Code of Ethics

[Alice Maceo]

The Phil Sanfilipo, President of the IAI, has posted a response to the ethics "divine gudiance" issue on the IAI website:

Please follow the link:

http://theiai.org/current_affairs/open_ ... sident.pdf

A very fair assessment of the situation and the IAI's desire to resolve the issue.

[Alice Maceo]

Sorry, Phil Sanfilippo . . . also known as "The Phil Sanfilipo"

[Pat A. Wertheim]

So sayeth Alice O'Mace.

[Veronica Rauch]

Thanks for the clarification, Alice. I wasn't able to find any white flags on sale anywhere!

[George Reis]

It's great that Phil posted that letter, and thanks Alice for providing the link.

Perhaps more people would participate in the business meetings if we had more of an idea of what was going to be voted on at those meetings. Some organizations that I belong to actually e-mail agendas with copies of proposals that are going to be voted on to members in advance. This does two things:

1) It informs the membership of what will be discussed and voted on

2) It enables members to gather information about a topic prior to the meeting

Maybe the IAI already posts this online or something. Does anyone know?

[printlady]

16 Points said:

If the IAI's Code of Ethics is objectionable and you feel that the voting process is exclusionary, you do have the option of joining a society that better reflects your professional standards.

Are you are suggesting that people who don’t agree with the language should just get the heck out?? No certifications to nonbelievers?!
I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but that is how it could be interpreted. That stance would put the IAI in serious peril of civil litigation. I think it makes more sense to make change from inside the organization. The reason for my posting was to make others aware of the issue and to seek input on the subject. I think the IAI should establish some kind of absentee ballot or proxy option. At the very least the meeting agenda should be made available to the members before the conference.

[Darrell Klasey]

I don't want to take this thread too far away from the Code of Ethics, but since the topic of absentee ballots has been brought up, let me briefly give you some perspective from a fairly large IAI division (California State Division). We've had absentee ballots for over 15 years. While it allows more members to participate, we don't get a 100% return (ballots and envelopes are provided; you need to put your own postage on the outer envelope). We don't vote on resolutions, as the IAI does. Our voting is for the election of officers and constitution/by-laws changes. I miss the old days only in the sense that we've lost a bit of the personal touch with the election of officers. If you wanted somebody's vote, you had to work the room and convince him/her that you were worth voting for. You had to shake hands, kiss babies, buy drinks.

My point in all this (I get there eventually) is that if you vote on resolutions by mail, you miss a (possibly) spirited discussion where both sides of an issue are presented and debated. You can't debate using an absentee ballot. But such a ballot does allow more people to participate. The IAI Board in the coming years will have to figure out what's more important - voting at meetings (much be present to vote) or voting by mail (more people get a say in Association affairs). Or a compromise: debate an issue to determine specific ballot language at one membership meeting, then wait a year until the next membership meeting to count the mail-in votes on that issue/that language [can't vote between meetings in case you have a tie; then a voice vote of those assembled at the second meeting can be used].

Darrell Klasey

[egdirnoitcirf]

This thread shows how immature the profession is and how correct the simon coles of the world are. Not only do the majority of the people employed in the industry lack natural science degrees, they are confusing science for scientism.

For all of you who are too 'reasoned, logical and scientific' to sign a contract with a private organization that mentions the Divine, in order to be consistent (a hallmark of scientific thinking) go home after work this week and:

• kiss your significant others goodnight and tell them that you believe in Spontaneous Generation (aka the big bang).
• tell them you don't believe in DNA analysis because heredity was discovered by Gregor Mendel who happened to be a monk.
• despite having told someone yesterday that you loved them that 'love' does not really exist because 'science' can't measure it and moreover 'love' is just a euphamism for an endocrine initiated behavior response that sets the mood for procreation.
• quit your job because there is no such thing as 'justice' and people aren't valuable, it's a social construct and we're all just a bunch of dirt that came from an accident and exist for no reason.

Isn't this supposed to be a field in which people are able to actually use their minds instead of acting like a bunch of jellyfish who don't know that something exists until they bump into it and sting it to death?

