Ethics Newsline®

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

This is a tale of two cell phones. It is, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, a story of the best of technologies and the worst of technologies. It is about one cell phone that saved a life and another that took life away. And in true Dickensian fashion, it raises profound social and ethical questions about what it means to be modern — and whether technology really is morally neutral.

The tale starts in the leafy summer of New York’s Finger Lakes region, with five teenage girls celebrating their graduation last June from Fairport High School, an Erie Canal town near Rochester. Driving to a lakeside cottage owned by the parents of one girl, Bailey Goodman, they were killed when the SUV she was driving veered into an oncoming tractor-trailer. According to police records, her cell phone had been used at 10:05 P.M. to send a text message to a friend in another town, who replied at 10:06. The first report of the accident — a call to 911 from one of her friends in the car behind — came in at 10:07.

Autopsies have ruled out alcohol or drugs as a factor in the crash, though sheer inexperience may have contributed: Goodman was driving on a junior license that prohibited her from driving after 9:00 P.M. But was she also driving while texting — a phenomenon now known as DWT? Her phone was never found. “We will never be able to clearly state that she was the one that was doing any text messages,” said a police spokesman.

But text messaging is enormously popular — so much so that state legislatures are considering following Washington State and New Jersey in outlawing DWT. Assessing current research on the topic in its January 2008 issue, State Legislatures Magazine reports that an estimated 73 percent of cell-phone subscribers use them while driving, and that a recent Zogby poll “found that 66 percent of drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 confess that they drive-while-texting.” The magazine also reports that an estimated 80 percent of motor vehicle crashes “involve some form of driver inattention” such as that caused by DWT.

Not surprisingly, proponents of tougher DWT restrictions are citing the Fairport case as casting more than a reasonable doubt on the notion that texting is a silly but inevitable driving behavior among the young. This case also strengthens those who think that cell-phone technology is not morally neutral but a clear moral hazard, bringing with it severe damage to individuals and society.

But listen to the second tale. It unfolded last month in Fargo, North Dakota, following a cold snap that registered minus 38 degrees Fahrenheit without counting the wind chill. On that bitterly cold Sunday afternoon, Terry Higdem began drinking heavily. Then he began threatening his former girlfriend with death. “I’m taking you [expletive deleted] hostage,” he told her as she drove him to a local Holiday Inn, according to a report in the Fargo Forum. “Do you wanna die tonight, ‘cuz I want to die.”

Newspaper reporters can’t usually quote exactly what was said in the privacy of a vehicle. This time was different. At 9:34 that night, police dispatchers got a curious cell-phone call. Asking questions, they got no response. But they could hear an alarming conversation going on. Not only had Higdem’s 21-year-old hostage surreptitiously dialed 911 on a phone she kept out of sight, but she continued to ask him where he wanted her to go. She also began commenting on local landmarks she was passing. Police officers quickly caught on, followed her clues, spotted the car within 15 minutes of her call, and arrested Higdem without incident — with the phone that very possibly saved her life still transmitting the entire proceeding.

These are grisly and Dickensian tales, to be sure. But they illustrate the downside and the upside of cell-phone technology. Who can deny the power of this technology to foment disaster at Fairport and deliverance at Fargo? Does that mean that, on average, cell-phone technology is morally neutral? Whatever your answer, one thing seems clear: The technology is widespread, irreversible, and transformative. Where, these days, is a teen that doesn’t text — or a driver unaware that cell phones are wise security measures?

How, then, should we respond to this high-contrast picture? Maybe an answer lies in another technology at the heart of both these tales: the automobile. It too is wildly popular, amazingly liberating, and evidently deadly. We don’t condemn its use, but we are unflinching in our demand that nobody gets to use it without first undergoing serious training.

But where, these days, is the education about how to use the cell phone? We may not need to issue cell-phone licenses, but can we afford not to spend time — in schools, at home, at work, and in the media — talking with teens about how Bailey Goodman deserved to live and Terry Higdem deserved to get caught? Can we afford not to train a generation to deal better with the best and worst of cell phones?

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“I will govern by continuing with the things that we’ve done well and correcting mistakes. I will govern for all, but thinking above all of those people who do not have everything.”

– Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, speaking at a victory celebration on Monday after his governing Socialist party narrowly won reelection, edging out conservatives in a much-watched contest that pitted religious and social conservatives against those supporting Zapatero’s current path of liberalization and expanding rights

Source: New York Times, Mar. 10.

Lawmakers wonder how they could make millions when their companies lost billions

WASHINGTON
The ethics of alleged excess in the business world played out in a hearing before the U.S. Congress last week, with Wall Street executives defending their whopping compensation packages while lawmakers faulted them for losing billions for their shareholders and employees.

Bloomberg reports that Countrywide Financial Corp. chairman Angelo Mozilo, former Merrill Lynch head Stan O’Neal, and former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince appeared before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing to say that their compensation packages were justified.

According to Forbes, the three were collectively paid $460 million over five years, as calculated by the committee. During the same period their companies lost more than $20 billion after the subprime mortgage industry imploded.

“The pay they received from their companies and their stock sales was extraordinary,” charged committee chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif), according to a report from MarketWatch. “Any reasonable relation between their compensation and the interests of their shareholders appears to have broken down.”

Mozilo admitted that he fared well in the agreement to sell his failing mortgage firm to Bank of America, but insisted that reports about his compensation were “grossly exaggerated,” according to MarketWatch. O’Neal said his compensation was determined through “a rigorous and independent process” and was in line with other pay packages in the financial services industry. Prince said his compensation was in line with his company’s performance, increasing only when Merrill Lynch performed well.

At the core of the debate, according to an analysis from BusinessWeek, is the underlying allegation that a cozy relationship between CEOs and boards of directors has allowed pay to skyrocket without adequate grounding in results.

“I get the feeling, it’s you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back,” said committee member Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), according to BusinessWeek.

Sources: Bloomberg, Mar. 7 — MarketWatch, Mar. 7 — BusinessWeek, Mar. 7 — Forbes, Mar. 6.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 18, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 29, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 12, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 16, 2007.

President Bush vetoes bill that would have outlawed waterboarding, leading critics to say U.S. will lose “moral authority”; a proposed congressional ethics office dies again; “monster” remark by Obama adviser spotlights an ethics dilemma for reporters; South Korea’s new president already is embroiled in ethics problem

VARIOUS DATELINES
Ethics issues were prominent in a variety of stories last week. Among them:

• President Bush announced Saturday morning that he vetoed a bill that would ban the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, reports the Hill, a publication covering Congress. In his weekly radio address, Bush said the measure would deprive the intelligence community of valuable information. House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized Bush’s decision, saying the nation’s ability to lead the world depends not only on “our military might, but our moral authority.”
• The resolution to create an independent Office of Congressional Ethics was pulled from the floor for the second time last week for more fine-tuning after Democratic leaders found they didn’t have enough votes to push it through, CBS News reports. The vote leakage comes because Republicans are pushing a competing plan that would add former members of the House to the committee and would allow outside groups to bring complaints against lawmakers and staff, according to Congressional Quarterly.
• Controversy over the increasingly nasty U.S. presidential primary campaign enlarged to include scrutiny of press ethics last week as Barack Obama adviser Samantha Power was dropped from the campaign after her comments referring to Hillary Clinton as a “monster” who is not above “stooping to anything” to win were printed by the Scotsman newspaper. The problem was that when she spoke to the Scotsman reporter, the remark was supposed to be off the record. In a discussion board hosted by the Poynter Institute, a media think-tank, many journalists weighed in on whether the sudden insertion of an “off the record” caveat really keeps remarks from being fair game. While some contend that “off the record” status should be honored, others argue that something should only be regarded as unreportable if both the source and the journalist agree to that stipulation in advance.
• A corruption scandal at Samsung is rocking the new government of South Korea. Lee Myung-bak, who was sworn in as president last month, is already on the defense over allegations that his intelligence chief and top anticorruption aide received bribes from Samsung, the New York Times reports. Lee and the company have denied those accusations. According to the Times, Lee, “a business chief executive turned politician, was elected on a platform of reviving the slowing economy, but he has been dogged by allegations about his and some of his aides’ ethical standards. Three of Mr. Lee’s cabinet appointees have already been forced to resign amid suspicions of corruption.”

