Monday, October 31, 2011

Specific Ethical Question

I am a biotechnology major, and I am planning on attending graduate school for forensic science/criminology.  The ethical question that I am focusing on is this: Should "familial searching" of DNA databases, such as the CODIS (combined DNA index system) of the US, be utilized in DNA profiling by law enforcement and our criminal justice system?


Background information
Familial searching of DNA databases is "the process whereby a DNA profile obtained from a crime scene fails to match an existing profile...and a decision is then made to search the [national DNA database] to see if there is instead a close match with the crime scene profile." [1]

Arguments for the affirmative
Familial searching of the DNA database:

  • Allows forensic analysts of law enforcement to identify suspects who are not in the DNA database. [1-3]
  • May decrease the need to use DNA dragnet techniques (collecting DNA from a large group of individuals to search for the perpetrator of a crime), which have had only limited success in helping to solve crimes in the US. [2]
  • Has the potential to increase greatly the number of criminal investigative leads produced by existing DNA databases. [4]
Arguments for the negative
Familial searching of the DNA database:

  • Violates the privacy of the person in the national database
  • Violates the privacy of possible relatives revealed by the search who would otherwise not be involved in police investigations
  • Reinforces views about the alleged prevalence of criminality within certain families
  • Reveals to relatives the presence of a family member in the national database
  • Reveals a previously unknown genetic link between individuals
  • Reveals an absence of a genetic link which individuals had thought existed [1]
  • Would disproportionately incorporate minorities into the database [4]
My position on the issue
I believe that familial searching of DNA databases should only be utilized if all other investigatory techniques have been exhausted. As stated above, familial searching can be very valuable in identifying possible suspects when the suspect him/herself is not already in the system. However, it is a major violation of privacy to be incriminating the relatives of the possible suspect, essentially, by using familial searching. 

References
(1) Haimes, Erica. "Social and Ethical Issues in the Use of Familial Searching in Forensic Investigations: Insights from Family and Kinship Studies." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Summer (2006): 263-276. Print.
(2) Rothstein, Mark A. and Meghan K. Talbott. "The Expanding Use of DNA in Law Enforcement: What Role for Privacy?" Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Summer (2006): 153-164. Print.
(3) Greely, Henry T., Riordan, Daniel P., Garrison, Nanibaa' A., and Joanna L. Mountain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Summer (2006): 248-262. Print.
(4) Lazer, David. "Searching the Family Tree for Suspects: Ethical and Implementation Issues in the Familial Searching of DNA Databases. Taubman Center Policy Briefs. March 2008. 

Wood Project: Action Plan

Ethical Question

The question: Is it ethical for a physician to accept Wild tickets from a pharmaceutical rep to take her family to the game?


No, I don't think that it is ethical for a physician to accept tickets from a pharmaceutical rep to take her family to a Wild's game. It is not ethical for the following reasons:


1. It will encourage the pharmaceutical rep to continue "bribing", in a sense, people to get what he/she wants.
2. If the physician is not planning on doing future business with the pharmaceutical rep, it is not right to take the tickets because they are offered.



General Ethics

Forensic Science Organizations


United States Midwestern Association of Forensic Science
http://www.mafs.net/index.php?id=codeofethics


India Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL)
To provide assured quality service of international standards as per ISO/IEC 17025 to the customers with good professional practices in order to deduce effective remedial solution of intricacies related to Forensic Investigation of crime of any type and assist in proper dispensation of justice.


China
http://www.ifs.org.cn/english/index.asp


Thailand Central Institute of Forensic Science




Saudi Arabia




Israel

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Diversity

I believe that diversity encompasses more than the differences that exist between people; diversity is about accepting those differences.  I believe that diversity is about overcoming ignorance.  Valuing diversity will help me be the best that I can be in my career because it will define and enhance:

  • my professionalism
  • my leadership skills
  • my interpersonal skills
  • my communication skills

Diversity Statements - examples


NSF
It is the policy of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to ensure equal opportunity
in all phases of employment, delivery of services, and administering of grants and
contracts. NSF will maintain an environment for all of our employees and customers
that is free from prohibited discrimination and harassment based on race, color,
religion, sex (includes sexual harassment and discrimination based on pregnancy),
disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, and protected genetic information.
Individuals are also protected from retaliation for exercising their rights under anti-
discrimination laws.

Genentech
Our Philosophy
Diversity is core to Genentech's values and culture. We are committed to developing an inclusive work environment where diversity of thought, style, culture, skill sets and perspective is valued and celebrated in support of individual performance and potential, as well as our business goals and mission.
Our Diversity Value
Diversity is integral to our culture and how we conduct our business. It is evident in who we are, the patients we serve, the physicians with whom we partner, the vendors we rely upon, and the communities in which we work. It strengthens our organization and contributes to our competitiveness. We are inclusive; we demonstrate respect and appreciation for diversity and encourage the richness of ideas, approaches and points of view that it enables.

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation)
Diversity and inclusion drive innovation, employee engagement and create a competitive advantage in the marketplace. We seek to attract a highly skilled and motivated workforce. We are committed to diversity and inclusion — just as we would any core business area. Differences in thoughts, styles, backgrounds, and opinions are valued at SAIC.

Sigma Aldrich
At Sigma-Aldrich we respect, encourage and value the diversity that exists in our workplace and our surrounding communities. It isn’t just ethnicity or gender or age, but also how each of us contributes to the corporate culture in our own way. We are committed to fostering a workplace that builds employee capability and engagement.



