Ethics and Disclosures2

[Robert Fitzke]

I suggest that. in any further discussions on this subject, some recognition
be given to the difference between the kind of activity, e.g., drug testing
by private physicians in which there is no public awareness of the
relationship between physician/tester and the drug company that employs
him/her, and the situation such as Mr. Butters was in in which his court
testimony made his position a matter of public record.

Bob Fitzke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cohen, Gerald Leonard" <gcohen at UMR.EDU>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: Ethics and Disclosures2


> FWIW, here are a few thoughts on the ethics issues currently being
> discussed on ads-l:
>
> 1) I'm uncomfortable with the charge/implication of an ethical breech
> being made by either of the two participants.  Both are honorable figures
> in our field, and it is best to assume that in the "redskin" discussion
> both proceeded in a manner they deemed correct in all respects.
>
> 2) The main point of interest in our ads-l discussions is the linguistic
> material itself.  We now know that Ron was a paid consultant, but so what?
> The ads-l discussions are free-swinging affairs, and its members will
> agree or disagree or remain ambivalent to material presented based on our
> reading of that material itself.  An appeal to authority might work in the
> courtroom but not on ads-l.  To cite just one personal example, I'm
> probably one of the leading
> ads-l etymologists, but whenever I've sent messages whose content is weak,
> I've noticed no bashfulness among ads-l members to disagree.
>
> 3) If I publicly present a paper on "hot dog" to a linguistics conference
> and someone decides to tape it without notifying me first, I would not
> consider this an ethical breech. Such notification would be a courtesy,
> but since the paper is presented very publicly, with the press possibly
> present, the information in the paper should be considered as belonging in
> the public domain.  If the recording would be sold for profit, that of
> course would be different.
>
> 4) We might try to work out ethical rules/guidelines pertaining to future
> discussions such as the "redskin" one, but I suspect this would turn out
> to be a time-consuming and less-than-satisfactory endeavor--grist for the
> mill for an ethics discussion group but a tangent for our ads-l members.
> Ads-l is a
> self-correcting operation. So it's probably best to rely on its
> free-and-open discussions to bring any omitted information to light and to
> see what will survive in its market-place of ideas.
>
> Gerald Cohen