Posts
Today, the board of Uppsala University, one of Sweden's top four broad universities and its oldest – instigated in 1477 – declared full confidence for its Vice Chancelor, Eva Åkesson, after an open declaration of no confidence from 11 chaired professors, deans and vice rectors (3). This has been the "talk of the town" around Swedish academia the last few weeks.
Already, one of the three vice rector is reported to have resigned, and the Uppsala daily, Uppsala Nya Tidning, reports that all of them have handed in resignations and expressed "shock" at the decision, but at least one of the deans who signed the no confidence letter is reported to comment that he wants to continue. It remains to be seen how the rest of the signing parties will react.
The content of the conflict and crisis of confidence remains somewhat mysterious, but today's press conference delivered hints at both procedural and personal difficulties. Earlier information has referred to more substantial disagreements regarding budgetary and organisational issues as being part of the conflict as well.
Thursday, 27 February 2014
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
UK Plan to Sell Out NHS Medical Records Hits Another Bump: Data Prematurely Given to Insurance Industry – MP's Concerned
So, when I posted just the other day on the embarrassing setbacks and "tactical withdrawal" of the, to my eyes indefensible (my arguments have been presented here, here and here), plan of the UK national health service to start a system (called care.data) for giving access to partly identifiable patient data (in view of recent demonstrations, I would say wholly identifiable if there's some genetic data in there) not only for public research institutions, but also private companies, some with obvious vested interests to use said sort of data against individual people, I frankly thought that this would be the last we heard about this scheme for some while. Surely, I believed, the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre, which handles this whole shebang, would now be very, very sure to do everything right and not attract any attention. I was wrong.
Today, the BBC reports about a hearing by the parliamentary, cross-party Health Select Committee, where NHS bosses were confronted with allegations voiced this Monday that, in fact, confidential patient data had been handed over to private insurance industry a good while earlier, and the intention of said industry was – surprise! – actions which go against the interests of patients:
Indeed it does. Besides the interests of ordinary people who now and then needs to visit the doctor, that is. Besides the interests of people who feel a need to purchase private health insurance to have an adequate protection. Besides people who now and then needs to purchase pharmacological products for treatment (who may just as well be the targets of pricing schemes from big pharma, like the one here reported from insurance industry).
You think I'm exaggarating? Read this report in yesterday's Guardian about a just unmasked big pharma industry lobby campaign towards the Centre to have them grant quick and "easy access" to care.data material. A memorandum of mutual understanding has been sought, it transpires. Presumably in the same good spirit of cooperation that explains the reported handing over of data to private insurance companies. I for one is only that close to do a "what did I tell you" with regard to the supposedly strict vetting for access to care.data.
The attempt of the Center's management to push the toothpaste back into the tube by promising to "look into it" and announcing that the Centre is "considering" a beefed up anonymisation procedure, does not inspire confidence. Not when we know that such anonymisation is nowadays easily circumvented in many cases, and against the background of the obvious flaw of the whole basic idea from the very start. Using patient data for research by public research institutions (after due scrutiny, permission and consent), fine. There are, as Ben Goldacre argued just a few days ago, some pretty good reasons to make use of national health service and other health registry data to such an effect, reasons in terms of benefiting lots of people without putting anyone in harms way. The present idea of granting private business interests privileged access (indeed, access at all) is, however, not justified by such reasons.
On the very contrary. And hopefully, UK national policy makers, MPs and others, are now finally starting to see the flaws of this idea of inviting greed, corruption and sloppiness where the need is for ethics, care and seriousness.
Today, the BBC reports about a hearing by the parliamentary, cross-party Health Select Committee, where NHS bosses were confronted with allegations voiced this Monday that, in fact, confidential patient data had been handed over to private insurance industry a good while earlier, and the intention of said industry was – surprise! – actions which go against the interests of patients:
But on Monday it emerged the Information Centre - or NHS Information Centre as it used to be known - gave that hospital data, which was largely anonymous, to the insurance industry in 2012."Should probably not have happened", is that the understatement of the month on the royal island, by any chance? MP's in the committee are reported to have rightfully swung Centre boss Max Jones by his ears when he was unable to provide an account of why the data had been shared in this way. MP Rose Cooper is reported to have commented afterwards: "It is amazing how many questions we've not got answers [to]." No wonder Sarah Wollaston, tory MP and herself a GP is reported to have said (with admirable restraint, to my mind): "I'm very disappointed...this threatens public confidence."
A report was then produced advising insurance and investment firms how it could use the information to price their products.
The Information Centre has now said this should probably not have happened as it should have applied "greater scrutiny" to the application.
Indeed it does. Besides the interests of ordinary people who now and then needs to visit the doctor, that is. Besides the interests of people who feel a need to purchase private health insurance to have an adequate protection. Besides people who now and then needs to purchase pharmacological products for treatment (who may just as well be the targets of pricing schemes from big pharma, like the one here reported from insurance industry).
