The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides access to information on a variety of topics related to the environment and strives to inform citizens of health risks. The EPA also has an extensive library network that consists of 26 libraries throughout the United States, which provide access to a plethora of information to EPA employees, scientists, and researchers. The EPA implemented a reorganization project to digitize their materials so they would be more accessible to a wider range of users, but this plan was drastically accelerated when the EPA was threatened with a budget cut. It chose to close and reduce the hours and services of some of their libraries. As a result, the agency was accused of denying users the “right to know” by making information unavailable, not providing an adequate strategic plan, and discarding vital materials. This case study explores the background of the digitization project, the practices implemented, and the critiques of the project.

/pdf/the-environmental-protection-agency-3gx4opzrjm.pdf

The Environmental Protection Agency

Anarchy, state, and utopia

Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”

The politics of life itself Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century

The dramatic advances in DNA technology over the last few years are the stuff of science fiction. It is now not only possible to clone human beings it is happening. For the first time since the creation of the earth four billion years ago, or the emergence of mankind 10 million years ago, people will be able to choose their children's' sex, height, colour, personality traits and intelligence. It will even be possible to create 'superhumans' by mixing human genes with those of other animals for extra strength or longevity. But is this desirable? What are the moral and political consequences? Will it mean anything to talk about 'human nature' any more? Is this the end of human beings? Post Human Society is a passionate analysis of the greatest political and moral problem ever to face the human race.

The Problem with NatureOur Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution

It is remarkable how much robotics research is promoted by appealing to the idea that the only way to deal with a looming demographic crisis is to develop robots to look after older persons. This paper surveys and assesses the claims made on behalf of robots in relation to their capacity to meet the needs of older persons. We consider each of the roles that has been suggested for robots in aged care and attempt to evaluate how successful robots might be in these roles. We do so from the perspective of writers concerned primarily with the quality of aged care, paying particular attention to the social and ethical implications of the introduction of robots, rather than from the perspective of robotics, engineering, or computer science. We emphasis the importance of the social and emotional needs of older persons--which, we argue, robots are incapable of meeting--in almost any task involved in their care. Even if robots were to become capable of filling some service roles in the aged-care sector, economic pressures on the sector would most likely ensure that the result was a decrease in the amount of human contact experienced by older persons being cared for, which itself would be detrimental to their well-being. This means that the prospects for the ethical use of robots in the aged-care sector are far fewer than first appears. More controversially, we believe that it is not only misguided, but actually unethical, to attempt to substitute robot simulacra for genuine social interaction. A subsidiary goal of this paper is to draw attention to the discourse about aged care and robotics and locate it in the context of broader social attitudes towards older persons. We conclude by proposing a deliberative process involving older persons as a test for the ethics of the use of robots in aged care.

In the hands of machines? The future of aged care

COCHLEAR implants” are a technology which attempts to “cure” deafness by bypassing the outer ear through electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. In the last two decades, these implants have been offered as treatment options not only for adults who have lost their hearing as a result of accident or disease in later life, but also for children who were deafened as infants or who were born deaf. An increasing number of operations are being undertaken on children as young as two years old to install these implants in order to allow them to begin hearing and learning spoken language. While the existing technology is at best only partially successful in allowing the deaf to hear, if the technology continues to improve then one day we may live in a world in which no-one needs to be deaf. It comes as a great surprise to most people in the hearing community to learn that a sizeable section of the deaf community has reacted with hostility and dismay to the development of this technology. Throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s, Deaf people mobilized to protest the use of cochlear implants. In particular, they objected to the choice being made on behalf of young children to insert the implant. These critics reject the very idea of trying to find a “cure” for deafness. Indeed they have compared it to genocide. They argue that deaf people should not be thought of as disabled but as members of a minority cultural group. The search for a cure for deafness represents the desire of a The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 13, Number 2, 2005, pp. 135–152

Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants*

on Human Enhancement

It is often argued that driverless vehicles will save lives. In this paper, we treat the ethical case for driverless vehicles seriously and show that it has radical implications for the future of transport. After briefly discussing the current state of driverless vehicle technology, we suggest that systems that rely upon human supervision are likely to be dangerous when used by ordinary people in real-world driving conditions and are unlikely to satisfy the desires of consumers. We then argue that the invention of fully autonomous vehicles that pose a lower risk to third parties than human drivers will establish a compelling case against the moral permissibility of manual driving. As long as driverless vehicles aren’t safer than human drivers, it will be unethical to sell them. Once they are safer than human drivers when it comes to risks to 3rd parties, then it should be illegal to drive them: at that point human drivers will be the moral equivalent of drunk robots. We also describe two plausible mechanisms whereby this ethical argument may generate political pressure to have it reflected in legislation. Freeing people from the necessity of driving, though, will transform the relationship people have with their cars, which will in turn open up new possibilities for the transport uses of the automobile. The ethical challenge posed by driverless vehicles for transport policy is therefore to ensure that the most socially and environmentally beneficial of these possibilities is realised. We highlight several key policy choices that will determine how likely it is that this challenge will be met.

When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport

Following the success of Sony Corporation's `AIBO,' robot cats and dogs are multiplying rapidly. ``Robot pets'' employing sophisticated artificial intelligence and animatronic technologies are now being marketed as toys and companions by a number of large consumer electronics corporations.

It is often suggested in popular writing about these devices that they could play a worthwhile role in serving the needs of an increasingly aging and socially isolated population. Robot companions, shaped like familiar household pets, could comfort and entertain lonely older persons. This goal is misguided and unethical. While there are a number of apparent benefits that might be thought to accrue from ownership of a robot pet, the majority and the most important of these are predicated on mistaking, at a conscious or unconscious level, the robot for a real animal. For an individual to benefit significantly from ownership of a robot pet they must systematically delude themselves regarding the real nature of their relation with the animal. It requires sentimentality of a morally deplorable sort. Indulging in such sentimentality violates a (weak) duty that we have to ourselves to apprehend the world accurately. The design and manufacture of these robots is unethical in so far as it presupposes or encourages this delusion.

The invention of robot pets heralds the arrival of what might be called ``ersatz companions'' more generally. That is, of devices that are designed to engage in and replicate significant social and emotional relationships. The advent of robot dogs offers a valuable opportunity to think about the worth of such companions, the proper place of robots in society and the value we should place on our relationships with them.

/pdf/the-march-of-the-robot-dogs-55owus7l1s.pdf

Robert Sparrow

Papers

In the hands of machines? The future of aged care

Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants*

on Human Enhancement

When human beings are like drunk robots: Driverless vehicles, ethics, and the future of transport

The March of the robot dogs