Homework Assignment for 4801

Ethics Lectures

1. Ethical problem solving

Introduction
Ethical problems are in many ways similar to engineering problems and as such, both can approached in similar manners. Both types of problems generally have five steps: developing a statement of the problem, gathering pertinent information, developing several workable alternatives, analyzing the alternatives and selecting the best one, and testing and implementing the solution. Uniquely, in both engineering and ethical problems there can never be a perfect or exact solution. In stark contrast to say science, solving engineering and ethical problems requires balancing numerous important factors and developing a solution that has the most desirable outcome. However, with multiple parties and interest concerned it can often be difficult to satisfy the needs of everyone completely. Finding a balance is what makes both engineering and ethics such a challenging topic, however an understanding of the principles can allow the betterment of the lives of everyone involved.

Goals
Fundamental to both engineering and ethical problems is a desired outcome. Each aspect of an engineering design is made to fulfill a requirement of the outcome. At the same time, each aspect of the applied ethics has the interests and wellbeing of someone in mind. Having a clear and complete set of goals is the starting point to solving problems both ethical and engineering.

Players (stakeholders)
In both ethical and engineering situations there are stakeholders, people who have a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of a situation. This involvement can be very far reaching ranging from design to manufacturer to end-user. It can also branch out in perhaps unexpected ways. One example is the person let to dispose of a medical device after use, this individual must be able to dispose of the device safely without risk of personal injury or contraction of infectious disease. Another consideration is environmental impact, a device may have effects on people with no direct involvement in a problem whatsoever. Identifying who has something to gain and lose is vital to proper analysis of ethical and engineering problems. And as with engineering, where a small flaw in design can derail an entire project, a small oversight in the scope of an ethical situation can lead to very negative outcomes

Facts and Standards

Fact and standards are what ties the problems faced in engineering and ethics back to the real world. It is sometimes easy for designs to seem great on paper, but not conform to the physical reality. It is also easy for an individual to use their own ideas of what is acceptable, when the reality is that they are behaving inappropriately. Both facts and standards are unique in

that they come from the broader scope of human experience rather than the specific situation being approached by the designers and ethicists. Fact come from scientific testing which is studied and peer reviewed, while standards are the collective wisdom of groups of experts in a given field. Given the subjective nature of ethical situations, facts are often more directly associated with engineering. However, ethics work within the framework of given facts to be applicable to real-world situations.

Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical dilemmas are the real meat of the issues. While it can be a clear-cut task to identify parties concerned in an issues, it is much harder to determine the best way to balance the interests of everyone involved. In engineering and ethics there is never a perfect answer, it is the designers job to look at all considerations and make a judgment call. Often problems can be foreseen, however it is not possible to predict every eventuality. When dealing with these areas it is vital that pervious works be consulted. The ethical dilemmas and design challenges faced today are often new, but can frequently be compared to what has been done in the past. While the specifics are different between engineering and ethics, both require look at what has been shown to work and produce positive outcomes.

Solutions
The solutions step could most easily be compared to the output stage of the project. This is where the engineering design comes together and the ethical stance is taken on a problem. In both engineering and ethical settings, the balance is what largely determines how effective a solution will be. The output of an engineering solution will be a design and documentation as to how to build and implement it. While and ethical solution will be a set of protocols that will ensure a project is preformed ethically with the best outcome for all involved.

Double-check
Finally, after a solution is created, it must be analysis to determine if it will actually work. For an engineering design this would take the form of verification testing. While an ethics problem would be examined at the implementation level. At this stage, it is very beneficial to compare the solution with existing solutions, either an existing medical device or existing set of ethical standards. This final double-check allows the solution to draw on the great body of existing expertise rather than simple being forced to exist in a vacuum.

2. Code of ethics
I am currently planning to pursue going to medical school with an emphasis in molecular biology studies relate to cancer treatment. The code of ethics applicable to my current research is the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biologys code of ethics. The main tenants of this code are: Promotion of the fundamental principle of trust, encouraging the engaging of responsible practice of research related to biochemical and molecular biological

sciences, for the advancement of science and public good. The code promotes transparency, integrity, and mentoring of others in ethical research practices. The code could be seen to have some internal conflict. The chief source of this conflict is balancing the needs of researchers, the public, and trainees. It cannot always be clear to delineate between what is best for the public and what is best for the researcher. The code seeks to resolve issues of balance by advocating for mutual trust on the part of all participants. While this is not a perfect and universal solution, it can serve as a helpful tool when faced with real world ethical dilemmas.

