I suppose that when a person is hired into a regular job their personality which comes across in an interview would be considered, for example how they would fit into a team and so on?
What if you were deciding on a person who would take charge of a piece of equipment (with no benefit to them except maybe the experience :|) and you have two candidates one who is very technically sound but severely lacks people skills and is known to cut corners when doing procedures. And another who is technically weaker (due to lack of experience) but can work well with other people and follows procedures correctly. Bearing in mind that the person would have to teach other new people coming into the lab and deal with technical issues that crop up. I am inclined to pick the less later person as his technical weak points could be improved with more experience and training but personality issues are not so easily overcome.
In another scenario where a person wishes to use a piece of sensitive equipment without supervision; They do a demonstration to the person in charge without any flaws in their technical skills, however they display impatience and not caring too much about following certain checks which ensure the machine continues to work properly. During the demonstration all the proper procedures are followed but here and there certain impatience is displays which makes the person in charge wonder if they would skip things if left alone. Would it be prejudicial or wrong to not allow that person to use it without supervision based on these "feelings"? In this case the persons work may be affected as they now have to wait for the person in charge to also be available.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
The people who influence us
To a large extent we are shaped by our environment. Specifically people. In our early lives its our parents. Much more than character, and opinions are influenced. Parents also encourage or discourage certain behavior or inclinations that we have according to what they feel is right as well. Often people find on hind sight that even our career choices have been influenced to a large extent by our parents, either by encouraging us to study along a certain field that they like or feel is suitable for us, or by our own actions of rebellion against these encouragements. Encouragement/discouragement also enters into the child's development through other elders and teachers whose opinions we are taught to value.
As we grow older, these authority figures become less of an influence as we tend to form our own opinions and not take what is told as face value. But our opinions are still not entirely our own. It is still linked to the people we hang around. Living away from your parents mean you grow closer ties with friends as a support system and their opinions begin to matter. Having conversations with friends and colleagues lead you to broaden your perspective and you tend to assimilate some of the general opinions. Those who are more stubborn or strong willed tend to hold on to their preformed notions while those more weaker willed will tend to sway with a group opinion.
These are common people who influence everyone. But take a specific example of grad students and you find that a lot of them are influenced by their supervisors. More than in a common work environment where there is a chain of control, and people come and go, get promoted, work in different groups and so on; a grad student has a close relationship with their primary supervisor for 4 - 5 years in general and as this is generally their starting point of their professional life a lot of cues are picked up from the supervisor. From very basic things like presentation/writing styles to more character issues like how forceful, perfection oriented, organized etc. In some cases where there is a chance to evaluate and choose supervisors/students its likely that people of similar character choose to work together, however even when thrown together randomly, by the time of graduation a lot of the supervisors characteristics are mirrored in the students. I cannot say if my initial assumption that this is not so common in workplaces is true or not though.
As we grow older, these authority figures become less of an influence as we tend to form our own opinions and not take what is told as face value. But our opinions are still not entirely our own. It is still linked to the people we hang around. Living away from your parents mean you grow closer ties with friends as a support system and their opinions begin to matter. Having conversations with friends and colleagues lead you to broaden your perspective and you tend to assimilate some of the general opinions. Those who are more stubborn or strong willed tend to hold on to their preformed notions while those more weaker willed will tend to sway with a group opinion.
These are common people who influence everyone. But take a specific example of grad students and you find that a lot of them are influenced by their supervisors. More than in a common work environment where there is a chain of control, and people come and go, get promoted, work in different groups and so on; a grad student has a close relationship with their primary supervisor for 4 - 5 years in general and as this is generally their starting point of their professional life a lot of cues are picked up from the supervisor. From very basic things like presentation/writing styles to more character issues like how forceful, perfection oriented, organized etc. In some cases where there is a chance to evaluate and choose supervisors/students its likely that people of similar character choose to work together, however even when thrown together randomly, by the time of graduation a lot of the supervisors characteristics are mirrored in the students. I cannot say if my initial assumption that this is not so common in workplaces is true or not though.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Genetics Abortion Ethics
Congenital conditions can be scary - some develop only after adulthood (or methods of detection were only developed in later years), at this juncture you might have children and passed on these illnesses to them. If on the other hand you find out about them before you have children what are the options you have. Based on the condition you could have a 0 - 100% chance depending on whether it is recessive/dominant and your partner's genetics. Assuming of course that you want to have children (otherwise the discussion becomes moot), what are the choices you have. If the chances are especially high of passing on the condition there is always adopting children. Assuming then that you want to have biological children there seems to be two choices.