All four of the above diversity statements are similar in that they describe inclusiveness.  Only the last one mentioned how individuals contribute to the business/company in different ways because of diversity.  Unlike my idea of diversity, the diversity statements I found do not state anything about overcoming ignorance.  Even if employees of the company do not openly discriminate against others, they may still have the wrong mentality about diversity.  In addition, merely having a diversity statement and actually following through with it (as individuals and as a whole) are two different things.

My Professional Development Plan

My Professional Development Plan – Through schooling and the first five years of my career

Assessment of skills and talents

  • Organized
  • Fast learner
  • Computer skills
  • Good work ethic/hard working
  • Determined
  • Productive
  • Honest
  • Music
Values and interests
I value my family, my friends, my culture, my religion, and my education.  My family, friends, culture, and religion are the most significant inspirations in all that I do.  In turn, the extent to which I value my education is directly affected by these inspirations.

Outside input
  • Values
    • Friendship
    • Integrity
    • Family
    • Culture
    • Religion
    • Education
  • Skills and talents
    • Responsible
    • Hard working
    • Courageous
    • Intelligent
Goals

  • Help people
  • Inspire people
  • Do something that I love
  • Be happy
Timeline
  • Now. Do well in my undergraduate education and take courses that I am interested in
    • Attend conferences related to my area of interest(s)
  • Now. Take advantage of research opportunities as an undergraduate
    • Do research with professors
    • Present research in front of peers and professors
      • Poster presentations
      • Oral presentations
    • REUs/Summer research
  • Now. Make connections and build relationships with people so I can help them and they can help me.
    • Networking
    • Maintaining current and future relationships
  • Summer 2012. Study for and take the GRE.
  • Fall 2012. Apply to graduate school.
  • December 2012 or May 2013. Graduate with a B.S. in Applied Science, Biotechnology concentration
  • Get married
  • Fall 2013. Graduate school.
    • Research, research, research
    • Attend conferences
    • Present research
    • Teach
  • Spring 2019. Graduate with a Ph.D. in ________________________.
  • 2019. Get a job. Get a house.
  • Have kids
  • Make money
  • Continue playing guitar, singing, being involved at church.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

CO2 Paper Debate Reflection

1. My group’s presentation:
2. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the criteria established. Were these good criteria, or should there have been different criteria established?

I think that the criteria that we established weren’t the strongest in evaluating whether or not the paper was a legitimate scientific paper. It is very important to assess the scientific method—including repeatability and accuracy of data presented, and an open-perspective, non-biased approach in terms of data analysis and interpretation. However, it was difficult to evaluate this particular paper with that criterion because the paper wasn’t necessarily a scientific research paper—it was a literature review. In addition, it was difficult to refute the references used in the article (including their credibility, how recent they were, and the publisher) because some are no longer accessible and many are credible. One of the strengths of the criteria is that the content of the paper was not what we were debating; we were debating whether or not the paper is a legitimate paper today.

If we were to tailor the scientific method criterion to fit the literature review nature of this particular article, the groups would have had more effective assessment of the paper. Also, if the references criterion was more specific, it may have been easier to use to evaluate the paper.

3. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the presentations as a whole. Consider the "yes" and "no" groups as a whole.

“Yes” group strengths and weaknesses
These groups did a good job of pointing out the credibility of the references cited in the paper. The “yes” groups acknowledged that, although the paper did cite a few references that seemed sketchy, many of their sources were very credible and cited from frequently. Their weaknesses were present in proving the validity of the scientific method.

“No” groups strengths and weaknesses
The “no” groups’ strengths were in disproving the validity of the scientific method in terms of dissecting the figures and graphs in the paper and acknowledging the biases present. However, when it came to rejecting the references as bad sources, the “no” groups fell short.

4. Reflect on the group management of your group. What went well, what did not?

I think that the people who presented did the most work. Although the rest of the group helped in gathering the content of the presentation, there was more pressure on the presenters. I think that management of my group would have been better if the tasks were divided up more evenly and the group members all did their share of the work.

5. Reflect on the personal "ethic" you felt in your group. Did you believe in your position? Were you arguing against your beliefs?

My group did believe in our position; all of us disagreed with how the paper went about in presenting their findings. We also believed that the paper was very poorly written in terms of the scientific method and the open perspective of the authors.

6. Did the class make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming/climate change debate? Why?

I believe that the class did make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming debate. The paper we used for this debate was very biased, and therefore, the data they pulled from the climate change field were data that supported their perspective instead of considering the extensive range of literature out there that may or may not back up their beliefs. Like any other topic of debate, both sides must be considered.

7. Explain the statement, "What we do in the US, soon will not matter." Provide evidence to justify this statement.

This statement basically means that no matter what the US does, it won’t matter in the future because, on a global scale, people living in other places will continue to do what they do as well. For example, if the US decided to stop driving cars and rode bicycles or walked to their destinations, it wouldn’t make much of a difference on the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere because people in China and other places in the world would continue to drive their cars.

8. Explain this statement, "What we do as individuals matters." Provide evidence to justify this statement.

This statement means what we do as individuals makes an impact on a larger scale. It means that our actions affect more than just us, that it affects others in the world as well, directly or indirectly. An example of this would be all of the inventors. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone; his invention changed how the whole world communicates with others.