3. Ethical analysis of a real world situation

1- BR creates new technology to compete with cell encapsulation technology and is able to gain patents along with increased profits. Utilitarianism (protection of society) This plan benefits both society and BR itself. By producing a better product than the competition, society reaps the benefits of a more effective medical procedure and BR receives the profits from the transaction. The competing company will however suffer because their viable and effective technology will be pushed off the market. An additional component of one of the companies going out of business it that the employees of that company would lose their jobs. However, it is likely that skilled workers in the biotech industry would be able to find new jobs. It is possible that the market would be large enough for both companies to coexist with a positive outcome for all involved, however the more effect technology would likely ultimately win out. Rights Basis (protection of the individual) This plan allows the entities involved free action of their rights. However, the development of a competing technology could impede the right of the opposing company to bring their product to market. It could result in an unfair and destructive monopoly headed by BR. The rights of the individual patient would be protected however, because they would have access to reliable treatment regardless of the outcome.

2- BR loses financial sovereignty while watching its profits dwindle as a biotech company removes need for insulin injections. Utilitarianism (protection of society) This plan has a positive impact for society in general because it allows the development of a new and beneficial technology. This plan also works beneficially for the other company, however BR will likely lose income and could be forced to downsize and lay off employees. Again these individuals being talented biotech workers could likely find another job without great hardship. Rights Basis (protection of the individual)

This plan would allow freedom of agencies for all parties involved. However, it does not protect BR from what could easily be destructive market interference on the part of the new technology. It will likely have a negative impact on the employees of BR, but the customers will likely win out in this scenario.

3- BR buys the biotech company ready to market cell encapsulation device and profits from new technology though its syringe market is drastically reduced. Utilitarianism (protection of society) This plan is of great benefit to all involved. Society gains the benefit of the new technology. The original inventors receive compensation for their work without the time and financial obligations involved in developing a new product. This plan has very few downsides, except that BR must take the risk associated with a new and untested product. However, with the appropriate research, BR can basically eliminate such fears. Rights Basis (protection of the individual) This plan also works very well from the perspective of individuals. If the product ultimately succeeds, every individual will walk away with significant compensation for their work and both companies will continue operation within their particular market.

4- BR buys the biotech company early in development and then buries technology due to high cost of development but protects its syringe market. Utilitarianism (protection of society) This plan prevents society from gaining access to the new technology altogether. It does protect the great loss in money and time that could result if the product does not become marketable, this would maintain stability in the industry. The competing company is largely neutral in this exchange as they lose the potential future profit, but gain the money from the sale. However, overall society loses out in favor the interest of BR. Rights Basis (protection of the individual) This solution does nothing to impinge upon the rights of the individuals involved. In fact everyone gains by this arrangement except the public. BR continues its profitable business, the competing company gains the money from the sale, and both companies continue profitable operation. The only loser in this scenario is the general public, losing out on new and potentially lifesaving technology.. 5- BR identifies closed-feedback insulin delivery system as a way to beat cell encapsulation to market in an attempt to generate new avenues for selling similar products to what it has in the past. Utilitarianism (protection of society)

This option helps both society, BR, and the opposing company. Society gets the benefit of the new technology, will both companies maintain profitable business models. The economy is also improved by the companys success, as they bring new value to the market place. Overall, society wins and no one loses. Rights Basis (protection of the individual) This plan does not impinge on the right of any individual, however it forces BR to expand into a new market. This expansion carries with it the potential for new profit, but also significant risk to the company. However this risk could be mitigated by proper preliminary market research.

6-BR allows the new product to develop, but attempts to market their product as the safe and tested method while the new product is dangerous and unreliable. Utilitarianism (protection of society) While this option does not directly interfere with the rights of society, it does muddy the waters of their decision. Running what could be seen as a smear campaign creates unnecessary fear in the marketplace. It also my prevent patients from choosing a more effective treatment method that would lead to better outcome. This plan put the profits of BR over the good of society by scare them into not using the new product. BR would benefit from the continued sales of its product, but the other company and society would lose the benefit of the new medical device. Rights Basis (protection of the individual) This plan does not directly interfere with the right of the individuals, because everyone involved is still free to make their own choices. However, it does prevent the opposing company free access to the market by slandering them and their product. This plan could also backfire and cause BR to be seen in the market as an untrustworthy company. This action could result in several outcome, but in this case everyone is at risk of loss. The public loses the use of a new a better medical device, BR loses reputation and possibly future business, and the opposing company loses any profits they might have made.