First there is preimplantation genetic diagnosis which requires the use of IVF. This means the testing is done before implantation but at the embryo stage (I believe after the third division). Of course this means taking the IVF route which is a costly procedure and becomes a longer route if the couple has no other problems concieving. Only certain diseases can be tested for and it assumes that one cell is representive off all - leading to more false positives/negatives. Not all countries provide this due to ethical concerns
Prenatal diagnosis is the other option which can be non-invasive for certain conditions or more invasive procedures like aminocentesis. Invasive procedures carry their own risks to the fetus.
Both these procedures come close to eugenic like selections - hence the reason for most ethical arguments against them. Although as a parent who is likely to pass on congential conditions to their children perhaps it would not seem this way as they are not using these procedures to select sex or traits.
The tricky part is if there is a positive result to these tests. In the preimplantation diagnosis it would be an easier proces to discard the embryo (as not all embryos generated for IVF are used anyway regardless of screening). In the other case it comes down to whether the parent wished to carry the child to term or abort the pregnancy. Some conditions would cause death or severe disability almost from the time of birth hence it seems ok to abort the pregnancy. Fetal corrective procedures are rare so this seems the choice that comes with prenatal screening. There is also the case of less sever cases where the child maybe able to live a semi normal - normal life with assistance - so are you taking away this right. The parents physical/mental/ financial ability to cope with such children I think needs to be taken into consideration. Of course if abortion is illegal in a certain country these tests can lead to no useful results except perhaps better prepareredness before the birth of the child. What about the extreame case of diseases which are late developing - i.e. person can lead a normal life until their 50s or 60s where the congenital condition starts giving problems. Does a parent abort or carry the child to term. The person might never develop problems (or they might), they might die earlier of unrelated incidents, a cure maybe developed in their lifetime. Is there some good to try to stop the continuation of passing on these genes which seemingly have a negative impact on the human being's health. Or is this a mild form of eugenics too.
First there is preimplantation genetic diagnosis which requires the use of IVF. This means the testing is done before implantation but at the embryo stage (I believe after the third division). Of course this means taking the IVF route which is a costly procedure and becomes a longer route if the couple has no other problems concieving. Only certain diseases can be tested for and it assumes that one cell is representive off all - leading to more false positives/negatives. Not all countries provide this due to ethical concerns
Prenatal diagnosis is the other option which can be non-invasive for certain conditions or more invasive procedures like aminocentesis. Invasive procedures carry their own risks to the fetus.
Both these procedures come close to eugenic like selections - hence the reason for most ethical arguments against them. Although as a parent who is likely to pass on congential conditions to their children perhaps it would not seem this way as they are not using these procedures to select sex or traits.
The tricky part is if there is a positive result to these tests. In the preimplantation diagnosis it would be an easier proces to discard the embryo (as not all embryos generated for IVF are used anyway regardless of screening). In the other case it comes down to whether the parent wished to carry the child to term or abort the pregnancy. Some conditions would cause death or severe disability almost from the time of birth hence it seems ok to abort the pregnancy. Fetal corrective procedures are rare so this seems the choice that comes with prenatal screening. There is also the case of less sever cases where the child maybe able to live a semi normal - normal life with assistance - so are you taking away this right. The parents physical/mental/ financial ability to cope with such children I think needs to be taken into consideration. Of course if abortion is illegal in a certain country these tests can lead to no useful results except perhaps better prepareredness before the birth of the child. What about the extreame case of diseases which are late developing - i.e. person can lead a normal life until their 50s or 60s where the congenital condition starts giving problems. Does a parent abort or carry the child to term. The person might never develop problems (or they might), they might die earlier of unrelated incidents, a cure maybe developed in their lifetime. Is there some good to try to stop the continuation of passing on these genes which seemingly have a negative impact on the human being's health. Or is this a mild form of eugenics too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)