PHIL
304: Colloquium in Applied Ethics
Fall
2001
TR
Jeff
Ramsey x3425
Department of Philosophy jramsey@email.smith.edu
Dewey 12 Office
Hours: M 10-12, TR 10:30-11:30
and by appt.
PURPOSE:
This
course poses the following questions:
--What do we expect from scientific knowledge
when it is used for policy?
--What can we expect from scientific knowledge
when it is used for policy?
--What should we expect from scientific
knowledge when it is used for policy?
This
course is primarily an examination of the model used when policy makers,
government officials, and scientists advocate scientific evidence and theories
as relevant to a policy dispute. The
course has two overlapping sections.
First, we will examine the prevailing model of how scientific theories
and evidence are used in policy matters.
As we examine this model, we will survey its methodological and ethical
strengths and weaknesses. Also, we will
ask whether alternative models might be better. Second, we will examine how these issues play out in live matters
of policy. As we learn the standard
model, we will examine how scientists and policy makers judge that chemicals
are hazardous to humans and/or the environment. Then, we will examine the controversies about agricultural
biotechnology and global warming.
The perspective urged in this course is that
scientific information is necessary to formulate many public policies, but it
is not sufficient by itself. For
example, we will examine how value decisions are inherent in the estimation of
risk and the acceptance of data. Given
this, it follows that the information alone is not sufficient. The point is not to ridicule science but
rather to illustrate the idea that belief, even scientific belief, comes in
degrees and levels. We must not ignore
science, but we must not expect too much from it either.
This is not a course about “science
policy.” That is, it is not a course
about “how to grow good science” or a course devoted centrally to an
examination of the people and institutions who make policy.
TEXTS:
Required
texts available at Grecourt:
1)
Joseph Rodricks, Calculated Risks.
2)
Packet of readings, available at Copy Cat Print Shop, 32 Pleasant St.
(586-1332)
(hereafter referred to as P)
3)
D. MacLean (ed), Values at Risk (hereafter referred to as V)
4)
T. Glickman and M. Gough (eds), Readings in Risk (hereafter referred to
as GG)
Suggested
text available at Grecourt:
1)
L. Newton and C. Dillingham, Watersheds 3: Classic Cases in Environmental
Ethics.
GRADING:
Grading
will be determined according to the following:
mid-term 20%
class presentations and
discussion 30%
bibliography and draft 10%
final paper 40%
ASSIGNMENTS:
1.
The mid-term will be a take-home essay exam.
2.
Beginning Oct. 4, you will be responsible for presenting argument summaries and
questions about the papers. In teams of
2, you will outline the arguments presented in the readings for that day and
develop a set of questions that you think are raised by the papers singly or in
concert with each other.
3.
The paper is to be 12-20 pages in length and should examine some specific issue
in health or environmental risk assessment.
For instance, the paper might be an examination of some specific
chemical and its effects on humans and/or the environment. The paper should incorporate class
materials. You will present your paper
in class during the last week of classes.
A preliminary bibliography for the paper is due
no later than Tuesday, Nov. 20th.
A draft of the paper is due no later than Tuesday, Dec. 4th. The final paper is due no later than 5 pm,
Thursday, Dec. 20th.
CLASS
SCHEDULE
Sept
6 Introduction
THE BASICS: THE STANDARD
MODEL
11 Rodricks,
Chs. 1-3
13 Rodricks,
Chs. 4-5
18 Rodricks,
Ch. 6
20 Rodricks,
Ch. 7
25
Rodricks,
Ch. 8-9
27 Rodricks, Chs. 10-12
Oct 2 NRC, Risk Assessment and Science
and Judgment excerpts
4 Ruckelshaus (GG) and Weinberg (P)
9
NO
CLASS – Autumn Recess
11 Silbergeld (P) and Jasanoff (P)
16
Nowotny
(P) and Funtowicz and Ravetz (P)
18 P. Thompson (P) and Clark and Majone
(P)
23
Starr
(GG) and Hacking (V)
25 MID-TERM – Take home examination
30 Kelman and replies (GG) and Leonard
and Zuckhauser (V)
Nov 1 NO CLASS – Otelia Cromwell Day
6 MacLean,
“Risk and Consent” (Ch. 1 of V) and Sen (V)
8 MacLean,
“Social Values” (Ch. 4 of V) and Gibbard (V)
Necessary
background reading if you don’t know the biological basics:
B. Davis, “The Background” (on
reserve)
13 Steinbrecher,
“From Green to Gene Revolution” (P)
Krimsky, “Biotechnology
Assessment” (P)
15 Kenny,
“The Debate over the Deliberate Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms”
Hatch and Kuchler, “Regulation
of Agricultural Biotechnology”
Nov 20 Levidow, “Agricultural Biotechnology
as Clean Surgical Strike”
Hollander,
“Moral Responsibility . . .”
22
THANKSGIVING
BREAK – NO CLASS
CASE STUDY 2: GLOBAL
WARMING
Necessary
background reading if you don’t know the physical basics:
Schneider, Global Warming, pp. 13-23 (on
reserve)
27 Leggett,
"The Worst Case" (P)
Singer, "Warming
Theories Need Warning Label" (P)
Kellogg, “Response to Skeptics” (P)
29 Nordhaus, “Decision Analysis . . .”
(P)
Jamison,
“Ethics, Public Policy and Global Warming” (P)
Dec
4 Brunner,
"Defining the Policy Problem" (P)
Skolnikoff, “Policy
Gridlock . . .” (P)
6 Pielke,
“Usable Information for Policy” (P)
Shackley and Wynne,
“Integrating knowledges for climate change” (P)
11 STUDENT
PAPER PRESENTATIONS
13 STUDENT
PAPER PRESENTATIONS