Of Course Ethics Books Are the Most Stolen Philosophy Books

Greg Dahlmann pointed me to Splintered Mind's Eric Schwitzgebel's post to the effect that ethics books are, well, you read the post title. But Eric has gone further, deeper, into the ethics book theft matter. He has numbers:

Missing books as a percentage of those off shelf were 8.7% for ethics, 6.9% for non-ethics, for an odds ratio of 1.25 to 1. However, I noted three concerns about these data that required further analysis. I've now done the further analysis.

Here are the concerns:

(1.) Older books are more likely to be missing, and the ethics books were on average a couple years older than the non-ethics books.

I addressed this concern by eliminating from the sample all books published prior to 1985. This brought the average age of the books to the same year (1992.9 for ethics, 1992.7 for non-ethics). On these reduced data, the ethics books were still more likely to be missing: 7.7% to 5.7%, for an odds ratio of 1.35 to 1 (p = .015).

(2.) Ethics books are more likely to be checked out than non-ethics books in philosophy, and there is a tendency for books that are more checked out to have a higher percentage of the off-shelf books missing -- not just a higher percentage of the holdings missing, but a higher ratio of missing to off-shelf-but-not-missing.

I addressed this concern by further reducing the sample, eliminating all the "popular" ethics and non-ethics books -- those cited at least 5 times in the relevant entries of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (This left only fairly obscure books, presumably known to and borrowed by only professors and advanced students in the field.) This actually seems to have increased the effect: 8.5% to 5.7%, for an odds ratio of 1.48 to 1 (p = .026).

(3.) Finally, some people were concerned that maybe law students were driving the effect. Therefore, finally, I eliminated from analysis all "law" books, defined as those books for which at least 10% of the U.S. holdings were in the four law libraries included in the analysis (UCLA, Harvard, Stanford, and Cornell law). This had little effect: 8.3% to 5.7%, odds ratio 1.46 to 1 (p = .044). Also, the percentage of ethics books missing from the four US law libraries was only 7.0%, versus 8.3% for the US non-law libraries.

So it's not (supposedly vicious) law students. And it's not a bunch of (supposedly conscience-impaired) undergraduates stealing Rawls. The effect is large, and statistically significant, just looking at books likely to be borrowed only by professional ethicists and students with a serious scholarly concern with ethics.

Based on these data, it seems indeed that ethicists do steal more books!

Windows [on] Nigeria: Is Bioethics' New Benefactor Conflicted?

Where there is money there are conflicts. Accepting money from the Gates Foundation carries ethical consequences, as noted in the LA TImes:

Ebocha, Nigeria — Justice Eta, 14 months old, held out his tiny thumb. An ink spot certified that he had been immunized against polio and measles, thanks to a vaccination drive supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

But polio is not the only threat Justice faces. Almost since birth, he has had respiratory trouble. His neighbors call it "the cough." People blame fumes and soot spewing from flames that tower 300 feet into the air over a nearby oil plant. It is owned by the Italian petroleum giant Eni, whose investors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Justice squirmed in his mother's arms. His face was beaded with sweat caused either by illness or by heat from the flames that illuminate Ebocha day and night. Ebocha means "city of lights."

The makeshift clinic at a church where Justice Eta was vaccinated and the flares spewing over Ebocha represent a head-on conflict for the Gates Foundation. In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.

In Ebocha, where Justice lives, Dr. Elekwachi Okey, a local physician, says hundreds of flares at oil plants in the Niger Delta have caused an epidemic of bronchitis in adults, and asthma and blurred vision in children. No definitive studies have documented the health effects, but many of the 250 toxic chemicals in the fumes and soot have long been linked to respiratory disease and cancer.

"We're all smokers here," Okey said, "but not with cigarettes."

The oil plants in the region surrounding Ebocha find it cheaper to burn nearly 1 billion cubic feet of gas each day and contribute to global warming than to sell it. They deny the flaring causes sickness. Under pressure from activists, however, Nigeria's high court set a deadline to end flaring by May 2007. The gases would be injected back underground, or trucked and piped out for sale. But authorities expect the flares to burn for years beyond the deadline.

