So, in the IETF this is intended to be at least partially addressed by
participants making known their name and affiliations, when they talk at
the mic, author's affiliations are included in documents, etc...
Participation in the IETF is not suppose to be anonymous, even though
that side of this discussion comes up from time to time as well.
I think this works for the most part, most of the time. When you
introduce yourself as John Doe, Mega Network Vendor, or David Farmer,
University of Minnesota, that gives you some clue of the interests being
represented to one extent or another. However there is a bit of problem
comes with Joe Shmoe, Nonsense-word Consultants, what or who's interests
is Joe representing is frequently not obvious.
I'll also note that some authors cover part of this issue in the
acknowledgments section, especially in the case of funded research, by
acknowledging and disclosing that funding.
Another side of the discussion, what kind of barrier to participation
would formal disclosure requirements for authors create? This is just
as much a concern as what biased or agenda an author may have.
I personally appreciate you raising the question, but as with most
ethical questions, there isn't an easy answer one way or the other. I
fear formal author disclosure requirements are likely to be onerous, and
create a barrier to participation. Because of the consensus basis of
the IETF processes, easy and open participation is equally important as
disclosure of conflicts of interest.
I think the best we can do is encourage everyone to voluntarily disclose
the interests they represent and for authors in particular to
acknowledge non-obvious interests they may be representing; being any
interests that are not be obvious from their stated affiliation.
Thanks
On 4/25/14, 12:40 , Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Mike Hammer asked:
> The nice thing about codes of ethics is that there are so many to
choose from.
> Which one are we supposed to be looking at?
This one from /Science Magazine
<http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.xhtml> /is
the one I suggested in my initial email in this thread:
Authorship Form and Conflict-of-Interest Statement
To meet its responsibility to readers and to the public to provide clear
and unbiased scientific results and analyses,/Science/believes that
manuscripts (including Brevia, Essays, Perspectives, Policy Forums,
Reports, Research Articles, Reviews, and Viewpoints) should be
accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of the nature and
level of their contribution to the article, their understanding
regarding the obligation to share data and materials, and any
affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise
questions about possible sources of bias. Before manuscript acceptance,
therefore, authors will be asked to sign an
authorship/conflict-of-interest form. Specific information will be sent
to most authors at the time of manuscript revision.
Authorship Form and Statement of Conflicts of Interest
<http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.pdf>[PDF]
As you say, there are others….
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: MH Michael Hammer (5304) [mailto:MHammer@xxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 10:18 AM
To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'IETF'
Subject: RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:52 PM
> To: 'IETF'
> Subject: RE: Author disclosures and conflict of interest
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker asked:
> > So there is only one set of ethical rules for scientists and
engineers then?
>
> Of course not. But before you reject the ethical rules proposed by the
> National Academies (of Science, Engineering, Medicine, and the
> National Research Council), you ought to have a better argument than
> "I don't wanna...."
>
> This attitude, unfortunately, diminishes respect for IETF and its
standards.
> And nothing confirms that disrespect better than the almost complete
> silence here whenever topics such as this are brought up. It is as if
> IETF standards are generated in an ethical vacuum where "caveat emptor"
> prevails.
>
> /Larry
>
I took the time to look at the website http://www.onlineethics.org/
related to ethics as indicated by the National Academy of Engineering. I
didn't find a code of ethics from the Academy but instead found links to
a whole bunch of other sites -
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/ethcodes/EnglishCodes.aspx. The
nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from. The
nice thing about codes of ethics is that there are so many to choose
from. Which one are we supposed to be looking at?
Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: IETF
> Subject: Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest
>
> So there is only one set of ethical rules for scientists and
engineers then?
>
> Thats news to me.
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
> > Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >> Like the question 'are you a spy' which they used to ask when
> >> people entered the US, I fail to see how this helps with the
> >> NSA/FSB/PLA/etc
> problem.
> >
> > The question actually is: Do you agree to the ethical rules for
> > scientists and
> engineers?
> >
> > By the way, those ethical rules require only disclosure, not recusal.
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:05 PM
> > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: Author disclosures and conflict of interest
> >
> > Like the question 'are you a spy' which they used to ask when people
> entered the US, I fail to see how this helps with the NSA/FSB/PLA/etc
> problem.
> >
> > The people who are being paid to subvert the standards aren't going
to say.
> >
> > They might not even know that the objective is subversion.
> >
> >
> > Like many IETF participants I have substantial financial interests
> > in several
> Internet companies besides my employer. Am I meant to put those in a
> blind trust?
> >
> > And even if I did all that people would still assume that I am
> > working as an
> agent of the New World Order. Though quite how the other folk on the
> conference call worked out that the helicopter is black still puzzles me.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Lawrence Rosen
> > <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
> >> I’ve been skimming recent threads on this list relating to work
> >> done (or not done) at IETF and was reminded of this from Science
Magazine:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Authorship Form and Conflict-of-Interest Statement
> >>
> >> To meet its responsibility to readers and to the public to provide
> >> clear and unbiased scientific results and analyses, Science
> >> believes that manuscripts (including Brevia, Essays, Perspectives,
> >> Policy Forums, Reports, Research Articles, Reviews, and Viewpoints)
> >> should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of the
> >> nature and level of their contribution to the article, their
> >> understanding regarding the obligation to share data and materials,
> >> and any affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that
> >> might raise questions about possible sources of bias. Before
> >> manuscript acceptance, therefore, authors will be asked to sign an
> >> authorship/conflict-of-interest form. Specific information will be
> >> sent to
> most authors at the time of manuscript revision.
> >>
> >> Authorship Form and Statement of Conflicts of Interest [PDF]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Part IV regarding “Conflict of Interest” is particularly relevant
> >> to standards organizations such as IETF. Such a disclosure
> >> requirement would further encourage everyone to trust and implement
> >> IETF
> specifications.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This document follows the recommendations in On Being a Scientist:
> >> A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, The National Academies
> >> Press, Third Edition (2009).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> /Larry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Lawrence Rosen
> >>
> >> Rosenlaw & Einschlag (www.rosenlaw.com <http://www.rosenlaw.com>)
> >>
> >> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> >>
> >> Cell: 707-478-8932 Fax: 707-485-1243
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: farmer@xxxxxxx
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================