[printlady]

Egdirnoitcirf,
You sound angry and defensive and I don't understand why. Your posting is so all over the board, it’s difficult to tell who you are specifically trying to address with your odd bullets. Here are a few that may enlighten more than confuse:

• No one is claiming there is no God or purpose to religion
• Many scientists believe in a Supreme Being
• Science and personal belief, while not mutually exclusive, should be kept separate

If you are confused about that last point you may want to read a couple of history books. History is replete with struggles and repression committed in the name of religion; the Inquisitions, the Crusades, etc. Science was the antithesis of Christian religious beliefs and was associated with heathenism. I would like to think we have progressed a little over the last several centuries.

[16_Points]

Are you are suggesting that people who don’t agree with the language should just get the heck out?? No certifications to nonbelievers?!
I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but that is how it could be interpreted. That stance would put the IAI in serious peril of civil litigation. I think it makes more sense to make change from inside the organization. The reason for my posting was to make others aware of the issue and to seek input on the subject. I think the IAI should establish some kind of absentee ballot or proxy option. At the very least the meeting agenda should be made available to the members before the conference.

I take extreme positions to highlight the point I'm trying to make. I also like to propose alternative solutions to a given problem (i.e. there is more than one way to skin a cat). Based on the comments I've read people find the "divine guidance" language highly objectionable. One solution is to petition the Executive Board to address the issue. Another solution is to . . . leave. Yes, it's a valid option which may be suitable for some practitioners. So why not put it on the table?

As for certification, I support licensure and certification. Unfortunately, in some cases, the IAI is the only body offering certification. But this is not true everywhere. Furthermore, if everyone bows at the alter of the IAI (pun intended), how will we ever develop additional certification programs? Or is the consensus that the IAI should have a monopoly on certification?

[printlady]

16_Points,

I can live with that… I admit my response was a little tongue in cheek as well.

I like your idea of certification programs outside the IAI. I know the FBI has their own certification program and I have been mulling over the idea of state certifications. I don’t know if the concept has ever been proposed before, but I think it makes sense to have regional programs that follow national or international guidelines.

[Jan LeMay]

I know that the Canadian Identification Society offers certification in footwear examination. I'm not aware of any others in latent prints other than in-house like the FBI.

[BobS]

Every organization has their Faith Heads. Seven percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a God. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, and now the Director of the National Institute of Health is a Faith Head. The Louisiana State Legislature passed a bill authorizing a Day of Prayer (June 27th) to stop the oil well leak (you can see that worked out pretty good). Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Kerry tried to get Prayer as a covered provision in the recent health care bill. The stories go on, and on, and on.

The Fundi’s are always there trying to pump their beliefs in to every nook and cranny of society. I suspect this is what happened at the last IAI business meeting vote. These things usually get sorted out in the end. I certainly don’t think ‘Seeking Divine Guidance’ is appropriate language in a code of ethics for a scientific organization. We will just have to make sure that this gets removed.

If you want to drop to your knees, raise a book in the air, and give praise to a Zombie, drink wine and eat crackers pretending it’s blood and flesh, wear magic underwear, or throw chicken bones at a fire and dance around, more power to ya. That sort of thing does not mix with science.

[16_Points]

16_Points,

I can live with that… I admit my response was a little tongue in cheek as well.

I like your idea of certification programs outside the IAI. I know the FBI has their own certification program and I have been mulling over the idea of state certifications. I don’t know if the concept has ever been proposed before, but I think it makes sense to have regional programs that follow national or international guidelines.

Understood. I believe there are some larger agencies (state labs in the US?) that also have their own certification programs. The trick is to make sure the test is validated (i.e. measures the correct performance skills). Then you need to develop an infrastructure to distribute and monitor the program. This can be another professional organization, a government body, or even a private company. As you stated, the key is to have a standardized set of knowledge and performance criteria. As I understand it, SWGFAST is the only body that attempts to set standards/guidelines and only in the US.

Nonetheless, this shouldn't prevent a local or regional group from creating a certification program so long as it has clearly defined knowledge and skill objectives and can demonstrate that the test adequately measures those criteria.

Oh yes, it will also take money. But I suspect a capable group of professionals with a solid plan can obtain grant funds to get started.

[16_Points]

If you want to drop to your knees, raise a book in the air, and give praise to a Zombie, drink wine and eat crackers pretending it’s blood and flesh, wear magic underwear, or throw chicken bones at a fire and dance around, more power to ya. That sort of thing does not mix with science.

Bob, clearly you have never worn magic underwear. Give me your postal address, and I will send you a pair for Christmas, Hanukkah, or secular gift giving holiday of your choice. I think you may find them quite delightful.