Tobacco and Death (Dombrowski) pg.152-233

Tobacco and Death: When is a cause not a cause?

Why do the deadly effects of the Challenger outrage us more than the deadly effects of smoking?
1. The effect of the Challenger was immediate, certain, and dealt with individuals. The effects of smoking are seen more in probabilities and populations, but we forget that we are all a part of the population.
2. The tobacco industry has used media and information to cloud the public and even present the idea that their is a "debate" over whether smoking actually causes cancer.

*The tobacco industry has taken on a "sophists" appeal from the beginning: using rhetoric to persuade their audience, not to what is right, but simply to get what they want at all costs.

*The industry set out in the early 50's to find any doctor, scientist, lawyer, or writer to defend their cause. They formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) to do this.

*In writings such as that on pg. 159, the industry dances in circles about what the meaning of "cause" is. They argue that many things could have led to lung cancer.

*The funny thing is that very very few of these people were considered credible and respected, but just because there was a voice of opposition, there was considered a debate. The sophists have an insistence that every topic has two sides worth of argument, even it it was just for the sake of argument and self-interest.

*In the case of the Challenger, although the engineers did not speak up and the managers did not listen, we can honestly say that they were not really expecting someone to die because of their decisions. The reality of the consequences was not as "real" to them. In the case of the tobacco industry, though, they are very aware of the consequences of their unethical decisions, no matter how much they argue their case.

*The industry continues to insist on the most impossible standards of causation simply for their own self-interest.

*The industry will not identify even a few legitimate scientists who will argue on the issue of causation.

*The industry has financial and legal resources that far exceed their opponents simply because they are so profitable. The claimants either don't have enough money, die to early to fight the long court process, or reach out-of-court settlements because the industry has so much money to pay them off.

*It is difficult for claimants to use the research of the industry against them because they made sure to write their documents in such ways that the public could not understand them. Also, they did many documents in the presence of a lawyer in order to keep them from opposing sides through the lawyer-client privilege.

1950s

*The American Cancer Society began to make great research strides. The tobacco industry realized that its public relations may be going down, so it launched an effort because of their concern with their PUBLIC RELATIONS not their concern for health.

*The aim was to complicate the matter generally and to divert attention from smoking to other causes of cancer and disease.

Released "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" in 1954:
1. Causation and proof have not been demonstrated.
2. Shows the industry's disdain for all scientific, medical and technical research accepted by nearly all professionals outside the industry.
3. It attempts to give the appearance of scientific honesty and rigor.

1960s

*The surgeon general appointed an advisory committee to investigate the effects of smoking.

*Against a huge majority of opposition, the industry was forced to keep calling on the same scientists to defend their position because they could no longer find new scientists to back the cause.

*The TIRC was seen as not credible because they could not provide information that was not biased because their scientists were looking were a specific outcome of the research.

1970s
*The industry became interested in filtered cigarettes as a "healthier" solution.

*The public had become concerned with the effects of second-hand smoke as well.

*The industry finally "acknowledges" but they are acknowledging the existence of a controversy, not knowledge or facts.

*The information against smoking became so prevalent that the industry shut down some of its research centers to prevent their own research from being used against them.

1980s
*Lawyers for the industry began to control the information leak more tightly.

*Dr. Gary Huber, a longtime smoking researcher, became a whistle blower in 1998 about the industry's attempts to control each scientist's work by a "lawyer" or rather a "keeper".

1990s

*The single major tobacco company, the Leggett Group, finally admitted that nicotine is addictive.

*Many law suits and legislative actions took place.

A SINGLE WORD

Because the CEOS use the words "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" the charges against them for perjury were dropped because it is highly difficult to prosecute someone over their beliefs. It is ironic that these are the same CEOs who sell a product that explicitly reads, "Smoking causes cancer."

Graphical Images

*Joe Camel's image has charm, silliness, and even innocence, which masks the realities of the product.

*The images of the tobacco industry are "antitechnical" in response to the technical, matter-of-fact opponents. The images seem carefree and have a less serious appeal.

*Realizing that the younger generation must be hooked in order to ensure prolonged business, the industry even made the camel look more youthful and cartoon-like.

*The Marlboro Man is another example. The men seem so strong and rugged, when in actuality their insides are deteriorating.

Ethical Appraisal

*Aristotle would disagree with this "debate" completely because he believed there are matters not suitable for rhetorical debate, those in which truth is already apparent.

*Kant would disagree with the tobacco industry completely because he believed that acting ethically was a matter of acting in which your actions could become a universal principle applying similarly to everyone. The industry has tried to completely undermined those who are working for the common good. They are self-seeking.

*Utilitarian perspective weighs costs and benefits and therefore the question becomes "for whom?" For the public, it is obvious that the costs of smoking far out weigh the benefits. For the industry, they have always outweighed their personal benefits over the costs.

*Feminists are completely against the industry and use this as an another example of out science has become corrupt and simply an enterprise.

*Ethics of care are completely against the industry because the proponents have no care for the customers; they are only looking to their self-interests.


Star Wars: Hope vs. Reality
*Star Wars nuclear missile defense system is short for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) set up by Ronald Reagan to keep the country safe from nuclear weapons.

*It presented a hope against nuclear annihilation that actually had not be grounded in reality.

*Although not realistic, these claims were not necessarily unethical at the core. However, they had a lot of influence on the public and therefore have been highly questioned.

*The question is not whether nuclear weapons are dangerous. The question is whether the goals and appeals released through the Star Wars project were misleading due to the fact that they were technically unrealistic.

*The Fletcher Report was the report that outlined the goals and ways of obtaining the goals of Star Wars.

