We live in a world of rapidly advancing, revolutionary technologies that are not just reshaping our world and wars, but also creating a host of ethical questions that must be dealt with. But in trying to answer them, we must also explore why exactly is it so hard to have effective discussions about ethics, technology, and war in the first place? This article delves into the all-too-rarely discussed underlying issues that challenge the field of ethics when it comes to talking (...) about war, weapons, and moral conduct. These issues include the difficulty of communicating across fields; the complexity of real world dilemmas versus the seminar room and laboratory; the magnified role that money and funding sources play in shaping not just who gets to talk, but what they research; cross-cultural differences; the growing role of geographic and temporal distance issues; suspicion of the actual value of law and ethics in a harsh realm like war; and a growing suspicion of science itself. If we hope better to address our growing ethical concerns, we must face up to these underlying issues as well. (shrink)

Recent decades have seen a number of public disputes over scientific anomalies and unorthodoxies, typically framed as science versus pseudo-science. This Essay suggests historical and intellectual context for these controversies. The main point: There is no universally applicable, objective, impartial formula for distinguishing good science from bad science or real science from pseudo—the devil is always in the details. Anomalies and unorthodoxies are defined implicitly by the contemporary state of the art in mainstream science; “pseudo-science” is a pejorative aimed at (...) non-mainstream claims in defense of the authority of established, mainstream science. WWII was a game-changer: In its aftermath, science achieved unprecedented influence over public policies. As the stakes became high, “pseudo-science” seemed no longer a sufficiently powerful pejorative and was superseded by charges of “junk science” and “denialism.”. (shrink)

JOHNSTONE M‐J. Nursing Inquiry 2012; 19: 107–115 [Epub ahead of print]Academic freedom and the obligation to ensure morally responsible scholarship in nursingAcademic freedom is generally regarded as being of critical importance to the development, improved understanding, and dissemination of new knowledge in a field. Although of obvious importance to the discipline of nursing, the nature, extent and value of academic freedom and the controversies surrounding it have rarely been considered in the nursing literature. It is a key aim of this (...) paper to redress this oversight by providing a brief examination of: (i) the principle of academic freedom; (ii) the distinction between academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the academic freedom to publish; (iii) the problem of ideological judgments being dressed up as scientific or discipline judgments to supports ‘bad’ conclusions; and (iv) the standards that might otherwise be appealed to for determining whether maverick manuscripts supporting morally abhorrent conclusions should be accepted for publication. It is suggested that the tenets of academic freedom require robust international debate, with due attention being given to such issues as the development of an international declaration on academic freedom to publish in nursing, how to ensure a robust rebuttal system in nursing journals to counter specious scholarship, and how to better promote the letters pages of nursing journals as a venue for facilitating debate on controversial issues. (shrink)

Everyone interested in pseudoscience, fringe science, anomalistics, is likely to benefit from the material in this work. The book has much to say about the social and political context in which heterodox claims about matters of science have flourished and been argued over since the middle of the 20th century. Creationism and Lysenkoism as well as Velikovsky are discussed quite comprehensively and informatively. Attempts within unorthodoxies to maintain a monolithic paradigm are illustrated and analyzed to good purpose. The Pseudoscience Wars (...) uses the Velikovsky episode as entrée to examine how scientists and society behave when drastically unorthodox claims about matters of science are ventured by non-scientists; the Velikovsky affair "was about science in the postwar public sphere" (p. 22); "an abiding anxiety about science's relation to the 'public'" (p. 47) was central in the reaction of the scientific community. (shrink)

Vaccine refusers often seem motivated by disgust, and they invoke ideas of purity, contamination and sanctity. Unfortunately, the emotion of disgust and its companion ideas are not directly responsive to the probabilistic and statistical evidence of research science. It follows that increased efforts to promulgate the results of vaccine science are not likely to contribute to increased rates of vaccination among persons who refuse vaccines because of the ‘ethics of sanctity’. Furthermore, the fact that disgust-based vaccine refusal is not monolithic (...) – vaccine refusers manifest disgust at different objects and invoke different ideas about purity and contamination – further complicates public health efforts to increase vaccination rates. (shrink)