Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: ethics
- Genre: Masters Thesis
- Creators: Minteer, Ben A
- Creators: Armendt, Brad
Description
Within ethics, a number of scholars advocate an interdisciplinary approach of combining the two traditionally different professions of science and philosophy with the confidence that this collaboration will be a mutually beneficial experience. Current ethicist-scientist interactions include embedded-ethicists and research ethics consultation services. Both methods are employed with the hope that they will reduce social and ethical problems that could arise from scientific research, and enhance the reflective capacity of investigative teams. While much effort has been put forth in the endeavor of creating ethicist-scientist interactions, there remains opportunity to refine these new interaction models to make them more robust. There is need for ethicists to understand the context of ethical decision-making in the laboratory. By extension, before interacting with scientists in a research lab, research ethicists ought to have the ability to understand the science and also be familiar with the different factors that influence scientific research, such as funding, productivity requirements, time constraints, politics of laboratories and institutional reward structures. Through literature review and the analysis of qualitative data obtained from the ethnographic study in a neuroscience laboratory, this thesis explores the strengths and weaknesses of ethicist-scientist interactions and aims to understand the culture, traditions and values of this community and their perspectives on their role as scientists and their relationship to ethics. This study shows that the quantity and quality of ethics discussions in the lab are limited and dictated by time constraints and minimal incentives. Other influencing factors are the researchers' perspectives on ethics and how they view their role as a scientist in relation to the public.
ContributorsMin, Gyongeun Catherine (Author) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Minteer, Ben A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Professional environmental scientists are increasingly under pressure to inform and even shape policy. Scientists engage policy effectively when they act within the bounds of objectivity, credibility, and authority, yet significant portions of the scientific community condemn such acts as advocacy. They argue that it is nonobjective, that it risks damaging the credibility of science, and that it is an abuse of authority. This means objectivity, credibility, and authority deserve direct attention before the policy advocacy quagmire can be reasonably understood. I investigate the meaning of objectivity in science and that necessarily brings the roles of values in science into question. This thesis is a sociological study of the roles environmental values play in the decisions of environmental scientists working in the institution of academia. I argue that the gridlocked nature of the environmental policy advocacy debates can be traced to what seems to be a deep tension and perhaps confusion among these scientists. I provide empirical evidence of this tension and confusion through the use of in depth semi-structured interviews among a sampling of academic environmental scientists (AES). I show that there is a struggle for these AES to reconcile their support for environmentalist values and goals with their commitment to scientific objectivity and their concerns about being credible scientists in the academy. Additionally, I supplemented my data collection with environmental sociology and history, plus philosophy and sociology of science literatures. With this, I developed a system for understanding values in science (of which environmental values are a subset) with respect to the limits of my sample and study. This examination of respondent behavior provides support that it is possible for AES to act on their environmental values without compromising their objectivity, credibility, and authority. These scientists were not likely to practice this in conversations with colleagues and policy-makers, but were likely to behave this way with students. The legitimate extension of this behavior is a viable route for continuing to integrate the human and social dimensions of environmental science into its practice, its training, and its relationship with policy.
ContributorsAppleton, Caroline (Author) / Minteer, Ben (Thesis advisor) / Chew, Matt (Committee member) / Armendt, Brad (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Perhaps the most common and forceful criticism directed at absolutist deontological theories is that they allow for the occurrence of morally catastrophic events whenever such events could only and certainly be prevented by the violation of a deontological constraint. Some deontologists simply bite the bullet, accept this implication of their theory, and give their best arguments as to why it does not undermine absolutism. Others, I think more plausibly, opt for an alternative deontological theory known as ‘moderate deontology’ and are thereby able to evade the criticism since moderate deontology permits violations of constraints under certain extreme circumstances. The goal of this thesis is to provide a defense of moderate deontology against three worries about the view, namely, that it is more accurately interpreted as a kind of pluralism than as a deontology, that there is no non-arbitrary way of setting thresholds for deontological constraints, and that the positing of thresholds for constraints would lead to some problematic results in practice. I will respond to each of these worries in turn. In particular, I will argue that moderate deontology is properly understood as a deontological theory despite its partial concern for consequentialist considerations, that thresholds for deontological constraints can be successfully located without arbitrariness by democratic appeal to people’s commonsense moral intuitions, and that the alleged problematic results of positing thresholds for constraints can be effectively explained away by the moderate deontologist.
