Saturday, October 29, 2011

Post 11: Quality Management

Quality Management In Scientific Research and Development

Advances in science have led to major improvements in people's lives but this is twinned with an increasing focus on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, devices, biologicals, agrochemicals and chemicals in humans, animals and the environment.

Quality management in scientific R&D has become an essential tool in ensuring that modern developments are implemented within a rigorous and robust quality framework.

Developed with BARQA, this unique MSc has been devised to meet increasing demand by the healthcare industry for senior quality management professionals.

This course will enable you to develop:
a solid foundation in regulatory requirements and standards
the skills needed to manage quality teams and systems
your ability to deliver quality results and business performance in a global environment.

The course is specifically designed to provide you with invaluable access to industry professionals and networking events - preparing you for exciting career development opportunities.

This MSc is divided into three parts:
a formal taught component comprising eight modules
an integrating portfolio
an individual research project.

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/students/courses/page21126.html

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Post 10: Specific Ethical Question

My field of interest is in Nanotechnology.  The ethical question I would like to address is whether a precautionary principle should be used in nanotechnology regulations.  Mainly how strict a precautionary principle should be.

"The Precautionary Principle demands the proactive introduction of protective measures in the face of possible risks, which science at present -- in the absence of knowledge -- can neither confirm nor reject."


In the realm of nanosciences, the normal laws of physics no longer apply.  At the level below 50 nanometers, materials have different properties than at larger scales.  There are uncertainties on how the materials will act at that level which may call for a regulation of technological advances in the nano scale.


Argument For Strict Regulation
The strongest version of the precautionary principle would be to require a product be 'proven to be safe' before it is introduced.

This version would require a burden of proof to those who wish to introduce a new technology.  They would need to prove without a doubt that the product is safe before it is introduced.

Argument for Less Strict Regulation
A weaker version would simply require evidence of safety.

This version allows the technology to be introduced unless they could be shown to be unsafe.

My Position
I believe there should be a less strict regulation in place for technological advances in nanoscience.  There is a lack of full scientific certainty in nanoscience but that shouldn't call for a strict regulation.  This would slow down the production and advances in the field.  The question "how much proof is necessary" is key.  How do you prove a product to be 100% safe? It's extremely difficult to think of any product that is 100% safe.

Citations

Wolf, Clark.  Case Study:  Nanotech Regulation and the Precautionary Priciple. Print.


http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/09012004/september04corp2.html

Monday, October 24, 2011

Friday, October 21, 2011

Post 8: Ethical Question

Is it ethical for a physician to accept Wild tickets from a pharmaceutical rep to take her family to the game?


I believe this is ethical to accept the tickets if there is already a good relationship between the physician and the pharmaceutical rep.  Taking the tickets doesn't necessarily mean that the physician will go with the specific pharmaceutical company.  It all depends on the situation the tickets were given.  The tickets shouldn't be accepted if it is some sort of bribe.  If I had the opportunity, I would take up on the offer because I love free gifts and the Wild.  I would probably look more into the pharmaceutical company after receiving these tickets but not necessarily go with them if I didn't agree with their company.  I can see how this might be unethical because it wouldn't be fair for the other physicians and their families and also it would give that company an advantage over other companies.  This type of situation should be thoroughly analyzed before making a decision.  Even if you didn't accept the tickets though, there would still be that thought in the back of your head about the pharmaceutical company.  They already got their foot in the door by offering the tickets so why not just accept them.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Post 7: General Ethics

Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 

This is an index of links to Ethics and Nanotechnology resources on the web.  These resources are located outside of the Online Ethics Center.
  
  • (Web Page on Another Site)
    The Centre for Ethics and Technology aims at bringing together the expertise of the three Departments of Philosophy of the three technical universities in the Netherlands in the field of ethics and technology. The Centre has the ambition to build upon the excellent international reputation of the three technical universities in the field of ethics and technology. The recent research evaluation has confirmed the international excellence in research of the three groups. Moreover the research evaluation committee acknowledged that the philosophy of technology is one of the very few topics in Philosophy in which The Netherlands holds a unique and leading position in the world. The merger of these three groups will allow for close collaboration in research as well as teaching, outreach and consultancy in both the private and public sector. The participating universities will be represented on an equal basis in the Centre.
  • (Web Page on Another Site)
    The NanoEthicsBank at the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at IIT is a database conceived as a resource for researchers, scholars, students, and the general public who are interested in the social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. Items in the database include normative documents, such as guidelines for safety in the workplace, and descriptive materials, such as analysis of the U.S. government’s capacity for oversight and studies of the media coverage of nanotechnology.
  • (Web Page on Another Site)
    CRN acts to raise awareness of the issues surrounding nanotechnology. They believe that even a technology as powerful as molecular manufacturing can be used wisely and well—but that without adequate information, unwise use will be far too common. The mission of CRN is to raise awareness of the issues presented by nanotechnology: the benefits and dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use.
  • (Web Page on Another Site)
    The Foresight Institute is a 501c3 think tank and public interest organization focused on transformative future technologies. Founded in 1986, its mission is to discover and promote the upsides, and help avoid the dangers, of nanotechnology, AI, biotech, and similar life-changing developments. Foresight focuses its efforts upon nanotechnology and the coming ability to build products—of any size—with atomic precision.
  • (Web Page on Another Site)
    The extraordinary growth in research in the area of nanotechnology, coupled with the wide variety of industrial applications, has highlighted the lack of a focal point where various parts of this expanding community can meet and exchange information. nanotechweb.org has been created to do just that - provide a virtual meeting point for anyone involved in the field. The Web site has different channels with information equally valuable to all visitors.
  • (Web Page on Another Site)
    This report was published in 2002 by The Committee on Implications of Emerging Micro- and Nanotechnologies, established by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Air Force Science and Technology Board (AFSTB). The committee was tasked with evaluating the implications of current trends in micro- and nanotechnologies for the Air Force.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Post 6: Diversity

To me, diversity means a group of different people with different qualities to them working together.  These different qualities would include their background, education, personality, views and more.  Having diversity in the workplace is much more beneficial to a company because it opens areas and ideas that don't come normally with a group of similar people.  The best projects I've worked on came when my group consisted of several different type of people that have different views from me.  I learned real fast that my opinions don't necessarily agree with others and vice versa.  It did however open my eyes to a different way of thinking and going about ways which made our projects better.

