Ethics, abortions, and VA research

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 11:34:17 -0500
> From: David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Ethics, abortions, and VA research
> 
> There is a common link between two recent threads: they are issues of
> ethical theory, not radiation science.  Because we are technical types,
> rather than philosophy types, we missed the essential points in both cases.
> 
> Abortions because of radiophobia are truly regrettable, but not an ethical
> issue in radiation protection standards.  Here I use the word "ethics" in
> the limited sense as a discipline of philosophy.  Ethics is the study of
> theories of obligation and of values.  (I believe that the HP article was
> using the word in this limited sense, also.)  In common conversation, the
> word ethics is used as a synonym for morality, right and wrong.  In
> philosophy, as I understand it, it has more to do with the tension between
> social obligations and personal freedom.  Because of our scientific bent,
> we ask technical questions like "How can they estimate the number of
> abortions?" rather than ethical questions like "Is the ICRP responsible for
> irrational use of its risk estimates?"

David, 

Perhaps you missed the essential points, and I agree that the issue of
estimating is not an ethical issue, but I doubt that anybody who addressed it
thought it was. But I thought most did understand the ethical issue:  "Is the
ICRP responsible for producing irrational risk estimates?" Specifically,
estimates that mislead the public about the risks of radiation in order to
foster public fear. And especially for those with fore knowledge and
self-serving intent and purpose (which is not true of many who go along in the 
dark being fed a narrow and biased view of the data that is in the hands of
ICRP, and others). The answer is obviously "yes", along with all who join them 
in such endeavor. 

The only debate is then: "To what extent is the effort to mislead people on
radiation risks an intent to deceive or only a misguided effort to be
conservative?" Each can and must answer only on their own, and in their own
context of facing their own god at the end of life, from their own private
understanding of their own knowledge intent. 

Eg, I can't tell you what Hitler thought about the "moral justification" of
his actions either, and I'm more in the dark about Lenin, and expect that
Trotsky was likely quite convinced of the rightness of his actions, at least
until well through the war with the White Russians. More to the point is
Lysenko, who was more like a typical bureaucratic manager who has power and
authority far beyond his knowledge, and kicks out and shuts off scientists who 
disagree with his narrow politically-sold view of the science. The higher
level scientists who "conform", with less of a "forcing function" than the
Russian scientists who went along with Lysenko, though they know better, but
do know how to "follow the funding", are more suspect than the Lysenko
bureaucrats. :-) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com