Sources: Scotsman, Mar. 8 — CBS News, Mar. 7 — Congressional Quarterly, Mar. 6 — New York Times, Mar. 6.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 11 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007 — Poynter Institute forum.

“I think there is a tension between marketing considerations and the ethical dimension of making health products,” says head of Britain’s drug regulatory agency

LONDON
U.K. regulators have decided not to prosecute pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly downplaying hazards of the antidepressant Paxil, but the officials say they are unhappy with the firm’s behavior and plan changes in the law.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a four-year probe by Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (MHRA) determined that Glaxo withheld evidence that suggested the drug increased the risk of suicidal behavior in people under 18.

According to the Guardian, the issue boils down to the wording of the law, which requires companies to hand over safety data from trials when a drug is licensed. Paxil, sold in Britain under the name Seroxat, was never licensed for use in children, but the law allowed physicians to prescribe it for them anyway for so-called off-label use.

Kent Woods, head of the MHRA, told the Guardian that the loophole should be closed. He also said he could not rule out the possibility that other companies were withholding data that could cause them monetary damage.

“I think there is a tension between marketing considerations and the ethical dimension of making health products,” Woods said. “We have to look again at that. The pharmaceutical industry has to look again at that. You could even say there is a positive disincentive to explore the data as fully as it could be explored.”

Legislation to be introduced later this year would require drug companies to inform regulators of potential safety problems regardless of licensing status.

The BBC claims that secret emails showed that the company distorted trial results, covering up the suicide link, and documents indicated that Glaxo knew there was a problem with the use of the drug by children for five years before such use was banned.

A similar issue was raised in the United States in 2004 when New York State settled with Glaxo for $2.5 million and an agreement that Glaxo would make public data about the apparent link between Paxil and suicide.

In related news, the Toronto Globe & Mail reports that the recall of a blood-thinning drug linked to a Chinese factory is raising new questions about the ability of government and industry to keep a handle on the safety of drugs made with ingredients from China.

While China has become one of the world’s largest suppliers of pharmaceutical ingredients, a series of incidents highlighting safety problems has led many experts to call for North American governments to take a more aggressive attitude toward overseas inspections and safety checks, according to the Globe & Mail.

Sources: Globe & Mail, Mar. 6 — Guardian, Mar. 6 — Wall Street Journal, Mar. 6 — BBC, Mar. 6.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Sep. 20, 2004 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 30, 2004 — Related Newsline story, June 21, 2004 — Related Newsline story, June 7, 2004 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 11, 2000.

Backers of Boeing say they may try to block contract award to competing firm; whistle-blowers claim Southwest Airlines flew unsafe planes; the BBC weighs the ethical dilemma of whether air miles gathered as a business perk can be used for personal trips

VARIOUS DATELINES
An aerospace manufacturer saddled with baggage from an ethics scandal, a carrier alleged to have flown unsafe aircraft, and a debate over the ethics of using air miles all made news this week. Among the stories:

• The U.S. Congress may block funding of the Air Force’s $35 billion contract to replace old fuel tankers that was awarded to a partnership between Northrop Grumman Corp. and European firm EADS if the Air Force can’t explain its reasons for bypassing Boeing Co., the Chicago Tribune reports. Boeing officials claim the project would have funded 40,000 U.S. jobs, while most jobs in the Northrop Grumman/EADS deal would go overseas, according to the Tribune report. Press reports have speculated that a recent procurement scandal that tarnished Boeing’s reputation was a major factor behind the government’s decision to bypass the firm.
• Southwest Airlines flew thousands of passengers on jets that federal inspectors had deemed unsafe, according to documents CNN says it obtained from sources in Congress. On Thursday of last week, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiated actions to seek a $10.2 million civil penalty against the discount carrier, according to CNN. Southwest issued a statement saying the FAA’s penalty is part of one of many “routine and redundant” inspections and that the airline discovered the overlooked inspections, disclosed them to the FAA, and promptly re-inspected all affected aircraft. CNN reports that the documents it cited were prepared by two FAA inspectors who requested protection from retaliation under federal whistle-blower laws because they claim the FAA overlooked the violations in order to keep flight schedules moving.
• Is it ethical to use corporate air miles for personal travel? The BBC investigated this dilemma after a British politician was accused of using air miles acquired during business trips for his family. The BBC piece, written by reporter Finlo Rohrer, notes that the quandary comes up frequently in business ethics debates. While experts interviewed for the piece did not come to consensus, most said personal use of air miles should be off-limits unless the company specifically says the practice is acceptable. One commentator, University of Aberdeen business ethics professor David Molyneaux, offered this test: “Would you be embarrassed if everyone else knew you did it?