7-BR secures exclusive long term contracts with distributors disallowing them from selling the new technology, thus ensuring that there will be no available markets for the new technology. Utilitarianism (protection of society) Again while this option does not directly interfere with the rights of society, it does muddy the waters. This does not directly attack the other company, however it effectively chokes them out of the market. This would deprive society of the new medical device for the profitability of BR. It by no means restricts the actions of the other company who may find new distributors. Overall both society and the opposing company lose out for the benefit of BR.

Rights Basis (protection of the individual) This does not directly attack the rights of any individual, however it prevent the opposing company from gain free access to the market. This plan effect has BR creating a monopoly in the market, and preventing open competition. This plan directly attacks the profitability of the opposing company for the gain of BR.

Utilitarian Relitive Scale

Figure 1. ranks the usefulness of the solutions from a Utilitarian perspective on a relative scale.

Rights Based Relitive Scale

Figure 1. ranks the usefulness of the solutions from a Rights based perspective on a relative scale.

4. Review of Historic Tuskegee Study and Disaster at Bhopal

Tuskegee:
Goals The goals of the Tuskegee study were to develop an understanding of the progression of the disease syphilis when left untreated. The researchers examined exclusively a population of African American males, with the goal of learning how the disease progressed to an advanced stage. The overarching goals was that the knowledge gained from the study would be used for the betterment of public health. Players (stakeholders) Researchers The researchers conducted the study and had several personal interest in its success, including salary, prestige within their field, and access to promotion. They were most directly responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the participants, with doctors being bound by the Hippocratic Oath. Study Participants The Study Participants where in large part the group with the most to lose. The study put them in risk of not only their health but also their lives. They were compensated for their participation with food, burial insurance, and medical exams. However, the medical care was largely focused on the outcomes of the study rather than the wellbeing of the patients. Study Participants families The study participants families, while not directly members of the study group, were directly affected. These families were often dependent on the men in the study and their inability to work could have caused them severe financial difficulty. And, while the men in the study were covered by previsions for free food, medical exams, and burial insurance the families were not. Government administrators The government administrators were responsible for providing funding and oversight. They stood to lose very little apart from the money invested in the study. However, the administrator stood to gain many of the same things as the researchers themselves, albeit indirectly. Their responsibility was less direct and ill-defined at the studys outset. General public

The general public is largely the chief beneficiary of the study. The justification for the study was to better public health. And, while the public stood to gain from the knowledge acquired in this study, they had very little to lose if the study went badly.

Facts and Standards At the beginning of this study, very little was known about syphilis. Also, regulations for the preforming of medical studies was not yet as developed as it currently is. However, with the study lasting for such a long time, many thing developed over its duration. More was learned about syphilis from outside sources and standards and regulations became more mature than at the outset. Ethical Dilemmas The main ethical dilemmas faced during this case where twofold, first the obligation to obtain informed consent from the study participants and second to obligation of the researchers to provide treatment. Both decisions are complicated by the degrees to which both action can be performed. The participants were informed to some degree about the nature of their illness, but not enough to make an informed decision. Similarly with the medical care provided, some medical care was provided but not adequate to meet the needs of the patient or best known treatments. Solutions The topic of the Tuskegee Study is the center of a great deal of contention, however there are several things that could have been done to reduce or eliminate problems associated with this study. The biggest concern is how to behave ethically while still preform a scientifically useful study. While there is always a balance, the collection of data in this study could still have been useful even if the parameters of treatment were somewhat altered. While the data would be different, it could still provide incredibly useful insights into the disease of syphilis. Standards of ethics should have been laid out before the commencement of the study. This standard should have included the entire scope of the study and previsions for if the study was extended, as it was. Specifically, the document should have included guideline for obtaining informed consent regularly throughout the study, giving the best known treatment to patients at all times, and oversight by higher government agencies. An important part of this standard is the oversight. Having a written agreement is worthless if it is not backed up with action. Having the oversight of a high governing body, in this case the National Public Health Service, would have helped to ensure that all ethical protocols were followed effectively. In most cases the standards could easily be applied without compromising the usefulness of the study at all. This practice could have prevented the needless suffering of the individuals involved in the Tuskegee Study without compromising its scientific usefulness.