You think I'm exaggarating? Read this report in yesterday's Guardian about a just unmasked big pharma industry lobby campaign towards the Centre to have them grant quick and "easy access" to care.data material. A memorandum of mutual understanding has been sought, it transpires. Presumably in the same good spirit of cooperation that explains the reported handing over of data to private insurance companies. I for one is only that close to do a "what did I tell you" with regard to the supposedly strict vetting for access to care.data.
The attempt of the Center's management to push the toothpaste back into the tube by promising to "look into it" and announcing that the Centre is "considering" a beefed up anonymisation procedure, does not inspire confidence. Not when we know that such anonymisation is nowadays easily circumvented in many cases, and against the background of the obvious flaw of the whole basic idea from the very start. Using patient data for research by public research institutions (after due scrutiny, permission and consent), fine. There are, as Ben Goldacre argued just a few days ago, some pretty good reasons to make use of national health service and other health registry data to such an effect, reasons in terms of benefiting lots of people without putting anyone in harms way. The present idea of granting private business interests privileged access (indeed, access at all) is, however, not justified by such reasons.
On the very contrary. And hopefully, UK national policy makers, MPs and others, are now finally starting to see the flaws of this idea of inviting greed, corruption and sloppiness where the need is for ethics, care and seriousness.
Sunday, 23 February 2014
Is Human Extraterrestial Migration Banned by (Monotheistic) Religious Ethics – And Maybe Some Secular Too?
As you know, the ethical assessment and political evaluation of technological risk is one of my main areas of interest, and a focus of one of my main research publications, the book The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk. In that book, I consider a number of futuristic scenarios to illustrate and test my theoretical ideas. One thing that I'm not considering, however, is the vision of human migration to other planets. But this very scenario has now become the topic of some inflamed debating between a visionary entrepreneurial endeavour to such an effect and the opinions of highly authoritative religious scholars.
As infantile, unrealistic and uneconomic they may seem, there are actual plans for having humans migrate from Earth to other planets – Mars being one in immediate focus, for instance through the initiative Mars-One. I'm one of those who think that, while it may be prudent to actually work on such contingencies (this is one reason why I have accepted to be scientific adviser to the Lifeboat Foundation), making it the primary priority seems to me to be an immoral waste of resources in light of more pressing needs where there are no technological barriers for doing good (such as securing clean drinking water and sewerage installations for all people globally, or fixing the rules of global trade to be at least somewhat less to the disbenefit of those needing it the most). I don't, however, host any principled objection to the idea of human extraterrestial migration – to my mind it's about needs, likelihoods of success and priorities in light of what stakes are up for humanity at the moment.
Others, however, seem to take a more rigid stance. Thus, apparently, the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment in the United Arab Emirates has issued a fatwa (i.e., a scholarly, allegedly authoritative interpretation of the tenets of Islam), according to which the idea of a one-way trip to Mars in the Mars-One style, would be too risky and uncertain to be allowed under the ban against recklessly endangering human life:
For this is my final reflection, inspired by an aside-comment by my colleague Anders Herlitz: The reaction of the Islamic scholars of the UAE is a pretty logical one in light of the strong stance against human taking of human life, not least one's own, in the scriptures of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. As noted by the pioneer theorist of the ethics of risk, theologian Hans Jonas, this stance would seem to warrant a high degree of risk aversion as soon as such scenarios are among the options. For sure (I would say, it's more uncertain if Jonas would be prepared to follow me), taking such risks may – as Mars-One suggests – be justified, but it takes special considerations and circumstances for that to be the case. In particular, venturing on risky missions just for the hell of it, or for making money, or for "doing something different", or for feeling important, or for exapanding human boundaries, or somesuch would in fact not seem to suffice. What would seem to be necessary is the presence of some realistic threat to human life or humanity, where the activity in question would be a necessary or, at least, reasonable response of escape. At the very least, the story of the Ark of Noah would seem to suggest as much.
So, my wonder is really why the GAIAE committee is so alone in its critical response to the Mars-One initiative. Where's the other islamic leaders? Where's the Pope? Where are the Lutheran Arch Bishops or the many preachers of the free churches Where are the chief Rabbis? And, since there are also secular versions around of the stance to the importance of human life, in particular one's own – where's the penetrating analyses from the Future of Humanity Institute and the Institute of the Ethics of Emerging Technology of the Kantian and (late) Wittgensteinian positions on this matter, just to mention the most obvious ones that would seem to qualify?
As infantile, unrealistic and uneconomic they may seem, there are actual plans for having humans migrate from Earth to other planets – Mars being one in immediate focus, for instance through the initiative Mars-One. I'm one of those who think that, while it may be prudent to actually work on such contingencies (this is one reason why I have accepted to be scientific adviser to the Lifeboat Foundation), making it the primary priority seems to me to be an immoral waste of resources in light of more pressing needs where there are no technological barriers for doing good (such as securing clean drinking water and sewerage installations for all people globally, or fixing the rules of global trade to be at least somewhat less to the disbenefit of those needing it the most). I don't, however, host any principled objection to the idea of human extraterrestial migration – to my mind it's about needs, likelihoods of success and priorities in light of what stakes are up for humanity at the moment.
