Virus lays bare the frailty of the social contract

Editorial Board
Financial Times
Originally published 3 April 20

If there is a silver lining to the Covid-19 pandemic, it is that it has injected a sense of togetherness into polarised societies. But the virus, and the economic lockdowns needed to combat it, also shine a glaring light on existing inequalities — and even create new ones. Beyond defeating the disease, the great test all countries will soon face is whether current feelings of common purpose will shape society after the crisis. As western leaders learnt in the Great Depression, and after the second world war, to demand collective sacrifice you must offer a social contract that benefits everyone.

Today’s crisis is laying bare how far many rich societies fall short of this ideal. Much as the struggle to contain the pandemic has exposed the unpreparedness of health systems, so the brittleness of many countries’ economies has been exposed, as governments scramble to stave off mass bankruptcies and cope with mass unemployment. Despite inspirational calls for national mobilisation, we are not really all in this together.

The economic lockdowns are imposing the greatest cost on those already worst off. Overnight millions of jobs and livelihoods have been lost in hospitality, leisure and related sectors, while better paid knowledge workers often face only the nuisance of working from home. Worse, those in low-wage jobs who can still work are often risking their lives — as carers and healthcare support workers, but also as shelf stackers, delivery drivers and cleaners.

The info is here.

Banned Devices; Proposal To Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices Used To Treat Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior

FDA Press Release
Posted March 5, 2020

Here is an excerpt:

After careful consideration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration today published a final rule to ban electrical stimulation devices (ESDs) used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior because they present an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury that cannot be corrected or eliminated through new or updated device labeling.

“Since ESDs were first marketed more than 20 years ago, we have gained a better understanding of the danger these devices present to public health,” said William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Office of Product Evaluation and Quality in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Through advancements in medical science, there are now more treatment options available to reduce or stop self-injurious or aggressive behavior, thus avoiding the substantial risk ESDs present.”

ESDs administer electrical shocks through electrodes attached to the skin of individuals to immediately interrupt self-injurious or aggressive behavior or attempt to condition the individuals to stop engaging in such behavior. Evidence indicates a number of significant psychological and physical risks are associated with the use of these devices, including worsening of underlying symptoms, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain, burns and tissue damage. In addition, many people who are exposed to these devices have intellectual or developmental disabilities that make it difficult to communicate their pain. Evidence of the device’s effectiveness is weak and evidence supporting the benefit-risk profiles of alternatives is strong. As the risks presented by ESDs meet the agency’s definition of unreasonable and substantial and cannot be corrected or eliminated through new or updated labeling, banning the product is necessary to protect public health.

The act of banning a device is rare and the circumstances under which the agency can take this action is stringent, but the FDA has the authority to take this action when necessary to protect the health of the public. The FDA has only banned two other medical devices since gaining the authority to do so.

This final rule issued today follows a 2016 proposed rule to ban ESDs from the marketplace and takes effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The FDA understands that a gradual transition period may be needed for a subgroup of individuals currently exposed to these devices, to allow time for them to transition to another treatment, so the agency is establishing two compliance dates. For devices in use on specific individuals as of the date of publication and subject to a physician-directed transition plan, compliance is required 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. For all other devices, compliance is required 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

The FDA received more than 1,500 comments on the proposed rule, as well as approximately 300 comments submitted to the April 2014 FDA advisory panel meetingExternal Link Disclaimerdocket, which the FDA has associated with this rulemaking action. Comments were received from a variety of stakeholders, including parents of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, state agencies and their sister public-private organizations, the affected manufacturer and residential facility, some of the facility’s employees, and parents of individual residents. State and federal legislators also expressed interest, as did state and national advocacy groups. The overwhelming majority of comments supported this ban.

The proposed rule is here.

How a Ship’s Coronavirus Outbreak Became a Moral Crisis for the Military

Helene Cooper,
Thomas Gibbons-Neff, & Eric Schmitt
The New York Times
Originally posted 6 April 20

Here is an excerpt:

In the close-knit world of the American military, the crisis aboard the Roosevelt — known widely as the “T.R.”— generated widespread criticism from men and women who are usually careful to steer clear of publicly rebuking their peers.

Mr. Modly’s decision to remove Captain Crozier without first conducting an investigation went contrary to the wishes of both the Navy’s top admiral, Michael M. Gilday, the chief of naval operations, and the military’s top officer, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“I am appalled at the content of his address to the crew,” retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, said in a telephone interview, referring to Mr. Modly.

Mr. Modly, Admiral Mullen said, “has become a vehicle for the president. He basically has completely undermined, throughout the T.R. situation, the uniformed leadership of the Navy and the military leadership in general.”

