Project Description

The focus of this project is the production of genuine research on the topics of the course. To that end, we will focus on developing your research process and constitute the classroom as a professional community of researchers.

Your paper should address some key feature of the debates and figures discussed throughout the course. In the spirit of the interdisciplinary nature of our graduate programs, you can approach this topic from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, so long as the core interest is the role of values in science, technology, or medicine. It is my hope that your paper will also contribute to your own larger set of interests as part of your graduate program while constituting a serious engagement with one or more the issues discussed in the course. The ideal outcome is to produce a paper approaching publishable quality that can then be used as the basis for a publication, or as the basis of a dissertation proposal or chapter, a master’s thesis, or a portfolio paper.

Research Materials

In addition to turning in a finished paper at the end of the semester, you will be asked to compile a dossier of the research materials collected to produce the paper. This will include a topic proposal and refinements of the topic into a description of the research question; a full, annotated bibliography of relevant sources; photocopies or downloads of sources (preferably in PDF format); records of library and database searches; reading notes; records of your own thoughts (outlines, results of free writing, etc.).

This part of your project will be assessed separately from the paper itself, along three criteria: (1) Quantity and quality of useful information in your dossier. (2) Effort – demonstration of the effort that went into your research, whether or not it produced useful materials (i.e., you get credit for demonstrating the dead ends and seemingly “wasted” effort that you can account for). (3) Presentation – Is the information in the dossier organized and presented so as to make it easy to use in the future by someone who takes up and continues your project. (See below.)

Future Fate of the Project

This course is the first stage of an educational experiment, inspired by a similar experiment by Hasok Chang. The goal is to create an ongoing community of professional researchers in the classroom. In subsequent iterations of this course, students will inherit the work that you produce, improve it and add to it until publishable materials are produced.

If you agree to have your work included in subsequent stages of the process, you will receive authorship credit for the final project commensurate with your contribution to the project. I will do my honest best to consult with you on the final version, prior to any sort of publication.

Online Publication

The materials in your research dossier will be kept private, shared only (by your agreement) with students who choose to take up your project in the future. It is, however, becoming very common for academics to publish working drafts of their scholarship online, to facilitate a more rapid exchange of ideas. As such, final papers from this class meeting a certain standard of quality will be eligible to be published as part of a series of “Values in Science Working Papers” in an online repository. “Working Papers” are not official publications and so will not interfere with use in dissertations, future publications, etc. (Papers will only be so published by your agreement.)

Suggested Topics

All papers must address some element of the relationship between values/ethics/politics and science/technology/medicine. I conceive of papers falling into a few broad categories, and I suggest several specific topics below.

1. CASE STUDIES
   1. Historical Analysis: These papers will create a case history in the history of science or technology and analyze the role of values in that case. E.g.,
      1. The role of values in systems of psychology
      2. Racism in the design of NYC overpasses
      3. The effect of the Cold War on mid-century economic theory.
   2. Contemporary criticism: Much like historical analyses, critical case studies look in detail at a particular case of scientific or technology, but focus on recent or ongoing developments with an eye to improving practice.
      1. Incorporating values into evidence-based medicine.
      2. Gender bias in website design
      3. The democratic potential of social media
2. PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT
   1. Interpretative/Exegetical: These papers focus on some philosophical project, view, or argument and attempt to explain it more clearly, and sometimes to stretch the bounds of the view. E.g.,
      1. The influence of Heidegger on Marcuse
      2. Applying Dewey’s critique of technology to emerging media
      3. The philosophical roots of Morozov’s critique of the Internet
   2. Argumentative: An argumentative paper takes up a live philosophical issue and contributes an argument about the issue, either by attempt to critique the view of another philosopher, or to defend a more original view. E.g.,
      1. A defense of the inductive risk approach to values in science
      2. Feminist standpoint theory and the critique of technology
      3. Why a new god won’t save us: A critique of Heidegger
3. OTHER OPTIONS
   1. Literary Studies of Science: Such a paper would engage in a literary analysis of some scientific text with an eye to the role of values in that work, or would analyze some fictional work that has something interesting to say about it.
      1. Signs of sexism in Watson’s The Double Helix
      2. The Politics of Darwin’s The Descent of Man
      3. Science, Values, and Politics in Kim Stanley Robinson’s Science in the Capital Trilogy
   2. If you have any other ideas, run them by me before submitting a proposal.

Timeline

Project Milestones

• Week 4
  • Receive this document
• Week 6
  • Paper Proposals Due
  • Describes your project idea in a full paragraph (complete sentences) of 250 words max. You may submit two.
• Week 6-8
  • Consultation w/ Professor
  • Schedule an appointment to meet with me in person to discuss your project topic.
• Week 10
  • Annotated Bibliography Due
  • Each entry should include full bibliographic details (Chicago/Turabian format) and two paragraphs – one that summarizes the content of the text, one that evaluates the text and relates it to your project.
  • 4-6+ entries. For projects where both “primary” and “secondary” sources are relevant, you should have at least one of each.
• Week 12
  • Abstract due
  • Summary of your argument in a full paragraph (complete sentences) of 250 words max.
• Week 13
  • Conceptual outline due
  • Section headings and complete sentences only. Two pages, one or two columns per page. 9 point font minimum. See “Mumford Method” for an example of a good conceptual outline.
• Week 14-15
  • Share full draft (suggested)
  • This is an out of class recommended activity. Pick at least one partner in the class and swap drafts to get feedback.
• Finals Week
  • Final draft & dossier due

Research Reports Schedule

• Group 1: Field, Hardee, Henderson, Jones, Lilly, Massey
• Group 2: Cline, Fountain, Johnson, Lyons, Nightingale, Purcell, Zuber

• Group 3: Ester, Lee, Papin, Ritchey, Saunders, Tang

• Preliminary Report 1
  • Group 1: Week 6
  • Group 2: Week 7
  • Group 3: Week 8
• Preliminary Report 2
  • Group 1: Week 10
  • Group 2: Week 11
  • Group 3: Week 12
• Preliminary Report 3
  • Group 1: Week 13
  • Group 2: Week 15
  • Group 3: Week 16
• Final Report
  • Final Exam Week

(Undergraduate section only.)