Double-check Across the board, the ethical decision made by the researchers during the Tuskegee study would have failed under the examination of others. A great many question can be raised as to the reaction of medical professionals, the general public, and legal entities. However, have a clearly laid out standard of acceptable practice would give a practice that could easily stand up to scrutiny. It would allow the problems to be examined beforehand under a neutral light. This would also give the opportunity to involve a larger group in the dialogue rather than simply the researchers on the ground. Overall the proposed solution would likely result in a positive outcome for those involved.

Bhopal:
Goals The goals of the engineering project in Bhopal were to build and maintain a chemical plant designed to profitably produce chemicals for Union Carbide while bringing jobs and industry to the area of Bhopal. The goal of building the plant in Bhopal was to take advantage of the lower average wages and lower levels of regulation. The lower wages saved was to save the company money directly. The lower regulation was also used to save the company money although indirectly. By operating under less regulation the company could take advantage of cost saving measures although at the expense of safety. Players (stakeholders) Union Carbide The corporation Union Carbide was the financial driving force behind the building and operation of the plant. They were a multinational corporation with operations in both the United States and India. The companys tie to the project was the expansion of their business enterprise and the increased profitability of their company. Plant workers The plant workers were chiefly in charge of the plants operations and were overseeing the plant when the disaster took place. Their interest was financial in that their salary was covered by Union Carbide. However, the plant workers also had ties to the surrounding community by virtue of living there and a vested interest in its wellbeing. Plant Designers The plant were engineers in charge of the plants design, however they had no hand in its operation. They were responsible for the various safeguards that were in place designed to prevent the disaster. However, they were also responsible for a potentially confusing design that led to the disaster. Their interest was largely financial and career related, as they had little to no connection with Bhopal.

People living near the plant The people living near the plant were the ones directly affected by the disaster. They had a great deal to lose including their homes, their health, and their lives. Despite the great potential for loss, the people living near the plant also had things to be gained from the plant. The plant brings a great deal to the local economy in the form of jobs both for Union Carbide and support jobs. It also brings new money to a historically impoverished region. People of Bhopal The people of Bhopal generally had many of the same things to gain as the people living near the plant, however they did not necessarily have any of the associated risks as those living near the plant. They had overall more to gain. Facts and Standards The facts and standards of this case are largely related to the standards of operation observed by the plant workers and the validity of the designs put in place by the designing engineers. Union Carbide is a multinational corporation with operation in both the United States and India. This would have given the management a background in both U.S. and the less stringent Indian regulation. Union Carbide also had the standards of operation set forth by the plants designer. This included use of various safety equipment designed into the plant. Ethical Dilemmas The chief dilemma faced in this case are how to balance the needs of the people with their safety. Bhopal is a historically impoverished area and the presence of the plant brings money and jobs to the local economy. However, the plant brings inherent danger just be its presence and this danger is compounded by the lack of government regulations. Union Carbide is primarily focused on financial gain, however it falls to them to maintain a standard of safety for the plant. There will always be risk, but the question faced by Union Carbide was how to balance that risk with profitable operations. Solutions The chief solution to this problem would be brought about be more effective management of safety and closer adherence to regulations. This would involve maintaining safety equipment to a more functional level. The safeguard set in place at the plant should have been used and had they been in place the disaster might have been averted.

Double-check It is easy to say that there were problems looking at the Bhopal Disaster from a historical perspective, however are the proposed solutions practical in the real world? Ultimately, if these solutions were implemented it would have likely resulted in the best outcome for the company.

Union Carbides primary motivation in operating the chemical plant was making money. While not implementing certain safety measures saved the company money in the short term, overall it cost them significantly. It also had the added downside of portraying Union Carbide as irresponsible and unsafe to do business with. Maintain proper safety procedures would not only have been the best decision for saving lives lost in the disaster, it would have saved the company a great deal of money and prestige.