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations to protect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States or Europe.

-Art Caplan

The Ethics of Bioethics

The American Society for Bioethics and the Humanities, and Albany Medical College, of Union University, and Union's Graduate College and Union College are jointly sponsoring this conference that deals with the issue that comes up over and over in this blog: What is the difference between ethical and unethical bioethics? Are bioethicists (whatever that means) supposed to be ethical people, and if so what does that mean? For example, bioethicists support their work with funds from all sorts of sources: universities built with tobacco money, federal grant money and foundation money that is heavily laden with government philosophy, and, yes, from companies, including pharmaceutical companies.

If you believe some critics of bioethics, most notably Carl Elliott of Minnesota, being remotely close to at least one of these sources, big pharma, is an unforgivable sin. If you believe the most aggressive defenders of working with and for companies, it is thickheaded to turn down corporate research in bioethics out of repugnance while you seek a tenured guarantee of a salary (from a health system) funded largely by corporations. And then there is the matter of bioethicists and politics: Howard Dean has a bioethicist, and some (including me) say that the President's Council was used as a political tool in the last election. Bioethicists campaigned for Proposition 71.

Bioethicists have been sniping, arguing, and posturing about these issues, and there has been some real struggle to figure them out.

Finally there will be a big pow-wow - a major conference about bioethics' "big sins," including the worst mistakes made by bioethicists and some of the strategic errors made by bioethics centers. But the big goal for this meeting isn't to identify those mistakes, but to avoid new ones - it is maybe the most important issue in bioethics' recent history. The conference will attract a whole lot of scrutiny by the media and by bioethics' critics - will be setting standards for ethical conduct by bioethicists. There will be fireworks and there will be good intentions, and with any luck there will be progress. Save the dates: April 7-9. If you want to speak, there is an [PDF] invitation to you to make a 250 word proposal. Hope to see you in the NY capital in the spring! - gm (soon to be of AMC myself)

A Permanent Ethics Panel on Vaccines at CDC

This is huge news for bioethics. If you've been wondering whether there will ever be a federal-level bioethics group with real teeth, many will tell you that this will be the one: The New York Times is reporting today that CDC has taken its most significant step ever into bioethics, creating a permanent panel on ethical issues in vaccine distribution. Senior scholars abound, including longtime CDC bioethics consultant and Yale fixture Robert Levine, John Arras, Tom Beauchamp, and Emory's Kathy Kinlaw. Great comments here from Arras.

UPDATED: ES Cells Save Embryos

onwisconsin.com and Washington Post are running pieces on Memorial Sloan-Kettering's work aimed at saving mouse embryos who were destined to die, using mouse embryonic stem cells. Robert Schatz of Scripps in La Jolla describes the procedure as "the birth of a new science." The knockout mice had extraordinary cardiac defects, and the stem cells did not change the DNA that had caused those defects. "Instead, [the stem cells] influenced the young mice's ability to express certain genes." Benezra: "stem cells act like nurses, restoring 'sick' [embryonic] cells to health." The human implications are already in trials using adult stem cells. This is huge news, and it will be interesting to see how quickly it makes its way into the mainstream media. The ethical issues are going to be no fun at all for those who oppose hES research. AND UPDATE: Here's the first piece on the ethics of the matter: Medical News of Today.

MCW Pediatrian's Arrest Described in Terms of Suspect's Ethics Connection

In what is becoming a widely distributed story, the Milwaukee Sentinel has flagged as major news the arrest of a pediatric geneticist on child pornography charges. It would have been news in Milwaukee and among pediatricians just because of the professional role of the suspect. But the story is receiving wider play because it is cast in terms of the role of the suspect in teaching bioethics at MCW. No MCW bioethics faculty member is quoted, nor is there any clear identification of the specific role of this physician in bioethics. It's a new twist on the "ethicists' accountability" argument and it will make the evening news and, no doubt, the 1st year undergraduate medical curriculum.