4 ms·

scientists shouldn't advocate on the topics they are deeply attached to Very nicely put. Along similar lines, quoting from a post I did a while back (http://n

by grellas 16y ago

scientists shouldn't advocate on the topics they are deeply attached to Very nicely put. Along similar lines, quoting from a post I did a while back (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1140274 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1140274): "Activist groups have long looked for a hook by which to bring class actions against those whom they see as perpetrators of wrongs that they wish to stop. In this case, it is commercial tuna fishermen. However, the courts have denied them the right to sue on behalf of the dolphins (which are accidentally killed in the course of industrial tuna fishing) on grounds that dolphins aren't human beings and therefore do not have 'standing' to sue. This means that the activist groups also cannot bring class actions in the name of the dolphins. Of course, if the dolphins are 'self-aware,' then they arguably can be treated in a special way by the courts - as 'non-human humans' - and be given the right to sue. The research is being cast as disinterested science, but I believe it may be motivated by this extra-scientific goal and that is why it is routinely presented along with arguments for better ethical treatment of the dolphins. In essence, the bottom line will be this: better ethical treatment = enforceable legal rights (i.e., enforceable by activist groups suing tuna fisherman in federal court once a court recognizes their right to bring such suits on behalf of a 'self-aware' species that now should have 'standing' to sue)." I am not trying to knock the science - just saying that, when cast as a moral imperative, it is as much advocacy as it is science and that its objectivity must be considered in that light. Perhaps it would be best for those who do these studies to stick to the facts and let others do the advocacy. It would give them a higher degree of credibility as scientists if they separated these roles.

ced 16y ago
Perhaps it would be best for those who do these studies to stick to the facts and let others do the advocacy. It would give them a higher degree of credibility as scientists if they separated these roles. That's a good point, but on the other hand, there are many issues that are unsexy, from which activists shy away. There's a passage in Russell and Norvig's AI book that relates how the US government once asked researchers to evaluate if we should ban a toxic paint component from being used in classrooms. The researchers did a proper utility calculation; they assigned a value (say 80000$) to a child's life, then evaluated the cost vs benefit (how many children lives could be saved vs. the cost of using another paint). It turned out that banning the paint component would be beneficial. The government was outraged, "How can you assign a monetary value to a child's life???" So they rejected the report, and didn't ban the paint. The moral was that "Refusing to assign a value to a human life leads to its being frequently undervalued" There's no way that any activist group will ever march to support assigning value to children's lives. Yet, it may be the right thing to do, and it could happen if we had more scientific advocacy.
- CapitalistCartr 16y ago
  Scientific advocacy isn't the same thing as scientists advocating. Being more rigorous about advocacy would be wonderful; we could sure use that. The issue is scientists veering over from studying to advocacy without making the distinction; that is, blurring the lines. That is unscientific and unethical.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  I severely doubt that anecdote. Nearly every government decision (e.g. where to build roads) involves calculations that put a value on human life, never mind the more obvious ones about what drugs to provide via socialized medical services. This is sometimes awkward to discuss in public, where emotion plays better in the media, but I'm fairly certain that it's been standard government practice to do such cost benefit analysis for decades. (If the proposal did actually exist and was rejected then it seems more likely that a politician was using the emotional argument as a convenient cover for not implementing a policy that they disagreed with for other reasons.)
  - ced 16y ago
    I severely doubt that anecdote. See for yourself: http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&dq=artificial%20intelligence%20a%20modern%20approach&pg=PA615#v=onepage&q=outraged&f=false http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&#38... I had cited it from memory. It wasn't paint; it was asbestos. Nearly every government decision (e.g. where to build roads) involves calculations that put a value on human life, never mind the more obvious ones about what drugs to provide via socialized medical services. Great, though my point still stands that scientists are often the only people who can grasp a particular issue, and should perhaps consider advocating it.
- roryokane 16y ago
  It doesn’t make sense to me how the government didn’t ban the paint after hearing that the researchers were assigning monetary value to lives. The usual mistaken followup to “you’re assigning monetary value to a life?” is “but a life is sacred and precious, and all measures should be taken to save them, no matter the cost”, not “money is incomparably more valuable than mere lives”. Some people say that that human-overvaluing mentality partially led to the TSA implementing so many annoying security protocols in airports, because it thought “yeah, these security checks may be really annoying or demeaning, but if they save just one more life they will be worth it”.

by grellas 16y ago

ced 16y ago

Perhaps it would be best for those who do these studies to stick to the facts and let others do the advocacy. It would give them a higher degree of credibility as scientists if they separated these roles. That's a good point, but on the other hand, there are many issues that are unsexy, from which activists shy away. There's a passage in Russell and Norvig's AI book that relates how the US government once asked researchers to evaluate if we should ban a toxic paint component from being used in classrooms. The researchers did a proper utility calculation; they assigned a value (say 80000$) to a child's life, then evaluated the cost vs benefit (how many children lives could be saved vs. the cost of using another paint). It turned out that banning the paint component would be beneficial. The government was outraged, "How can you assign a monetary value to a child's life???" So they rejected the report, and didn't ban the paint. The moral was that "Refusing to assign a value to a human life leads to its being frequently undervalued" There's no way that any activist group will ever march to support assigning value to children's lives. Yet, it may be the right thing to do, and it could happen if we had more scientific advocacy.

CapitalistCartr 16y ago
Scientific advocacy isn't the same thing as scientists advocating. Being more rigorous about advocacy would be wonderful; we could sure use that. The issue is scientists veering over from studying to advocacy without making the distinction; that is, blurring the lines. That is unscientific and unethical.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
I severely doubt that anecdote. Nearly every government decision (e.g. where to build roads) involves calculations that put a value on human life, never mind the more obvious ones about what drugs to provide via socialized medical services. This is sometimes awkward to discuss in public, where emotion plays better in the media, but I'm fairly certain that it's been standard government practice to do such cost benefit analysis for decades. (If the proposal did actually exist and was rejected then it seems more likely that a politician was using the emotional argument as a convenient cover for not implementing a policy that they disagreed with for other reasons.)
- ced 16y ago
  I severely doubt that anecdote. See for yourself: http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&dq=artificial%20intelligence%20a%20modern%20approach&pg=PA615#v=onepage&q=outraged&f=false http://books.google.ca/books?id=8jZBksh-bUMC&lpg=PP1&#38... I had cited it from memory. It wasn't paint; it was asbestos. Nearly every government decision (e.g. where to build roads) involves calculations that put a value on human life, never mind the more obvious ones about what drugs to provide via socialized medical services. Great, though my point still stands that scientists are often the only people who can grasp a particular issue, and should perhaps consider advocating it.
roryokane 16y ago
It doesn’t make sense to me how the government didn’t ban the paint after hearing that the researchers were assigning monetary value to lives. The usual mistaken followup to “you’re assigning monetary value to a life?” is “but a life is sacred and precious, and all measures should be taken to save them, no matter the cost”, not “money is incomparably more valuable than mere lives”. Some people say that that human-overvaluing mentality partially led to the TSA implementing so many annoying security protocols in airports, because it thought “yeah, these security checks may be really annoying or demeaning, but if they save just one more life they will be worth it”.