Scandals at Enron, the BP oil spill, eggs tainted with samonella...What can companies do to avoid cutting ethical corners? Does the profit motive create incentives for companies to cut corners?   What can the public do to protect themselves as consumers?

Description: Some people argue that the United States should create a free market for transplantable organs. That is, instead of forcing the medical community to rely on organ donors, the government ought to legalize the buying and selling of transplantable organs. Creating such a market, proponents argue, will save lives and allow people to sell what is, after all, commonly regarded as their property (compare with the current legal market for selling sperm and eggs). As long as these organ sellers know what they’re getting into, so the argument goes, they should be allowed to sell their organs for a fair market value. However, detractors argue that creating a market for transplantable organs would a) exploit the poor, who are the members of a vulnerable population and therefore deserving of extra protection, and b) commodify the body in a dehumanizing way (compare with arguments against prostitution). Let’s discuss!

The Ethics of Geoengineering as a Climate Change Mitigation Tool

 Many environmental policy specialists and even political and business leaders are considering the possibility of using geoengineering methods to reduce or, at least, to forestall the most devastating of the predicted climate change impacts.  Geoengineering solutions involve large-scale interferences with global systems,  some of which are aimed at intercepting energy from the sun --- like tinkering with weather and cloud formation--- or jacking up the activity of a carbon sink in one or more ecosystems --- like fertilizing surfaces of the ocean to enhance photosynthetic algal growth.  Since these are large-scale interferences in global balances, there is very little hard information on the true impact of these interventions. However, the technology to implement several of the best known geoengineering strategies is quite widely available.  

Who has the right to decide when and where geoengineering solutions can be put in place?  How will that decision be reached?  If a goengineering solution goes wrong, who would be responsible?  How would victims be compensated?

Ethics in War: Just War Theory

Should countries respect certain boundaries in warfare? Do countries respect any restrictions or is war a state of unlimited violence where anything goes? This session will explore questions such as these along with possible answers arising from the “just war” tradition. We will talk about various limitations states might place on themselves (target selection, collateral damage likelihoods, weapons employed, and even the decision to go to war.) We will also consider a mini-case study of Libya and the U.S.’s involvement in this conflict.

For the past two or three decades (at least) the public has been drawn into news about scandals, violations and unethical practices associated with major college athletics. From time to time commissions, associations and indeed college officials have made lofty pronouncements about the need for reform. However, there is no sign that the excesses are waning.

We will spend some time examining some of the forces that appear to make the problem intractable. As well,  I hope to explore a number of recent ideas and implications about major college athletics, universities and the public interest .

This session will address the ethical concerns of testing for genetically inherited diseases. In this interactive session, students will discuss and role-play scenarios related to genetic testing in teens and adults. They will be challenged to consider societal and personal factors that would influence their decision whether to be tested and ways the test results might affect their lifestyles.

We'll use the Google+ "real names" debate as a jumping off point for discussions around new ethical issues raised by the Internet.  What questions around privacy, intellectual property rights, identity and community need to be re-examined in light of a world where we spend as much of our time online as we do f2f?  Amongst topics we might consider are: the changing face of the entertainment industry (and what file sharing and bit-torrents mean to it); where is the balance between freedom of speech and protecting those who may not be able to protect themselves (just a tiny topic there  ;-)  and what does "information wants to be free" mean anyway?
 

Ershela Sims discussion: (AM Session)

Are you familiar with the Belmont Report? Did you know it was developed a result of unethical processes that occurred during the Tuskegee Syphilis study (1932-1972)? Ever wonder why you have to submit an application to an Institutional Review Board before you can start your research study involving human research subjects? Or have you even been a research subject and wondered why you have to sign a consent form prior to your participation? These questions and more will be answered during this session.

Jeff Welch discussion: (PM session)

New drugs and medical devices are approved for sale in the United States only after having been reviewed and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  In most circumstances the FDA will require a new drug or device to be tested on human research subjects before issuing a marketing approval.  Testing of a new drug or medical device prior to marketing approval is referred to as a “clinical trial.”  Several parties are involved in the design and execution of a clinical trial, including, very importantly, human research subjects themselves.  This discussion session will use a recent case study to consider the motives of each partner in a clinical trial and will highlight misaligned incentives that can lead to moral dilemmas and unethical treatment of human research subjects if not managed properly.  Solutions for maintaining an ethical system of clinical trials in the US will be discussed.  

Recently a judge dismissed a lawsuit from a high-school student against his history teacher for poking fun of creationism and religious fundamentalism.  Attorney Robert Tyler responds, "This case is about establishing legal precedent concerning the rights of children to be able to sit in a public school classroom without having their religion attacked,"   However the court disagrees, stating  "teachers must also be given leeway to challenge students to develop their critical thinking skills."  This is a complex issue.  Should an instructor be allowed to express her/his own religious views?  Wear religious garb or pray with students?  Ridicule others' beliefs?  What is the balance between personal religious beliefs and constitutional neutrality? 

Gay marriage is a huge issue in the United States. It is not legal in most states, forbidden in many and legal in a few. Proponents contend that gay marriage is a civil right and should be open to all couples.  Opponents contend that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples for the good of society. It comes down to ethics.  What is the moral course of action?  Let's discuss.