Others, however, seem to take a more rigid stance. Thus, apparently, the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowment in the United Arab Emirates has issued a fatwa (i.e., a scholarly, allegedly authoritative interpretation of the tenets of Islam), according to which the idea of a one-way trip to Mars in the Mars-One style, would be too risky and uncertain to be allowed under the ban against recklessly endangering human life:
The committee, presided by Professor Dr Farooq Hamada, said: “Protecting life against all possible dangers and keeping it safe is an issue agreed upon by all religions and is clearly stipulated in verse 4/29 of the Holy Quran: Do not kill yourselves or one another. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful.”Apparently, the strong wording of these learned clerics is partly motivated by the fact that...
Thousands of volunteers, including some 500 Saudis and other Arabs, have reportedly applied for the mission which costs $6 billion. The committee indicated that some may be interested in travelling to Mars for escaping punishment or standing before Almighty Allah for judgment.The Mars-One initiative has chosen to respond to this assault on their project (and, I strongly suspect, on its financial viability) not primarily by ridicule or resentment, but in kind, arguing that the mission is in the genral spirit of what some famous muslim explorers have done in the past (which is not really relevant to the argument) and, more interestingly, that central parts of Islamic teaching would rather seem to condone the planned mission, and that the implied risk assessment of the GAIAE committee is flawed from an intellectual perspective:
“This is an absolutely baseless and unacceptable belief because not even an atom falls outside the purview of Allah, the Creator of everything. This has also been clearly underscored in verse 19&20/93 of the Holy Quran in which Allah says: There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant. (Indeed) He has enumerated them and counted them a (full) counting.”
Space Exploration, just like Earth exploration throughout history, will come with risks and rewards. We would like to respectfully inform the GAIAE about elements of the Mars One mission that reduce the risk to human life as much as possible. It may seem extremely dangerous to send humans to Mars today, but the humans will be preceded by at least eight cargo missions. Robotic unmanned vehicles will prepare the habitable settlement. Water and a breathable atmosphere will be produced inside the habitat and the settlement will be operational for two years, even before the first crew leaves Earth. Each of the cargo missions will land in a system very similar to the human landing capsule. An impressive track record of the landing technology will be established before risking human lives. It should be noted that the moon lander was never test on the Moon before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed successfully on the Moon.It remains to be seen what the GAIAE committee will respond. The Mars-One reasoning isn't exactly fail-safe, since it comes down to how the importance of the mission is weighed in light of the cost and what that money could have been used for instead and what those alternative activities might have implied in terms of truly valuable gain and risk to human life and limb. My own theory would probably give the Mars-One option rather low priority in such light, I dare to say without having made any more precise analysis (which, provided the wide range of uncertainty, I would doubt to be possible anyway). And I dare venture the guess that my theory is more allowing to technological adventure than any of the Abrahamitic religions.
If we may be so bold: the GAIAE should not analyze the risk as they perceive it today. The GAIAE should assess the potential risk for humans as if an unmanned habitable outpost is ready and waiting on Mars. Only when that outpost is established will human lives be risked in Mars One's plan. With eight successful consecutive landing and a habitable settlement waiting on Mars, will the human mission be risk-free? Of course not. Any progress requires taking risks, but in this case the reward is 'the next giant leap for mankind'. That reward is certainly worth the risks involved in this mission.
For this is my final reflection, inspired by an aside-comment by my colleague Anders Herlitz: The reaction of the Islamic scholars of the UAE is a pretty logical one in light of the strong stance against human taking of human life, not least one's own, in the scriptures of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. As noted by the pioneer theorist of the ethics of risk, theologian Hans Jonas, this stance would seem to warrant a high degree of risk aversion as soon as such scenarios are among the options. For sure (I would say, it's more uncertain if Jonas would be prepared to follow me), taking such risks may – as Mars-One suggests – be justified, but it takes special considerations and circumstances for that to be the case. In particular, venturing on risky missions just for the hell of it, or for making money, or for "doing something different", or for feeling important, or for exapanding human boundaries, or somesuch would in fact not seem to suffice. What would seem to be necessary is the presence of some realistic threat to human life or humanity, where the activity in question would be a necessary or, at least, reasonable response of escape. At the very least, the story of the Ark of Noah would seem to suggest as much.
So, my wonder is really why the GAIAE committee is so alone in its critical response to the Mars-One initiative. Where's the other islamic leaders? Where's the Pope? Where are the Lutheran Arch Bishops or the many preachers of the free churches Where are the chief Rabbis? And, since there are also secular versions around of the stance to the importance of human life, in particular one's own – where's the penetrating analyses from the Future of Humanity Institute and the Institute of the Ethics of Emerging Technology of the Kantian and (late) Wittgensteinian positions on this matter, just to mention the most obvious ones that would seem to qualify?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)