Sources: BBC, Mar. 6 — Chicago Tribune, Mar. 6 — AP, Mar. 5 — CNN, Mar. 5.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 7, 2006 — Related Newsline story, July 31, 2006 — Related Newsline story, June 13, 2005 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 14, 2005.

It’s another ethical dilemma for the firm, which faces protests from some who claim the street-level views are an invasion of privacy

SAN FRANCISCO
Google Earth, the site that provides satellite — and now street-level — views of the world, has run into another ethical dilemma: whether it compromises security by showing military installations.

Last week, the Pentagon banned Google mappers from making street-level video of U.S. military bases after video of Ft. Sam Houston in Texas showed up on the site, the Reuters news agency reports.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart said the government objects to the street-level views because they show “where all the guards are, it shows how the barriers go up and down, it shows how to get in and out of buildings, and I think that poses a real security risk to our military installations.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Google crews were permitted access to the base but were not supposed to take 360-degree panoramic views. Google said that had been a mistake and removed the video.

But some of the images pulled were taken from public streets, raising the issue of whether the military has the legal right to ban the images.

Google’s up-close service, called Street Views, raised ethics questions from its inception in the summer of 2007. InformationWeek notes that privacy advocates protested that even though the images were taken in public places, in which passersby had no expectation of privacy, they were put on international display doing things they might prefer were kept private.

Protests were lodged by administrators of abortion clinics, mental health agencies, and shelters for abused women, all of whom said visitors would feel threatened by online photos showing them entering or leaving.

Others caught unaware by Street Views included a man exiting a strip club and someone scaling a fence.

In a related story, the Times of London reports that protestors used satellite imagery from Google Earth to gain access to the roof of the Houses of Parliament in London.

Sources: Times of London, Mar. 8 — InformationWeek, Mar. 7 — San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 7 — Reuters, Mar. 7.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14 — Related Newsline story, June 4, 2007.

New technology may be used to treat various diseases affecting the brain, but could it and should it be applied to marketing or law enforcement?

BERKELEY, Calif.
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley reported last week that they used brain scans and computer models to interpret visual activity in the brain — a process that holds promise for the treatment of various ailments but raises some obvious ethics issues as well.

The Washington Post reports that the process involves scanning the brain, storing images of brain scans made with a functional magnetic resonance imager, which reads brain patterns in real time, and using a computer database to recognize those patterns the next time they appear.

In other words, the computer can be trained to recognize, in a primitive way, what people are seeing and thinking.

According to a report from Scientific American, a brain-reading device would be valuable not only for medical inspections of the brain, but for research probing phenomena that are difficult to study using conventional means, such as how people perceive things differently.

But there’s a downside, reports technology publication Wired: marketing campaigns crafted for maximum mental impact or abuse of brain scanning by law enforcement. Equally disquieting is the possibility that scanners could be used in a courtroom as a sort of lie detector.

The scientists who conducted the study acknowledge the downside, according to National Geographic. “The authors believe strongly that no one should be subjected to any form of brain-reading process involuntarily, covertly, or without complete informed consent,” they wrote in a statement.

Results of the study were published in the scientific journal Nature.

Sources: Wired, Mar. 5 — National Geographic, Mar. 5 — Washington Post, Mar. 5 — Scientific American, Mar. 5.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 12, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 8, 2007.

Another critically acclaimed memoir is exposed as a hoax

NEW YORK
The publishing industry had an unwelcome moment of déjà vu last week when it was revealed that the book Love and Consequences, a purported memoir, is a hoax.

USA Today reports that the book, written by Margaret Seltzer of Eugene, Oregon, under the pseudonym Margaret B. Jones, was purported to be a factual account of the woman’s life as she grew up in a foster home in South-Central Los Angeles and gravitated into a street gang.