*Technological organizations such as the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) released information from the very beginning stating their concerns for the reality of SDI and its software.

*The congressional hearings show that, "Seemingly definite technical information can be derived from speculation and wishes and from backward reasoning that might not hold up under scrutiny."

*On one hand, scientific optimism is what drives progression.

*Proponents of SDI played on emotions of the audience through moral, political, ideological statements about safety and defense, but they did not address the feasibility of the cause.

*Opponents emphasized the infeasibility of the plan and the overemphasis of the president on "technical optimism."

*David Parnas is the father of software engineering and resigned from his position because he was against the Fletcher plan. He released an easy-to-understand, clear, technical response. It is educated and articulated but in words that anyone could understand. It takes a clear ethical stance against the attempts for SDI.

*He says that the public was misled about the feasibility of SDI as well as the amount of money spent on it. He objects to the problems with SDI not military research in general. He says that there is no software that could possibly be developed along the lines of SDI that would be "trustworthy".

Star Wars Boycott Pledge
*Pledge started at Cornell and University of Illinois not to accept funding for Star Wars by scientists, engineers, professionals. It was very technical but clear.

*According to Aristotle's view, it would be hard to say whether or not the claims made by the supporters of SDI were virtuous. On the surface they are seemingly virtuous, but they mask the realistic feasibility of the program.

*According to Kant, the supporters were most likely not ethical if they presented hope for this program without presenting the facts of feasibility because this is not how most people would want to be treated. They would not want this masking to become an universal principle.

*From the Utilitarianism perspective it could be viewed either way according to what is a greater cost: national defense or enormous sum of money for a seemingly infeasible goal.

*Feminist would want to back an effort to end violence thus could support ending the efforts specifically of the Soviet Union. However, the efforts to quiet the dissenting voices is completely against feminists views.

*Ethics of care proponents would insists on a caring concern American people but not an offensive attack through weapons. They might insist on putting the money to more social uses, such as education and health care.

Ethics (Harty) pg. 347-381

Communication Failures Contributing to Challenger Accident (Winsor)

The two majors issues with the Challenger:
1. Managers and engineers viewed the same facts from different perspectives. This is all about the discrepancy in interpretation. Lund, who had strongly recommended delayed launch was asked to take off his "engineering hat" and put on a "management hat."
2. The general difficulty in receiving or sending bad news, especially to a superior or outsider. The information moved slowly from engineers to managers and between the three organizations involved: NASA, Marshall Space Center and MTI. ex. the tone of Boisjoly's letter within MTI on pg. 355 vs. the tone Russell's letter to Marshall on pg. 356

*Communication is not just shared information: it is shared interpretation.

*Open communication with superiors as well as outsiders cannot be developed short notice or when emergencies arise.

*Contractors should be aware that be full disclosure is unlikely but should make every attempt to reach that point.

*Managers and engineers should be aware that they are most likely presenting information in more positive light than what is actually true.

How to Lie with Statistics (Huff)

The Sample with the Built-In Bias: The sample must be representative or truly random in order for the statistics to be accurate. "No statistical information can rise above the quality of the sample it is based on."

The truncated, gee-wiz, graph: cut off the bottom of the graph.

The souped-up graph: change the proportion between the ordinate and the abiscca. Make line look much more exaggerated.

The well-chosen average: Mean vs. Median ex. Income: "You can be sure that when an income average is given in the form of a mean, nearly everybody has less than that."

The insignificant difference or the elusive error: You cannot make a valid comparison between two figures unless you know deviations. And unless the difference is many times greater than the error, you only can guess which is actually greater.

The one-dimensional figure: ex. money bag symbol vs. simple bars in bar graph on pg. 366

The ever-impressive decimal: Add a decimal to a statistic and it automatically sounds more accurate.

The semi attached figure: Use statistics to prove something non-related. Ex. that one type of medicine has been proven to kill thousands of germs, but it may not kill the one that it is intended to kill.

The unwarranted assumption, or post hoc rides again: cause and effect relationships in statistics can be completely inaccurate especially if you don't even know what the cause and the effect are ex. college students and smoking

Determining the Ethics of Style (Jones)
Ethics- the study of right and wrong; the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; set of moral principles or values; a guiding philosophy

We will face many questions in our careers regarding ethics:
Are knowing omitting any essential information?
If you are exaggerating a product's features in marketing, are you lying?
If your poor instructions cause injury to someone, are you morally responsible?

See the Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics by the computer ethics institute on pg. 370 and 371

Legal and Ethical Issues in Editing (Rude)

Intellectual Property
Copyright: The US Copyright Act of 1976 protects authors of "original works of authorship" whether or not the works are published. Registration with the Copyright Office gives maximum legal protection but is not needed.

Permissions and "Fair Use"
The permission from the writer should be obtained in written form and include:
1. Title, author, and edition of the materials to be reprinted
2. Exact material to be used: include page numbers and photocopy
3. How it will be used; the nature of the document

Copyright and online publication
Most information is fair use as long as cited simply because it is on the WWW. However, distributing someone else's information to make money is unethical.

Trademarks, Patents and Trade Secrets
Trademarks- brand names, phrases, graphics, logos that identify products

Patents- protect inventions in the way that copyright protects expressions

Trade secrets- ex. illegal to hire someone to find out about their previous employer

Product Safety and Liability

Write clear and precise instructions. Hazards and risks must be posted.

Libel, Fraud, and Misrepresentation

libel- defamatory statement without basis in fact that shames or lowers the public reputation of an identifiable person.

Fraud and misrepresentation- deceive the public. ex. in labeling products