them to passively recording their surroundings and environments. It says that what we see is not so much a function of what is directly in front of us (Kahneman’s natural assessments), or what one is in camera-like fashion recording or passively looking at, but rather determined by what we have in our minds, for example, by the questions we have in mind. People miss the gorilla not because they are blind, but because they were prompted – in this case, by the scientists themselves – to pay attention to something else. The question – ‘How many basketball passes’ (just like any question: ‘Where are my keys?’) – primes us to see certain aspects of a visual scene, at the expense of any number of other things.
The info is here.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
The Ethics of Paternalism
Ingrid M. Paulin, Jenna Clark, & Julie O'Brien
Scientific American
Originally published on December 21, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Choosing what to do and which approach to take requires making a decision about paternalism, or influencing someone’s behavior for their own good. Every time someone designs policies, products or services, they make a decision about paternalism, whether they are aware of it or not. They will inevitably influence how people behave; there's no such thing as a neutral choice.
Arguments about paternalism have traditionally focused on the extreme ends of the spectrum; you either let people have complete autonomy, or you completely restrict undesirable behaviors. In reality, however, there are many options in between, and there are few guidelines about how one should navigate the complex moral landscape of influence to decide which approach is justified in a given situation.
Traditional economists may argue for more autonomy on the grounds that people will always behave in line with their own best interest. In their view, people have stable preferences and are always weighing the costs and benefits of every option before making decisions. Because they know their preferences better than do others, they should be able to act autonomously to maximize their own positive outcomes.
The info is here.
Scientific American
Originally published on December 21, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Choosing what to do and which approach to take requires making a decision about paternalism, or influencing someone’s behavior for their own good. Every time someone designs policies, products or services, they make a decision about paternalism, whether they are aware of it or not. They will inevitably influence how people behave; there's no such thing as a neutral choice.
Arguments about paternalism have traditionally focused on the extreme ends of the spectrum; you either let people have complete autonomy, or you completely restrict undesirable behaviors. In reality, however, there are many options in between, and there are few guidelines about how one should navigate the complex moral landscape of influence to decide which approach is justified in a given situation.
Traditional economists may argue for more autonomy on the grounds that people will always behave in line with their own best interest. In their view, people have stable preferences and are always weighing the costs and benefits of every option before making decisions. Because they know their preferences better than do others, they should be able to act autonomously to maximize their own positive outcomes.
The info is here.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
There Is No Such Thing as Conscious Thought
Steve Ayan
Scientific American
Originally posted December 20, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
What makes you think conscious thought is an illusion?
I believe that the whole idea of conscious thought is an error. I came to this conclusion by following out the implications of the two of the main theories of consciousness. The first is what is called the Global Workspace Theory, which is associated with neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Bernard Baars. Their theory states that to be considered conscious a mental state must be among the contents of working memory (the “user interface” of our minds) and thereby be available to other mental functions, such as decision-making and verbalization. Accordingly, conscious states are those that are “globally broadcast,” so to speak. The alternative view, proposed by Michael Graziano, David Rosenthal and others, holds that conscious mental states are simply those that you know of, that you are directly aware of in a way that doesn’t require you to interpret yourself. You do not have to read you own mind to know of them. Now, whichever view you adopt, it turns out that thoughts such as decisions and judgments should not be considered to be conscious. They are not accessible in working memory, nor are we directly aware of them. We merely have what I call “the illusion of immediacy”—the false impression that we know our thoughts directly.
The info is here.
Here is a link to Keith Frankish's chapter on the Illusion of Consciousness.
Scientific American
Originally posted December 20, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
What makes you think conscious thought is an illusion?
I believe that the whole idea of conscious thought is an error. I came to this conclusion by following out the implications of the two of the main theories of consciousness. The first is what is called the Global Workspace Theory, which is associated with neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Bernard Baars. Their theory states that to be considered conscious a mental state must be among the contents of working memory (the “user interface” of our minds) and thereby be available to other mental functions, such as decision-making and verbalization. Accordingly, conscious states are those that are “globally broadcast,” so to speak. The alternative view, proposed by Michael Graziano, David Rosenthal and others, holds that conscious mental states are simply those that you know of, that you are directly aware of in a way that doesn’t require you to interpret yourself. You do not have to read you own mind to know of them. Now, whichever view you adopt, it turns out that thoughts such as decisions and judgments should not be considered to be conscious. They are not accessible in working memory, nor are we directly aware of them. We merely have what I call “the illusion of immediacy”—the false impression that we know our thoughts directly.
The info is here.
Here is a link to Keith Frankish's chapter on the Illusion of Consciousness.
Friday, January 18, 2019
House Democrats Look to Crack Down on Feds With Conflicts of Interest, Ethics Violations
Eric Katz
Government Executive
Originally posted January 3, 2018
Federal employees who pass through the revolving door with the private sector and engage in other actions that could present conflicts of interest would come under intensified scrutiny in a slew of reforms House Democrats introduced on Friday aimed at boosting ethics oversight in government.
The new House majority put forward the For the People Act (H.R. 1) as its first legislative priority, after the more immediate concern of reopening the full government. The package involves an array of issues House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said were critical to “restoring integrity in government,” such as voting rights access and campaign finance changes. It would also place new restrictions on federal workers before, during and after their government service, with special obligations for senior officials and the president.