The purpose of this project is to promote socially responsible science and technology, i.e., social responsibility in scientific research research, in communication, public understanding, or application of science, or in the invention, development, use, or dissemination of technology. While the decision about how to understand social responsibility and how best to promote it is up to you, that decision must be formed in dialogue with ideas from the course about why and how values and ethical considerations enter into science and technology. Your project must in some sense be a public intervention – it is not for my eyes alone nor only for your classmates, but should engage wider communities. The goal is to have a genuine positive impact.

This will be a group project, with groups of between 2 and 4 students.

Project Components

1. Background research – Your project must be informed by research on the area of science or technology in question. You will submit an annotated bibliography of this research in the early stages of the project. (Group)
2. Intervention – a public object, event, or activity that promotes socially responsible science or technology. (Group)
3. Documentation of the project – in many cases, your project won’t be something you can directly turn in. This can be as simple as a link to a website or as complex as video and photographic evidence of an event. Please provide documentation not only of the final product but also some documentation of the production process itself. This is the main way I can gauge the effort involved in the project. (Group)
4. In-class presentation – During finals week, you will present a summary of what you did, an explanation of the theoretical background, and an assessment of the practical successes and difficulties. (Group)
5. Reflection paper – In this paper, you will (A) present an argument for staging your intervention based on philosophical theories and background research, (B) describe the actual experience of the intervention, (C) reflect on the effectiveness of the project and consider ways it could be improved or could have been more effective. 5000 words maximum.

Standards of Evaluation

The main project will be evaluated on the following criteria:

1. Effort – This is the major part of the class, and you need to show commensurate effort. It is to your benefit to document some of what went into the production process in this regard.
2. Informedness – Your intervention should be informed (a) by theoretical grounding in the texts from the class that discuss the nature and processes of technology and the role of ethical and political considerations therein, and (b) by research into the practical issue you hope to address.
3. Effectiveness – Your project is not just an academic exercise, but an attempt to make some positive contribution to the issue you address. You need to demonstrate and reflect upon the effectiveness of your project in ameliorating the problem. It is to your benefit to include reflections not only on your successes but also on your difficulties and failings, insofar as you also talk about how to close the loop, i.e., how one might overcome those difficulties in the future.
4. Creativity – Your project should ideally not just be more of the same that is already being done in the area, but a novel, creative, innovative approach based on knowledge gained and your group’s distinctive abilities.

Your individual reflection papers will also be evaluated on the quality of your argumentation and communication, how well you rely on published sources, and how convincing your reflections about effectiveness are.

Project Milestones:

1. Group Formation – Due week 4
2. Brainstorming and Project Proposals – Due week 5
3. Consultation – Before Spring Break
4. Annotated bibliography – Due week 10
5. Reflection papers and documentation – Due week 16
6. Presentations – During Final Exam period

Project Examples

• Public awareness campaign about unintentional wastes of electricity.
• Websites or YouTube videos informing about water usage or battery recycling.
• Online community devoted to solutions to help Zimbabweans meet basic needs with sustainable technology.
• On campus demonstration of implications of multitasking research for, e.g., texting and driving.
• Door to door information campaigns.
• Staged on-campus “happenings”

One way to earn more “Citizenship Points” is to attend one of the following four Center for Values events:

1. Wednesday, January 29, 7:30 PM – Documentary Night: Food, Inc.
2. Wednesday, February 05, 7:30 PM – Documentary Night: The Perfect Human Diet
3. Thursday, February 06, 7:30 PM – James Livingston lecture: After Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea, or, What Is To Be Done When Work Disappears?Cancelled due to weather
4. Wednesday, February 26, 7:30 PM – David Kaplan – What’s Wrong With Food Additives?
5. Wednesday, April 23, 7:30 PM – Roberta Millstein: Genetically Modified Food: Feeding the World or Fouling the World?
6. Thursday, April 24, time TBD (morning or lunchtime) – student meetings with Roberta Millstein

All four events take place in the Jonsson Performance Hall.

Procedure for receiving credit: At the door of the Performance Hall, there will be a sign-in sheet. Put your name on the sheet on your way in, and then check in with me before you leave to make sure you’ll receive credit. You must check in both before and after the event.

Each week, you should turn in two discussion questions (two per week, not two per reading). They should be questions that engage the readings; if there are focus readings (listed in bold), it is preferable though not required that you focus your questions on those readings. The questions should create discussion, not be easy to answer factual questions, nor simple statements of opinion. They should be analytical, critical, or evaluative, i.e., they should try to explore or extend the ideas in the readings in some way.

Due: Every week, 24 hours before class, by email to the professor.

Note: Exceptionally good discussion questions will be awarded Citizenship Points.

Additional Resources

• How to Ask Good Questions (Patrick Rael, Bowdoin College)
• What Makes a Question Good? (Patrick Rael, Bowdoin College)
• How To: Write Questions that Stimulate Discussion (Thinkfinity)

Just added the page for Pragmatism (week 4) with links to the readings.