The in
class TA discussion was a refreshing twist from regular lectures with multiple
speakers, student interaction, and more in depth discussion of reforms and
developments. While I found the emphasis on preventing unintended consequences
somewhat overboard, I strongly support increased communication between
researchers and those who would want to use their product.
Unintended
consequences are a regrettable occurrence, but when combating them it is
important to have realistic goals and methods. While preventing accidents and
hazardous circumstances is important, you need to include focus on what happens
when problems occur. Focusing on preventing problems has the difficulty of some
people trying to work around rules to make more money and leaves me skeptical
on what level of accident prevention is enough. At some point the cost to
prevent possible accidents or issues outweighs the statistical occurrence of
said problems, much like attempts to further reduce bug content in food. While
I can support increased regulation and precautionary steps, at this point
preventing businesses from abusing loopholes and shirking responsibility for
deliberate hazards seems more prudent.
On the
other hand, communication between researchers and the public in which they work
and/or work for would be a great way to improve products and promote public
knowledge. Seatbelts were developed long before their widespread use in large
part because they weren’t comfortable and public knowledge of the seatbelts
protective capabilities was sketchy. Increased focus on communication could
help call attention to issues like this faster so that problems that go
unnoticed or ignored by those unaffected can be handled. As an example of
fields already implementing this feedback from test audiences plays a large
role in movie production and more to allow developers an outside look at their
product. Even when they don’t make significant changes they still serve as
excellent sources of data. Communication and information are cornerstones to
the use of intelligent trial and error and I fully support widespread use of
interaction between researchers, developers, and the public.
While I
felt like the discussion could have used more details and facts to go along
with topics, I definitely enjoyed having multiple speakers and hearing
viewpoints from other groups. One point to add for future discussions is that
students would probably feel somewhat on the spot to openly dissent from the
class viewpoint so actually asking for criticisms could promote more discussion
of pros and cons instead of primarily pros.
No comments:
Post a Comment