“Over the last two years President Trump set the tone from the top of his administration that behaving ethically and complying with the law is optional,” said newly minted House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. “That is why we are introducing the For the People Act. This bill contains a number of reforms that will strengthen our accountability for the executive branch officials, including the president.”
All federal employees would face a ban on using their official positions to participate in matters related to their former employers. Violators would face fines and one-to-five years in prison. Agency heads, in consultation with the director of the Office of Government Ethics, could issue waivers if it were deemed in the public interest.
The info is here.
Government Executive
Originally posted January 3, 2018
Federal employees who pass through the revolving door with the private sector and engage in other actions that could present conflicts of interest would come under intensified scrutiny in a slew of reforms House Democrats introduced on Friday aimed at boosting ethics oversight in government.
The new House majority put forward the For the People Act (H.R. 1) as its first legislative priority, after the more immediate concern of reopening the full government. The package involves an array of issues House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said were critical to “restoring integrity in government,” such as voting rights access and campaign finance changes. It would also place new restrictions on federal workers before, during and after their government service, with special obligations for senior officials and the president.
“Over the last two years President Trump set the tone from the top of his administration that behaving ethically and complying with the law is optional,” said newly minted House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. “That is why we are introducing the For the People Act. This bill contains a number of reforms that will strengthen our accountability for the executive branch officials, including the president.”
All federal employees would face a ban on using their official positions to participate in matters related to their former employers. Violators would face fines and one-to-five years in prison. Agency heads, in consultation with the director of the Office of Government Ethics, could issue waivers if it were deemed in the public interest.
The info is here.
CRISPR in China: Why Did the Parents Give Consent?
Dena Davis
The Hastings Center
Originally posted December 7, 2018
The global scientific community has been unanimous in condemning Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who announced last week that he used the gene-editing technology called CRISPR to make permanent, heritable changes to the genes of two baby girls who were born this month in China. Criticism has focused on Dr. He’s violation of worldwide acknowledgement that CRISPR has not been proven to be safe and ready to use in humans. Because CRISPR edits the actual germline, there are safety implications not only for these two girls, but for their progeny. There is also fear, expressed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, that this one renegade scientist could spark a backlash that would result in overly restrictive regulation.
Largely missing from the discussion is whether the twins’ parents understood what was happening and the unproven nature of the technology. Was the informed consent process adequate, and if so, why on earth would they have given their consent?
The info is here.
The Hastings Center
Originally posted December 7, 2018
The global scientific community has been unanimous in condemning Chinese scientist He Jiankui, who announced last week that he used the gene-editing technology called CRISPR to make permanent, heritable changes to the genes of two baby girls who were born this month in China. Criticism has focused on Dr. He’s violation of worldwide acknowledgement that CRISPR has not been proven to be safe and ready to use in humans. Because CRISPR edits the actual germline, there are safety implications not only for these two girls, but for their progeny. There is also fear, expressed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, that this one renegade scientist could spark a backlash that would result in overly restrictive regulation.
Largely missing from the discussion is whether the twins’ parents understood what was happening and the unproven nature of the technology. Was the informed consent process adequate, and if so, why on earth would they have given their consent?
The info is here.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Americans' trust in honesty, ethics of clergy hits all-time low in Gallup ranking of professions
Stoyan Zaimov
www.christianpost.com
Originally posted December 25, 2018
Americans' view of the honesty and ethics of clergy has fallen to an all-time low in a ranking of different professions released by Gallup.
The Gallup poll, conducted between Dec. 3-12 of 1,025 U.S. adults, found that only 37 percent of respondents had a "very high" or "high” opinion of the honesty and ethical standards of clergy. Forty-three percent of people gave them an average rating, while 15 percent said they had a “low” or “very low” opinion, according to the poll that was released on Dec. 21.
The margin of sampling error for the survey was identified as plus or minus 4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
Gallup noted that the 37 percent "very high" or "high" score for clergy is the lowest since it began asking the question in 1977. The historical high of 67 percent occurred back in 1985, and the score has been dropping below the overall average positive rating of 54 percent since 2009.
"The public's views of the honesty and ethics of the clergy continue to decline after the Catholic Church was rocked again this year by more abuse scandals,” Gallup noted in its observations.
The info is here.
www.christianpost.com
Originally posted December 25, 2018
Americans' view of the honesty and ethics of clergy has fallen to an all-time low in a ranking of different professions released by Gallup.
The Gallup poll, conducted between Dec. 3-12 of 1,025 U.S. adults, found that only 37 percent of respondents had a "very high" or "high” opinion of the honesty and ethical standards of clergy. Forty-three percent of people gave them an average rating, while 15 percent said they had a “low” or “very low” opinion, according to the poll that was released on Dec. 21.
The margin of sampling error for the survey was identified as plus or minus 4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
Gallup noted that the 37 percent "very high" or "high" score for clergy is the lowest since it began asking the question in 1977. The historical high of 67 percent occurred back in 1985, and the score has been dropping below the overall average positive rating of 54 percent since 2009.
"The public's views of the honesty and ethics of the clergy continue to decline after the Catholic Church was rocked again this year by more abuse scandals,” Gallup noted in its observations.
The info is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)