A possible attack on professional integrity / the quality of training of professions

This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html - although I am overdue to update that particular listing.

***

Technical literature in a profession is how professionals in that area of work stay up to date - in Engineering, and possibly other professions, it is termed "Continuing Professional Development", or CPD.  These articles are peer reviewed (I and many others did that last week for a conference next year) are advise of new developments, new speculations / possible new directions, and experiences using recent and old approaches. 

It is how people going to a doctor know they will get the most up-to-date treatment, how people going to a structural engineer know a building or bridge will not fall down (which is supposed to be the main motivation behind Victoria's new Engineers Registration Bill, but I question that for several reasons), and how people using computers and software know they have the best - including most resistant to cyber-attacks - technology. 

And technology, in this day and age, is of far greater impact than anything else: forget about "who controls the means of productions" - that no longer lies with whoever directs what happens in factories, it lies with those in control of the technology that runs the factories, our cars, our planes, our medical technology - even, to a disturbing extent, our homes and personal space. 

All people who argue about means of productions are around two to three decades out of date, and utterly irrelevant. 

I have grave concerns about some of this, and great admiration for other aspects - not only that I can type on a PC and post to the Internet, but the medical advances,, the improvements in safety, the connectedness that helps people who are isolated or otherwise unable to have social contact or do the sorts of daily activities that others take for granted.

And now a tech company has introduced a requirement that technical papers potentially be - in my word choice - biased. 

The articles will be scrutinised by marketing people in order to ensure an adequately positive tone.

Despite comments that challenges should not be hidden, it appears at least some papers have been changed in concerning ways by this. 

From this article:

Four staff researchers, including senior scientist _, said they believe _ is starting to interfere with crucial studies of potential technology harms.

“If we are researching the appropriate thing given our expertise, and we are not permitted to publish that on grounds that are not in line with high-quality peer review, then we’re getting into a serious problem of censorship,” _ said.

_ states on its public-facing website that its scientists have “substantial” freedom.

Tensions between _ and some of its staff broke into view this month after the abrupt exit of scientist _, who led a 12-person team with _ focused on ethics in artificial intelligence software (AI).

I've removed the identifiers for several reasons: 

• I consider this problem potentially applies across the tech industry, given my experience in engineering (see below), and to single one company out is to possibly fail to address the problem; 
• further developments may resolve this issue; and 
• I'm not interested in getting into any legal arguments with large and powerful corporations - particularly when I consider - see my first dot point - that misses the issue.
  

As I just mentioned, other professions have had problems with technical literature, CPD, and related ethical issues. 

I recall a few years ago concerns around the medical profession and the influence that medical supplies companies were having (through free trips/accommodation/perks, from memory). 

In my profession, papers have been published that are basically advertising plugs for equipment or new treatment processes. 

I want to be clear, though: we need to know about the new, but it should be presented in a way that is objective, and free of marketing spin. It is not the content I am concerned with, it is the presentation. 

And that, by the way, has been subject to some companies trying to enforce rules similar to what is being written about above, so this is (a) not new, (b) not limited to IT, (c) of great concern to the community, and (d) utterly missed by all attempts at regulation / registration / enforcing a professional Code of Conduct. 

ALL professions need to recognise and start addressing this issue - leave suppliers' involvement in conferences to open and declared sponsorships (which I approve of, knowing how difficult it can be to get enough funding to put on any conference or event, let alone one meant to be a "high quality", seemingly "professional" event - which alludes to some of the problems I have with the superficiality of appearance based criteria, but that is a criticism of society and people more than the weak-minded professions who go along with personal irrational biases - and mine are clearly showing :) ), and make sure companies comply with the published rules on technical literature not being marketing - contact companies in your industry and TELL THEM THAT.

And all people involved in regulation / registration / enforcing a professional Code of Conduct need to start focusing on this, rather than fallaciously assume all CPD is good (or relevant).