Samenvatting stof toets 3
Science must respect the dignity and right of all humans: New ethics guidance addresses potential
harms for human population groups who do not participate in research but may be harmed by its
publication.
The text discusses the importance of ethical considerations in academic research, particularly when
studying human populations. It acknowledges that academic freedom is crucial but not without
limits. It emphasizes that ethical principles should apply to research involving humans, including
potential indirect harms like stigmatization or discrimination.
The authors mention the development of new guidance that extends the principles of beneficence
and non-maleficence to academic publications. They draw on international declarations, conventions,
and existing research ethics frameworks to create this guidance.
The guidance encourages authors, editors, and reviewers to be respectful of the dignity and rights of
human groups studied based on social characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender identity, etc. It
suggests being mindful of potential harm, using non-stigmatizing language, and contextualizing
findings.
The text also highlights that while advancing knowledge is important, there can be cases where
potential harms to studied populations outweigh the benefits of publication. It stresses that content
undermining the dignity or rights of specific groups or promoting discrimination may raise ethical
concerns.
Two specific sections within the guidance focus on racism and discrimination based on gender
identity or sexual orientation, emphasizing their unacceptable place in science.
The authors express their commitment to using the guidance carefully and consulting ethics experts
and advocacy groups when needed. They emphasize the importance of conducting ethically sound
research without discouraging socially or academically controversial topics.
Ultimately, the guidance aims to address ethical concerns in academic research and combat structural
inequalities and discrimination within the scientific community.
Scholarly Freedom and Responsibility: Researchers should have the freedom to pursue their
research interests and communicate their findings without fear of censorship. However, they also
have an ethical responsibility to maintain intellectual integrity and prevent harms that may arise
during research or its communication.
Benefits and Harms of Research: Research should respect the dignity and rights of human research
participants, individuals or groups connected to the research, and the communities where research is
conducted. Harms can arise directly from research, such as harm to human participants or suffering
of animals used in experiments. Harms can also result indirectly from the publication of research, like
stigmatization of vulnerable groups or misuse of research results in public policies.
Non-Maleficence and Beneficence: These are fundamental principles in research ethics that involve
maximizing benefits and minimizing potential harms. They are part of general frameworks for ethical
research conduct across various fields. While advancing knowledge is a public good, there may be
cases where potential harms outweigh the benefits, and a decision not to undertake or publish a
project may be necessary.
,The text provides specific guidelines for research involving socially constructed or socially relevant
groupings such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, etc. Researchers are encouraged to describe their
methods, justify their categorizations, and be aware of the potential implications and risks of harm
associated with their research. Inclusive, non-stigmatizing language is recommended. Additionally, we
require that all content submitted for publication be respectful of the dignity and rights of individuals
and human groups.
Editors have a role in ensuring that published content aligns with ethical principles. They may request
modifications or even refuse publication if the content is based on assumptions of group superiority
or inferiority, undermines the rights and dignities of individuals or groups, disparages individuals or
groups, or represents singular, exclusionary perspectives.
Race, Ethnicity, and Racism: Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs, not biological ones.
Researchers should provide explicit justification for using race/ethnicity in their studies and not use
them as proxies for other variables. Biomedical studies should differentiate between genetic ancestry
and race/ethnicity, as the former is appropriate for biological research. Racism is scientifically
unfounded and ethically unacceptable. Editors may request changes or refuse to publish racist
content.
Sex, gender (identity/presentation), and sexual orientation: Researchers are encouraged to follow
the 'Sex and Gender Equity in Research - SAGER - guidelines' and consider sex and gender in their
studies where relevant. The terms "sex" (biological attribute) and "gender" (socially constructed roles
and behaviors) should be used carefully to avoid confusion.
Working definitions (adopted/adapted from the SAGER guidelines and other sources): Gender
identity refers to how individuals identify themselves based on physical, psychological, and social
factors. Gender presentation is how individuals express their gender identity publicly through
behavior, appearance, and more. Gender is not a biologically defined variable but a set of cultural
norms and expectations that evolve over time and space. Sexist, misogynistic, and anti-LGBTQ+
content is ethically objectionable, and editors may take action against such content.
,Communication as a moral vocation: Safe space and freedom of speech: David W. Hill
The article discusses the debate surrounding the concept of "safe spaces" on university campuses. It
mentions several instances where political figures and academics have criticized the idea of safe
spaces. Some argue that safe spaces stifle open debate and intellectual growth, while others view
them as a necessary means of protecting marginalized groups and encouraging open dialogue within
these groups
Moral communication:
1 Weber's Perspective: The article begins by referencing Max Weber's question about the type of
person required to influence historical events responsibly. Weber distinguishes between an "ethics of
ultimate ends" and an "ethics of responsibility." The former prioritizes achieving the right outcome
regardless of harm, while the latter emphasizes considering the well-being of individuals affected by
one's actions. Weber suggests that politicians must balance these ethics when making decisions.