Ethical Analysis of Senior project

Goals
The goals of this project were to determine the efficacy of modified p53 triggering apoptosis in human cancer cells when delivered via gene therapy. Multiple variants of modified p53 were tested in vivo alongside constructs positive and negative controls. The ultimate goal is the development of a safe and effect method of treating cancers using target gene theapy.

Players (stakeholders)
Dr. P.I. (Major Player) Dr. is the head of the lab and has chief oversight of the operations and protocols. She is the driving intellectual force behind the project and bares the ultimate responsibility for its ethical execution. She is also called to answer to the broader College of Pharmacy and the National Institutes of Health, who provide direct funding for the project. Other Researchers in (Average Player) Other researchers in the lab include graduate and post-doctoral students, as well as two undergraduate students. These researcher are primarily performing the experiments under the direction of Dr.. They are responsible for the directly collection of data and following proper protocol for the study. General Scientific Community (Minor Player) The general scientific community have largely no direct stake in the study, however they are obliged to provide review and critique of the study both before and after the results are published. They have some to gain in the general advancement of scientific knowledge. It is from the general scientific community that sets the standards and protocols for ethical behavior. General Public (Minor Player) The general public has no direct involvement in this study, though they do stand to gain from the success of this study in the form of a new cancer treatment. However, the public does have much to lose if the treatment is falsely declared useful, when in fact it does harm. They also have an interest as this research is publically funded.

Facts and Standards

This project involves numerous steps of synthesis and experimentation. It is extremely important that each of these stages be recorded and presented accurately. To ensure that results were genuinely representative of the physical reality, multiple experiments were preformed, thus verifying the results. The data was collected across experiments run to the same specifications to ensure valid results and comparison. In analysis and comparison of the data, the data was look at in its entirety and compared to both positive and negative controls to validate the conclusions researched by the lab group.

Ethical Dilemmas
The ethical dilemmas in this project are largely related to two things, firstly the accurate reporting of finding, procedures and practices and secondly the correct attribution of research credit. Due to the nature of the work, no human or animal subject were involved in this study. Additionally, there is no cooperate interest in the research as it stands. Research Attribution In the lab, a number of different researchers are engaged in work pertaining to the project. Almost the entire lab is involved directly or indirectly. This presents the problem of how to balance the attribution of this research. This attribution is important as it will determine the career advancement of the people involved. Being on a paper or not could be the difference between getting into a desired post-doctoral program. It could also mean the difference between getting accepted for a grant. It is also an issues how to claim discoveries from other researchers outside the lab. Unattributed claims could be viewed as plagiarism and destroy scientific dialogue. This There are several competing interests in this case as everyone would like their contribution recognized. Correct Reporting of Data The correct reporting of data entails giving an accurate account of the experiments performed, and their result. With pressure for papers coming it can often be tempting to force results to a conclusion. This can take the form of molding or omitting data that does not fit the hypothesis. It can also take the form of categorizing an experiment as showing something when in fact it is ambiguous.

Figure 2. Diagrams the relative importance of the two problems

Solutions
Research Attribution One way to deal with the problem of research attribution is to specifically acknowledge the players involved in the project and what their contribution was. By fleshing out the details of everyones involvement, it removes and ambiguity and prevents unnecessary omissions. Also, application of a standard system of attributing authors outside the lab for their work. Correct Reporting of Data The correct reporting of data could be dealt with by very carefully documenting the conditions of an experiment and then making such information available upon publication. The head of the lab, in this case Dr, should also provide sufficient oversight to ensure that experiment performed meet the requirements of the protocol. This will verify that the results are meaningful, useful, and unhampered by experimental anomalies.

Double-check
Research Attribution These solutions to research attribution would likely be approved by both the researchers involved and the general scientific community. The method of erring on the side of over-citation can prevent misattribution as well as unattributed work. Overall, this method serves everyone involved. Correct Reporting of Data The method of correct reporting of data would again likely be approved by all involved as well as the broader scientific community. This method also help to ensure the best outcomes by encouraging increased oversight by the head of the lab. Overall, this method should work towards the most useful data output possible.

Editorial Note
The preceding was reviewed by both an MBA and Graduate Mathematician, with revisions made to according to their critique. Specifically, sections describing the solution were shortened as they were deemed gratuitous. Sections outlining the players were lengthened and fleshed out more to give greater context for the following ethical analysis. Finally, adjustments to the language were made to make the piece more readable and less repetitive.