After reading a newspaper account of the book, Seltzer’s sister called the publisher to say the account was untrue.

Seltzer later admitted the book was a fabrication, the Oregonian reports.

The news came just days after author Misha Defonseca, who wrote a Holocaust memoir about her childhood traveling alone through war-torn Europe and living in the forest with wolves, admitted her story was faked. Library Journal reports that Defonseca is not Jewish and lived in Brussels during the war.

In a statement issued through her lawyer, Defonseca said, “I find it difficult to differentiate between reality and my inner world. The story in the book is mine. It is not the actual reality — it was my reality, my way of surviving. I ask forgiveness from all those who feel betrayed,” according to the Library Journal report.

Both incidents came about two years after the literary world was rocked by the revelation that James Frey, the author of the bestselling memoir A Million Little Pieces, had exaggerated or made up many of the book’s details.

In an editorial, the Christian Science Monitor noted that literary hoaxes and other examples of fabrication might prompt the cynical to believe that nothing they read can be trusted. However, argues the unbylined editorial, “signs abound that people actually do care about integrity in communication.”

“What else explains the trend in anti-plagiarism software, ethics courses in business schools, or character education in classrooms? Or the ‘truth boxes’ published by the media that catch mischaracterizations and campaign fibs? Or firings for bogus credentials in academia and business?” it continued. “The truth is, truth matters…. As individuals and as a society, we lose our bearings when we compromise on truth.”

Sources: Oregonian, Mar. 8 — Library Journal, Mar. 7 — USA Today, Mar. 5.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 27, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 30, 2006 — Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 16, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 16, 2006 — Christian Science Monitor editorial, Mar. 7.

More people trust Internet news sites than television news, Harris poll finds

From Harris Interactive:

“During this political primary season, the media, especially cable news networks, have seen a large increase in viewers, listeners, and/or readers. But, with all this do people actually trust the media? The answer is not really. Looking at the press in general, over half (54%) of Americans say they tend not to trust them, with only 30 percent tending to trust the press. Just under half (46%) of Americans say they do not trust television, while one-third (36%) do trust them. Somewhat surprisingly, Internet news and information sites do slightly better as a plurality of Americans (41%) trust them while just one-third (34%) tend not to trust them. And, radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it and one-third (32%) tend not to trust radio….

“Overall, Democrats are more likely to trust the media than Republicans, even with regard to radio. Just over half of Democrats (51%) trust radio compared to 45 percent of Republicans, and 45 percent of Democrats tend to trust Internet news and information sites compared to 40 percent of Republicans. The largest differences are for television and the press. Half of Democrats (50%) say they tend to trust television compared to three in ten (31%) Republicans. When it comes to the press in general, a plurality of Democrats (43%) say they tend to trust them, but only one in five (19%) of Republicans say the same.

“In this election year, people are turning to various sources to get their news on politics — whether on candidates or on issues. When Americans are looking for political news, seven in ten (70%) of them turn to their local television news all the time or occasionally, followed by two-thirds (66%) who turn to cable television news stations like CNN, MSNBC or FOX all the time or occasionally. Two-thirds (65%) also go to their local newspapers for news on politics all the time or occasionally, while 64 percent turn to the network television news.

“While the media has spent a great deal of effort enhancing their various websites, these are not where people are turning. One-third (32%) of Americans say they never go to the websites for national newspapers for political news while three in ten (30%) say they never go to the websites for the cable news stations when looking for political news….

“One’s generation does impact where one goes for political news. The oldest generations, Matures (those aged 63 and older) are much more likely to turn to their local television news all the time or occasionally (83%) while Baby Boomers (those aged 44-62) are more likely to turn to cable television news (74%), local newspapers (74%) and network television news (73%). While one may expect the younger generations to be more likely to go to the websites of the various media, this is not the case. Baby Boomers are actually the generation most likely to use websites for national newspapers (40%) and the cable television networks (40%) all the time or occasionally….”

For the full press release from Harris, Mar. 6, click here.

“Little progress can be made by merely attempting to repress what is evil; our great hope lies in developing what is good.”

– Calvin Coolidge (30th U.S. president, 1872-1933)