2 Levinas's Perspective: The article then introduces the work of Emmanuel Levinas, who emphasizes
the importance of the face-to-face encounter. Levinas argues that responsibility lies in recognizing the
otherness of the other person and responding to their vulnerability. The encounter with the other
calls for a responsible use of freedom, as one cannot fully understand the other's thoughts,
motivations, or intentions.
Three Consequences of Levinas's Ideas: The article discusses three consequences of Levinas's
philosophy regarding freedom and responsibility in communication:
a. Responsibility Over Reciprocity: Levinas's philosophy emphasizes that freedom should be used
responsibly without expecting reciprocity from the other person. It involves putting the other's needs
first and responding to their vulnerability without any expectation of what the other can do in return.
b. Direction of Freedom Towards the Other: Levinas argues that freedom should be directed toward
the other person rather than being justified by itself. It involves acting with responsibility and
humility, recognizing that our actions can impact others even when unintended.
c. Absence of Symmetry: Levinas's philosophy rejects the idea of symmetry or equivalence in
communication. It acknowledges that the 'I' and the other are fundamentally different, and one
should not expect reciprocity in their relationship. Communication involves deferring to the other and
responding to their uniqueness.
3 The Role of Conversation: Levinas highlights the importance of conversation in moral
communication. Unlike mere looking, conversation involves active listening and responding to the
other person's expression. It requires humility, vulnerability, and patience in understanding the other.
4 Freedom of Speech: The article addresses the tension between freedom of speech and moral
responsibility. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, the article suggests that it should be
exercised responsibly. It argues against the idea that communication aims to reduplicate one's
thoughts in the other's mind and emphasizes the importance of listening and responding to the
other's mystery.
Conclusion: The article concludes that finding a balance between freedom of speech and
responsibility requires acknowledging that having a right to speak is more than being right. It calls for
proportionality in listening and recognizing that the universality of freedom of speech can sometimes
perpetuate harm. Moral communication involves using one's right to encourage and listen, ultimately
leading to a genuinely human position.
, Debate fetishism
The debate fetishism is a term used to describe the overemphasis on debate as the primary mode of
communication in academia and the belief that it should permeate every aspect of the university.
Critics of safe spaces often position debate as the ultimate form of communication within the
university.
However, this perspective is problematic because it fails to recognize that academia consists of
various spaces, each with its own rules and conventions. Safe spaces are created to support
marginalized identities, foster understanding, and provide acceptance, often through non-reciprocal
communication.
Debate fetishism obscures the value of alternative forms of communication and can be detrimental
when applied inappropriately. For instance, debating someone's identity or life experience is
unhelpful and can silence marginalized voices.
Furthermore, this fetishism positions safe spaces as a threat to the university's values, portraying
students who need or want them as contaminating the culture. It overlooks the fact that the
university's history has privileged certain voices while marginalizing others.
Critics of safe spaces often depict an idealized past when the university was devoid of diverse voices
and political activism, portraying these as contaminants. This attitude discourages those who need
safe spaces from feeling like they belong within the institution.
Lastly, debate fetishism hinders the struggle for marginalized voices to find their place within the
university. It portrays safe spaces as static and separate, failing to recognize them as a process of
becoming that complements other academic activities. Critics trivialize these struggles by suggesting
that they should be over by now and maintain a position of privilege.
In summary, debate fetishism prioritizes debate as the ultimate form of communication within
academia, overlooking the importance of safe spaces for marginalized individuals and hindering their
inclusion and acceptance within the university.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article argues that safe spaces in universities should not be seen as a decline in
academic standards or as places for students who lack resilience. Instead, they are an extension of
how we organize moral communication in everyday life. Critics of safe spaces who stigmatize students
as easily offended or illiberal are essentially perpetuating a form of social control and domination.
This stigmatization is achieved by denying the legitimacy of alternative forms of communication,
promoting debate as the only acceptable mode, and undermining the support and recognition that
students need in higher education.
The article suggests that an understanding of communication based on listening, finding a balance
between freedom of speech and the responsibility to hear others, is more reflective of the reality of
shared existence. Communication is seen as a moral vocation, responding to a call from others. Safe
spaces play a role in achieving this balance by allowing marginalized voices to be heard and
encouraging privileged voices to listen. While debate is valuable, it should not dominate all forms of
communication.