Mr. Modly, Admiral Mullen said, “has become a vehicle for the president. He basically has completely undermined, throughout the T.R. situation, the uniformed leadership of the Navy and the military leadership in general.”

“At its core, this is about an aircraft carrier skipper who sees an imminent threat and is forced to make a decision that risks his career in the act of what he believes to be the safety of the near 5,000 members of his crew,” said Sean O’Keefe, a former Navy secretary under President George Bush. “That is more than enough to justify the Navy leadership rendering the benefit of the doubt to the deployed commander.”

The info is here.

The ethics of ordering non-essential items online during the coronavirus lockdown

Laura Steele
MNAFM.com
Originally posted 3 April 20

In response to the Coronavirus crisis, the UK government announced that all retail outlets, except for those considered to provide essential goods and services, were to close with immediate effect. Online retail is, however, 'still open and encouraged'.

So, does that mean we can click with a clear conscience?

Business academics Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten argue that a decision has an ethical dimension to it if it has a significant effect on others it is characterised by choice, and it is perceived as ethically relevant to one or more parties.

Most of us would likely agree that ordering essential items, such as food or medicine, is ethically acceptable. Especially if there is no alternative, as is currently the case for millions of people who have been deemed at high risk due to underlying health conditions, are self-isolating as the result symptoms of COVID-19, or are otherwise unable to shop in person.

But what about goods that are not absolutely necessary, such as clothing that is wanted but not needed, home decor, toys and games, garden furniture and accessories, beauty products or even, depending on your view on the matter, the humble Easter egg?

The info is here.

Four pieces of ethical advice for practitioners during COVID-19

Rebecca Schwartz-Mette
APAservices.org
Originally posted 2 April 20

Are you transitioning to full-time telepsychology? Launching a virtual classroom? Want to expand your competence in the use of technology in practice? You can look to APA’s Ethics Committee for support in transforming your practice. Even in times of crisis, the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereafter “Ethics Code” or “Code;” 2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and Jan. 1, 2017) continues to guide psychologists’ actions based on our shared values. Here are four ways to practice in good faith while meeting the imminent needs of your community:

Lean in

Across the nation, rather than closing their practices and referring out, psychologists are accepting the challenge to diligently obtain training and expand their competence in telepsychology. Standard 2.02, “Providing Services in Emergencies,” allows psychologists to provide services for individuals for whom other services aren’t available through the duration of such emergencies, even if they have not obtained the necessary training. The Ethics Committee supports those psychologists working in good faith to meet the needs of patients, clients, supervisees and students.

Get training and support

Take advantage of the APA’s new (and often free) resources to develop and expand your competence, in line with Standard 2.03, “Maintaining Competence.” Expand your network by connecting with colleagues who can provide peer consultation and supervision to support your efforts.

Consider referrals

The decision to transition to telepsychology may not be for everyone. Competency concerns, lack of access to technology, and specific needs of particular clients may reflect good reasons to refer to practitioners who can provide telepsychology. Psychologists should assess each client’s needs in light of their own professional capacities and refer to others who can provide needed services in line with Standard 10.10(c), “Terminating Therapy.”

Take care of yourself

Psychologists are human and can feel lost in the ambiguity of this unprecedented time. It is your ethical mandate to also care for yourself. Practicing accurate self-assessment, leaning on colleagues when needed, and taking time to unplug from the news and practice to recharge helps to prevent burnout and is entirely consistent with 2.06, “Personal Problems and Conflicts.” Make self-care a verb and connect with your community of psychologists today.

Tavis Smiley Ordered To Pay PBS $1.5 Million For Violating Network's 'Morality' Clause

Vanessa Romo
npr.org
Originally published 4 March 20

Here is an excerpt:

Throughout the three-week civil trial, jurors heard from six women who testified that Smiley subjected subordinates to unwanted sexual advances. "One woman who accused Smiley of sexual harassment left the show and received a $325,000 settlement," Variety reported.

The win for PBS may prove to be significant for other companies facing workplace suits stemming from sexual-misconduct allegations, who are seeking to break ties with accused individuals.

"In the midst of the #MeToo movement, he violated our morals clause... You can't have a consensual relationship between a manager and a subordinate because of the power dynamic. It's never consensual because that manager has power over all aspects of that person's employment," the network's lead attorney, Grace Speights, said in court.

Smiley's dismissal was one of many in the wake of the #MeToo movement which first gained global attention in 2017, after dozens of women accused movie producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual misconduct. Years later, a jury has convicted Weinstein of rape, Bill Cosby is behind bars for sexual assault, and popular hosts including Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose — who was fired by PBS in 2017 — have been removed from the airwaves amid accusations of misconduct.