3M Diversity Statement
"At 3M, we respect the differences that make each of us unique. 3M's culture of collaboration and innovation creates an environment that values and leverages diverse perspectives for continued growth. Our global work force is a tremendous asset that is instrumental to our continued success. We recognize and leverage the many aspects of diversity in order to help create an environment where all employees can thrive and contribute to 3M’s growth and success."


Boston Scientific
"We are committed to creating and sustaining a work environment and culture that promotes inclusiveness. We rely on the diversity of people, perspective and experience to achieve outstanding business results."

DOW Chemical Company
"Inherent in the human element that drives Dow, diversity is viewed as a source of advantage. We value the differing experiences, backgrounds and perspectives among our employees, and draw from those differences to fuel innovation. We are committed to building a vibrant, diverse and talented employee base – and helping each employee grow and develop as part of Dow's inclusive global community."

Ecolabs
" To promote sustainable growth across different sectors, Ecolab policy encourages working with diverse suppliers while ensuring that we receive the highest quality products and services at the most competitive prices.Our Supplier Diversity Program is founded on the principles of fair and equitable business practices and social responsibility to the communities we serve."

Cargill
"I think great decisions come from great debates, and I think great debates are shaped by people that bring a variety of perspectives … Having the diversity that’s necessary for the quality of debate to be at the highest possible level is clearly a business imperative."

My view on these statements
I would have commented on every one of these statements but after reading all their diversity statements I could tell they are all pretty similar.  I strongly believe in general meaning of each statement that diversity in experience, knowledge, and background provide a distinct advantage at reaching higher goals that couldn't be achieved without diversity.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Post 5: PDP

Personal Development Plan

My Current State

Strengths
·         Optimistic
·         Good time management
·         Communicate well with others

Weaknesses
·         Hard to step outside comfort zone
·         Lack initiative.  Too much planning but no action.
·         Not assertive enough

Focus Areas
·         Develop more self confidence and courage
·         Learn to be more assertive

My Desired State
Ability to talk and act confidently regardless of what the situation or who I am talking to.  Not afraid to voice out my ideas and opinions and willing to try new things and take some risks.  Always look for new opportunities rather than walk the common path.  Look for positives in any circumstances and make the best out of un-favorable situations.

Short Term Goals
·         Graduate with at least 3.5 GPA
·         Find internship with a respected company
·         Win the conference in football
·         Do independent research project

Long Term Goals
·         Find job I enjoy
·         Start a family (5 kids)
·         Be financially secure

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Post 4: Carbon Dioxide Paper

1. https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AR-g2f6dIA0oZGdxZG1zaHdfMTljZDJqYzhweA&hl=en_US

2. I think the criteria we set was solid criteria to evaluate a scientific paper.  They were pretty general ways to establish if the paper is legitimate which seemed to work out well.  More criteria could have also helped in this process.

3. The points we brought up in our presentation were pretty strong reasons why this paper is not legitimate.  As the "No" group, we analyzed questionable comments and confusing graphs.  We also did a good job in pointing out the weak references the paper had.  The "No" groups in general did a nice job disecting the paper, looking for evidence on making the paper invalid, and conveying that in a way that the rest of the class could see and understand in a short period of time. They seemed confident in their findings and conveyed it in a way for the rest of the class to understand.  Some of the weaknesses that our group had was to find clear cut evidence to prove the paper is not legitimate.  There weren't things that popped out in the paper so we had to take one piece we believed was wrong and thoroughly research it.  At times we were unable to prove or disprove what the paper was saying which used up a lot of our time.

4. Our group's main strength was our communication and organization.  We set certain people to look for illegitimacy in different areas of the paper.  By assigning people to different jobs made the process a lot easier.  Using Google Docs was also very beneficial to our group.  We were able to work on the presentation simultaneously and provide feedback right away.  One of the things that didn't go so well was the inability to have every member at each meeting.  It was a lot easier to communicate face to face rather than email.

5. After reading through the paper I was confident in my position.  There was a few head scratching moments when I read the paper which made it easier to disprove the paper because of my strong belief that the paper was not legitimate.

6.  I believe the class made the right decision after listening to everyone's stance on the paper. Based off the evidence we found disproving the paper, it's hard to believe the paper is legitimate.

7. Looking at what has happened in the past few years, it is easy to see that the US is beginning to become smaller in the global scale of things like economy, population and power. The things we do are having a lesser impact to the world then they did in the past.  I always compare the US and what happened to Rome and other empires.  Rome was a dominant world power for 1000 years and now it is almost nothing compared to what it was.  Great empires end up not lasting which will soon probably happen to the US.

8. Individual efforts in the past has changed the world.  Such individual contributions like Edison, BIll Gates, Steve Jobs, and more has changed the world in many ways such as socially, economically, and environmentally.  It is crazy how much one person who believes in themselves and their work can change the world.