Your professional ethics

With all these sorts of dubious activities, isn't there nearly always an ethical argument to be made to actually be working in the research end of things, your improving a product or methodology that is vitally important to a certain amount of people, just because the end product might be abused or promoted to groups that do not require it doesn't change the fact that there is people that will have a real benefit from any improvements you make.

Personally my ethical limits would be anything that facilitates direct negative impacts on people, or sales I could never do sales!

Candie wrote: »

Formula is a necessary evil. Mothers in the developing world with a Hiv infection (and access to clean water) use formula to prevent breastmilk transmission. There are other valid health and infection reduction reasons why formula is sometimes preferable.

In the western world, sometimes milk supply is too little, or the mother gets an infection like mastitis that may require the use of formula. Sometimes mothers are on medication that can be transmitted in breastmilk. And of course, sometimes there is no living lactating mother, and the baby's got to drink something.

And sometimes it's the parents choice to formula feed.

Of all the atrocities in the world that I would take an ethical stance on, formula would be fairly low on that list.

Ya, in one example, my mother used to run a charity, where (among many many other things) baby formula was sent to an orphanage that was in crisis conditions - which is one case where it would make sense.

Otherwise though, the promotion of using it in place of actual breastmilk (when there is no health risk) - especially the marketing of such - is extremely immoral, ya (to the point I'd class it as exploitation). I avoid Nestle for this reason.

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

They are and they aren't. I'd never work for a company with tie-ins to actually horrible things like Bayer that's been pointed out ITT. But when it comes to certain markets where there are fools willing to pretty much throw away their money on rubbish (magazines, overpriced electronics like beats, fizzy drinks like coke etc.) I'd happily be the one to basically walk around with a bucket collecting it. I've a strong admiration for the geniuses behind certain marketing campaigns and a strong disdain for the clueless sheep at the other end of it swallowing it whole, I'd just rather being on the winning side and benefiting from it.

It's small scale stuff like that, which creates the professional ethics (and general workplace atmosphere/culture) required, to justify doing that on a large scale: How about peddling overpriced mortgages to people (encouraging a property boom in the process), with you getting rich in the present, and then watching their wages and ability to pay get undercut (and the bank you're in requiring a bailout), when the unsustainability of this creates an economic crisis? (by the time the crisis hits, you've already received your wages/riches, and have no reason to care about it)

There are a lot of individual mortgage lenders who had the ethical mindset you promote there, who only looked at their actions on a small scale - happy to sucker people into overpriced mortgages, not caring if they would be able to afford it long-term - and who ignored the eventual large-scale impact of their actions.


The basis of fraud, is tricking someone - taking advantage of their lack of knowledge (and possible stupidity) - into accepting a bad deal; that's basically what you're trumpeting there, and you even would have disdain for the victim of fraud too.

That's the kind of thinking that led us into our current mess, where we are still (to this day) collectively being exploited by many of the same institutions, that helped put us where we are now.

Depends, would have to decide on a case by case basis. I probably wouldnt work on something that involved testing on animals.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Hard to give a definitive list of what I would or would not work on.
Weapons and animal testing are two types of projects I would not work on. I did refuse to work on a project with a british tobacco firm some years ago but that was more because I just did not like them rather than ethics.
But that aside, it is case by case.

lets test your ethics

you have been diagnosed with a disease that will kill you within 1 year
however there is a new treatment that will totally cure the disease.
unfortunately, 1000 mammals were killed (rabbits, rats etc) by testing the product during the development cycle.

would you refuse the treatment and accept your fate.
be honest

CarpeDiem85 wrote: »

I don't think I could ever work as a lawyer or solicitor. Having to defend someone who from evidence was more than likely guilty would make me feel physically sick.

The State when in prosecutes someone has access to practically unlimited resources - the consequences for an individual can be severe and there are enough examples around of people who were 'fitted' up - to make it an imperative that someone makes sure the State is kept honest when it decides to prosecute someone.

Saying that, sentencing in this country is a joke.