Ethics in research
Update: I'm not put on that job!
We might get a job from a huge tabacco company. It's a huge global client and one we can hardly afford to reject based on the dismal sales this year as a new division. But tabacco....hmmm....I have no problems against smokers, it's after all their life; but it seems like I have a problem with tabacco manufacturers. It's amazing how they built a whole empire based on blowing smoke out of your mouth. Their whole business is based on burning leaves that will give you cancer. Seinfeld had this joke on why people liked to smoke, they're just fascinated that they appear like they are on fire. Well...something to the effect of that. To many, it's not much of an ethical issue, the findings will not have any impact on me, we get a profit and we move on. But they use these findings to make their marketing even more effective and then get many more people hooked on it based on a myth sometimes. Maybe I have been too quick to assume since I'm not a smoker myself; but will smokers please share with me why they smoke?
To be honest, I don't know whether I'll be put on this study. Hopefully not. Selling soft drinks to kids I can live with, cos there are many substitutes. Selling smokes? Unless you consider their decadent sibilings cigar, pipes, marijuana (though it can provide comfort for those suffering great pain), magic mushrooms etc. There isn't really a lesser evil innit'?
Recently I also stumbled on a website that activists in USA boycott subsidiaries of Philip Morris (masquerading as Altria now). Very famous example was Kraft, which led to Altria's decision to hold an IPO to distance itself from the heat. As mentioned before, though there are many problems surrounding capitalism and free market; there are evidences that capitalism has made life better for everyone involved. While we cannot prevent companies like Altria to market 'Marlboro Man' in all its magical myth to young consumers, we can practice 'conscientious consuming'. Furthermore, in the recent years many beliefs that people held towards environment conservation have found a way to co-exist with capitalism. They have fair-trade and ecologically sustainable products at affordable prices and on top of that unique designs.
Fair enough, it's always easier to get what is on your doorstep and when you are seemingly tight on your budget. On the other hand, how do we put a value on intangibles? There must be a ways, they say. It is at the choice of consumers to practice their free will to force a change in industry, to expect more from industries rather than wait for them to tell us what we want. I have a dream to go into a focus group and overwhelmingly consumers demand ecologically, fair trade products that will fit into their lifestyle and emotional needs; and it need not be be mutually exclusive.
P.s. To my dear friend who respects and understands my choices not to eat sharks fin. Will you consider using 鱼膘 as a substitute instead since shark's fin itself is tasteless.
posted by Chinogypsie @ 11:42 AM
1 Comments:
as someone who often wakes up at night screaming, because s/he can't live with the idea that s/he is working towards making an evil system more efficient, can i say a few things?
a real discussion can take forever, and i dunno a good final answer, but i dun think the debate in your mind is as simple as this, and i know you too probly dun think this is that simple.
capitalism is about letting the market decide - buyer beware - with full disclosure. tobacco (what about alcohol?) for adults, sugar for kids, fat for kids and adults, the claim that you can be sexier and more fulfilled person by buying a newer shampoo/tshirt/shoe/lipstick/hair dye/jeans/top/handphone/MP3 player, that somehow some particular financial product is able to magically beat the risk=return formula - these are all indistinguishable from each other in many ways - they all rely on convincing a consumer that a product/service is worth more to them (after deducting the personal costs in terms of poorer health, poorer chances at self actualization etc.) than the costs to the manufacturer. And MR, whether you work on a specific project or not, especially qualitative MR which uncovers the underlying motivations of consumers so as to exploit them for profit, just makes the capitalistic system more efficient. One of those sad cases, where for short term benefit (some incentive, or some foolish idea that you are helping some "for profit" company - companies hardly need charity from consumers, do they?), consumers (by participating in a study) could perhaps just be losing something in the longer run.
So, if you accept capitalism (and democracy) as OK, then you should accept the marketing of any product that the democracy has legislated that it can be sold legally. In an non-democracy, it is a little more difficult i think to accept that capitalism is OK. e.g. people in a region might not want to legalize gambling or prostitution, but if the state relaxes restrictions or actively encourages either business, then it is a little trickier to decide whether it is ok to help make the marketing of these services more efficient.
I personally think they should just ban smoking (note that smokers do harm others around them too, not just themselves) - but then someone might argue that eventually, you should ban sugar, white bread, all saturated fats, etc. - it is indeed a slippery slope so it is not clear what the final answer is to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home