Agreed Hilary. It is always worthwhile pausing and examining an ethical consideration. Especially if it is something you haven't considered.
some belief that was demonstrably false
GMO crops cause allergies is a very simple one, others get more complicated because you start treading on belief systems but a simplification is “God says it’s bad”.
And I’m fairly certain you all know who I am by now.
Nope no clue.
“Hey are you the Ben Wilson from PAS? Love your work”
There’s always the Blend..
Now because it's 2 wines after dinner and I'm inherently evil, how about everyone says that to Ben at the blend.
ethical researchers in NZ
So I have a problem with this. Yes I agree ethics play a very important role in science. More important than has been perceived in the past. There are many ethical considerations that simply demand the experiment be changed or simply not continue and rightly so.
But a number of times I've been challenged on the ethical nature of my research because it did not consider some belief that was demonstrably false. At that point I'm faced with the dilemma of consideration for what someone else believes (but is false) and the desire to progress the science. There is no winning compromise in such a situation much as I might like there to be.
Oh Gio, you and your facts.
I also tend to think that the concept of a ‘real name’ is a bit devalued online
woof ... er ... I agree
But it never really occurred to me to use a pseudonym because much of my early online presence was on newsgroups where my e-mail address was my name. It seemed odd to disconnect myself from earlier posts, perhaps I should have :).
Gio's point is very well made from so many perspectives.
As for representing my employers, snort. The idea that my opinions are the same as those of the MBAs and accountants who manage the CRI I work in is utterly ludicrous.
@ David Yes and No
Yes sometimes it is possible to easily explain the science, in which case you should. BTW most scientists (including me) really just want someone who will listen to them. The usual experience is people being bored spitless and walking away.
But some science is complex. And if you brush over the complex and say "it's a big piece of equipment we made to test and idea" then you verge on patronising and people really hate that and are really good at detecting it.
Yes you are right to some degree the important thing is the process of approaching problems using the scientific method. But some folks want to know more.
In my field if I'm given enough time I can usually explain everything about what I'm doing. But I don't have to deal with the math which can become truly impenetrable. But even then the person has to actually be interested otherwise it becomes really boring. Can I describe the exciting bits in lay terms? Sure, but some of the excitement comes from knowing some of the details.
But the one thing that has come to piss me off unbelievably about explaining science is the "So how is it going to make money?" question. Tips for young players - that question will make most scientists, especially me, grumpy. If that's the question you're interested in then I'd rather talk about the rugby thanks.
Also, I can still name all the parts of an egg. Albumen FTW
What's that membrane between the shell and the white called?
In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metro sexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticising soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess.”
And that's a bad thing because??????