The info is here.

JAIC launches pilot for implementing new DOD AI ethics principles

Jackson Barnett
fedscoop.com
Originally posted 2 April 20

Here is an excerpt:

The Department of Defense‘s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center is bringing together different types of engineers, policymakers and other DOD personnel to serve as “Responsible AI Champions” in support of the Pentagon’s new principles for AI ethics.

The pilot program brings together a “cross-functional group” of personnel from across the department to receive training on AI and DOD’s new ethical principles from JAIC staff who represent different parts of the AI development lifecycle. The intent is that when these trainees go back to their normal jobs, they will be “champions” for AI and the principles.

The model, which was announced through a JAIC blog post, is similar to a pilot Microsoft launched to implement its artificial intelligence governance structure. The JAIC did not say how many people will participate in the pilot program.

“The goal is to learn from this pilot so that we can develop a more robust and comprehensive program that can be implemented across the DOD,” Lt. Cmdr. Arlo Abrahamson, a JAIC spokesman, told FedScoop.

The info is here.

Life and death decisions of autonomous vehicles

Y. E. Bigman and K. Gray
Nature
Originally published 4 May 20

How should self-driving cars make decisions when human lives hang in the balance? The Moral Machine experiment (MME) suggests that people want autonomous vehicles (AVs) to treat different human lives unequally, preferentially killing some people (for example, men, the old and the poor) over others (for example, women, the young and the rich). Our results challenge this idea, revealing that this apparent preference for inequality is driven by the specific ‘trolley-type’ paradigm used by the MME. Multiple studies with a revised paradigm reveal that people overwhelmingly want autonomous vehicles to treat different human lives equally in life and death situations, ignoring gender, age and status—a preference consistent with a general desire for equality.

The large-scale adoption of autonomous vehicles raises ethical challenges because autonomous vehicles may sometimes have to decide between killing one person or another. The MME seeks to reveal people’s preferences in these situations and many of these revealed preferences, such as ‘save more people over fewer’ and ‘kill by inaction over action’ are consistent with preferences documented in previous research.

However, the MME also concludes that people want autonomous vehicles to make decisions about who to kill on the basis of personal features, including physical fitness, age, status and gender (for example, saving women and killing men). This conclusion contradicts well-documented ethical preferences for equal treatment across demographic features and identities, a preference enshrined in the US Constitution, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Ethical Guideline 9 of the German Ethics Code for Automated and Connected Driving.

The info is here.

Why your brain is not a computer

Matthew Cobb
theguardian.com
Originally posted 27 Feb 20

Here is an excerpt:

The processing of neural codes is generally seen as a series of linear steps – like a line of dominoes falling one after another. The brain, however, consists of highly complex neural networks that are interconnected, and which are linked to the outside world to effect action. Focusing on sets of sensory and processing neurons without linking these networks to the behaviour of the animal misses the point of all that processing.

By viewing the brain as a computer that passively responds to inputs and processes data, we forget that it is an active organ, part of a body that is intervening in the world, and which has an evolutionary past that has shaped its structure and function. This view of the brain has been outlined by the Hungarian neuroscientist György Buzsáki in his recent book The Brain from Inside Out. According to Buzsáki, the brain is not simply passively absorbing stimuli and representing them through a neural code, but rather is actively searching through alternative possibilities to test various options. His conclusion – following scientists going back to the 19th century – is that the brain does not represent information: it constructs it.

The metaphors of neuroscience – computers, coding, wiring diagrams and so on – are inevitably partial. That is the nature of metaphors, which have been intensely studied by philosophers of science and by scientists, as they seem to be so central to the way scientists think. But metaphors are also rich and allow insight and discovery. There will come a point when the understanding they allow will be outweighed by the limits they impose, but in the case of computational and representational metaphors of the brain, there is no agreement that such a moment has arrived. From a historical point of view, the very fact that this debate is taking place suggests that we may indeed be approaching the end of the computational metaphor. What is not clear, however, is what would replace it.

Scientists often get excited when they realise how their views have been shaped by the use of metaphor, and grasp that new analogies could alter how they understand their work, or even enable them to devise new experiments. Coming up with those new metaphors is challenging – most of those used in the past with regard to the brain have been related to new kinds of technology. This could imply that the appearance of new and insightful metaphors for the brain and how it functions hinges on future technological breakthroughs, on a par with hydraulic power, the telephone exchange or the computer. There is no sign of such a development; despite the latest buzzwords that zip about – blockchain, quantum supremacy (or quantum anything), nanotech and so on – it is unlikely that these fields will transform either technology or our view of what brains do.

The info is here.