ContributorsCook, Tyler Blake (Author) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Thesis advisor) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Brake, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
Zoos are a unique collection-based institution with deep roots in the social structure of modern society. From their beginnings as elite menageries to display power or wealth, they have evolved into public institutions committed to providing exemplary animal care, and recreational and educational opportunities for visitors. More recently, zoos have developed a series of significant conservation programs and partnerships around the globe, efforts that have proved vital to saving endangered species such as the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), among other species.
Intrinsic to the development of modern zoo designs are the interwoven concerns of naturalism and animal welfare. Animal welfare, in particular, has become the paramount responsibility for professionally run zoological institutions as they seek to become centers of conservation and education without compromising animal wellbeing. Animal welfare and naturalism (understood as a design feature in zoo exhibits) are typically harmonious objectives, but these goals have occasionally clashed in implementation. While animal welfare and naturalism are defined in various (and not always consistent) ways in the literature, in-depth interviews of leading professionals and scholars in the zoo community and multi-dimensional case studies of exemplary, accredited institutions (including the Phoenix Zoo, the San Diego Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) provide unique insight into the shifting meaning of these terms and how welfare and naturalism have and continue to shape the
development of modern zoo enclosures. This study concludes by suggesting a possible
future trajectory for innovative and alternative zoo designs that incorporate both animal welfare and naturalism without sacrificing either goal.
Intrinsic to the development of modern zoo designs are the interwoven concerns of naturalism and animal welfare. Animal welfare, in particular, has become the paramount responsibility for professionally run zoological institutions as they seek to become centers of conservation and education without compromising animal wellbeing. Animal welfare and naturalism (understood as a design feature in zoo exhibits) are typically harmonious objectives, but these goals have occasionally clashed in implementation. While animal welfare and naturalism are defined in various (and not always consistent) ways in the literature, in-depth interviews of leading professionals and scholars in the zoo community and multi-dimensional case studies of exemplary, accredited institutions (including the Phoenix Zoo, the San Diego Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) provide unique insight into the shifting meaning of these terms and how welfare and naturalism have and continue to shape the
development of modern zoo enclosures. This study concludes by suggesting a possible
future trajectory for innovative and alternative zoo designs that incorporate both animal welfare and naturalism without sacrificing either goal.
ContributorsBoyle, Kristen E (Author) / Minteer, Ben A (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Cunningham, Stan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
This paper presents the results of an empirical analysis of deceptive data visualizations paired with explanatory text. Data visualizations are used to communicate information about important social issues to large audiences and are found in the news, social media, and the Internet (Kirk, 2012). Modern technology and software allow people and organizations to easily produce and publish data visualizations, contributing to data visualizations becoming more prevalent as a means of communicating important information (Sue & Griffin, 2016). Ethical transgressions in data visualizations are the intentional or unintentional use of deceptive techniques with the potential of altering the audience’s understanding of the information being presented (Pandey et al., 2015). While many have discussed the importance of ethics in data visualization, scientists have only recently started to look at how deceptive data visualizations affect the reader. This study was administered as an on-line user survey and was designed to test the deceptive potential of data visualizations when they are accompanied by a paragraph of text. The study consisted of a demographic questionnaire, chart familiarity assessment, and data visualization survey. A total of 256 participants completed the survey and were evenly distributed between a control (non-deceptive) survey or a test (deceptive) survey in which participant were asked to observe a paragraph of text and data visualization paired together. Participants then answered a question relevant to the observed information to measure how they perceived the information to be. The individual differences between demographic groups and their responses were analyzed to understand how these groups reacted to deceptive data visualizations compared to the control group. The results of the study confirmed that deceptive techniques in data visualizations caused participants to misinterpret the information in the deceptive data visualizations even when they were accompanied by a paragraph of explanatory text. Furthermore, certain demographics and comfort levels with chart types were more susceptible to certain types of deceptive techniques. These results highlight the importance of education and practice in the area of data visualizations to ensure deceptive practices are not utilized and to avoid potential misinformation, especially when information can be called into question.
ContributorsO'Brien, Shaun (Author) / Laure, Claire (Thesis advisor) / Brumberger, Eva (Committee member) / D'Angelo, Barbara J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017