CEE 5804

The reading this week about Diederik Stapel and the rise and fall of his academic career was quite interesting. The New York Times article allowed me to reflect deeper about the culture of academia and research integrity. Most higher education research institutions have a culture of productivity with high pressure on faculty to win money, produce findings, and graduate students. While Stapel acted dishonestly, it is easy to see how this culture could have contributed to his actions and motivations for creating fraudulent data. In the article, Stapel himself was a major focus. The author provided great detail on his journey, motivations, and current state. However, in situations like this, I often find myself thinking about all of the other people in his life that were impacted by his actions, especially those who were unaware. While Stapel left his job and had consequences to face, his graduate students, colleagues, and family were also left to face the broader impacts of his actions. ...

The chapter on Normative Ethics assigned this week discussed one of the famous ethics case studies: the Ford Pinto. In the late 1970s, Ford was working to increase their market share and compete with other car companies in building a small yet affordable car. Building a car quickly and affordably lead to design tradeoffs. In this case, it meant that the fuel tank was positioned behind the car's rear axle and meant that if the car were to be hit at certain speeds it could lead to a hazardous situation. While the car technically met regulations the engineers knew that this design could potentially end up harming or killing passengers. Before putting the car on the market Ford did a cost-benefit analysis to estimate if it would be worth it to fix the problem for $11/car or payout wrongful death or injury lawsuits. The company found that it would be cheaper to leave the problem and payout lawsuits later. Ultimately, Ford was sued and this cost-benefit analysis came under public scrutin...

Whilst reading this article that discussed the life and contributions of botanist Nikolai Vavilov, I had several reactions. Vavilov and his team prioritized science at a time in their country where science merged with politics. Their views of science and botany were not in alignment with the politics taking over their country which lead to Vavilov himself being jailed. Furthermore, his team was left to protect the scientific contributions and seed repository. The repository was under attack from opposing political figures and starving citizens.  This article really challenged some of my views of scientific ethics. Vavilov and his team pledged their commitment to science over politics. This is similar to the challenges that scientists faced in other totalitarian regimes at the time. However, I find challenging that in a country where millions were starving, even several of the members themselves, they placed the upkeep seed repository above the well-being of the public. While ...

The Mock Press Conference that we conducted was meant to simulate the press conference that took place in 2004 regarding lead in the DC water supply. The main takeaways that I gained from this exercise included an increased understanding of how bad the problem had gotten and the role that the agencies played in this crisis. When I had first read the Washington Post article from January of 2004, the issue of lead in the DC water supply seemed like a recent discovery. Many of the public officials and agencies quoted in the article told reporters that they were not aware of the issue. Several of the sources even stated that they were “shocked” and that this issue was “unusual”. Others pointed to lead paint as a potential source for lead contamination in houses. From this article, it seemed as if the public agencies and officials were not aware of the crisis surrounding lead in the DC public drinking water. After viewing some of the information that the agencies knew prior to our Mock Pres...