Slashdot Mirror
A Hippocratic Oath For Scientists
grrlscientist writes "In response to what appears to be a growing problem of scientific misconduct, a group of people at the Institute of Medical Science at University of Toronto in Canada wrote a scientist's version of the Hippocratic oath. This oath (which is cited in the story) was recited by all graduate students in the biological sciences at the beginning of the 2007-2008 academic year." This blogger argues that merely reciting an oath is not going to help much when "...the corruption in 'science' is systemic. It is due to corporate science being run according to a business model instead of in accordance to an educational paradigm. It is due to unrestrained corporate greed combined with a tremendous disparity in power and income..."
To clarify what I think you're saying in a way that may be relevant to the grandparent post, the notebook is not a legal document by simple virtue of being a "scientist's notebook." Rather, a lab notebook can be a legally significant document in some legal proceedings. It is only of value in this context if you can demonstrate a consistent adherence to certain standards.
For example, if you are attempting to overturn someone else's patent due to your own prior work, your notebook describing and dating your ideas/tests may be of value. If you're able to produce a career's worth of similar notebooks describing your other work, that will lend credibility to the contents of your notebook.
Well currently you're likely to get banned from getting federal grant money and blacklisted with journals, so for all practical purposes you are totally screwed unless you have a few hundred grand lying around to fund your own work.
What the prevailing opinion on abortion was depended on time and place. It's not so simple that you can just say "a majority used to think abortion was bad" even in just America. In some places, it was just fine with most people as long as it occurred before the "quickening," the fetus's first movement in the womb. Before that time, the fetus was considered to be part of the woman's body. This attitude was reflected in English common law until the 19th century, when abortion was criminalized--for the health of the mother, rather than the fetus. Abortion remedies were notoriously dangerous.
The idea that abortion is morally wrong because it destroys the life of the fetus is a reason invented to keep the law in place retrospectively. It was not the intent of those who put the laws into place.
When Hippocrates invented his eponymous oath, most Greeks were okay with abortion. Its banning of abortion was so odd, in fact, that it prompted some scholars on that basis alone to associate the oath with Pythagoreanism, the one strand of ancient Greek thought known to ban it entirely.
For instance, some scientists invented a new alloy which they suggest will revolutionize crumple-zones in cars. This alloy includes palladium, a rare-metal. Indeed so rare, if all the palladium on earth were to be used to make this new alloy, we'd get about a cubic meter of the stuff.
What?? Global palladium production was 222 metric tons in 2006 (source). According to the article, this alloy was light enough to float in water. Thus, its density must be less than that of water. Water has a mass of 1 metric ton per cubic meter. Thus, if the alloy were pure palladium, global production could provide for 222 cubic meters annually. I highly doubt that the alloy is pure palladium; in fact, it probably only accounts for a small percentage of the total mass. Do you have some source to cite in defense of your claim? While I agree with your point, I fail to see the reasoning behind this example...Fear the penguin.