BIOETHICS

The Bioethics Imperative XI

Continued from The Bioethics Imperative X

“Mokita”: The truth we all know and agree not to talk about. Papua New Guinea.

Scenario: The web page of a professor at a university in the United States “advises students seeking a recommendation to be prepared to answer the question: ‘How do you think the human species originated? If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.’” Federal officials investigate the allegation that this professor is discriminating on the basis of religion. Legal counsel for the students argues that despite their understanding of evolution, the students were denied recommendations based on personal religious beliefs. The Department of Justice asks the university to respond to the allegations. The university stands by the professor, opining that his policies do not conflict with university policy because the university does not control or regulate “personal matter(s)” such as a letter of reference for a student. A pre-med student transfers to a Christian school, gets his letter of reference, and then transfers back to complete his course of study.

Sound far-fetched? This true story from Dallas was published by the Associated Press on January 30, 2003. On his web site at http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm, the professor also refuses to write letters of recommendation for students he doesn’t know well and for students who have not earned an “A” in his course.

This issue elicited a flurry of e-mails at the University of Washington (UW) in January and February of 2003. Paraphrasing ethical issues raised by faculty here at UW:

• Should universities or legal systems have control over a professor’s decision to recommend a student or not?
• Is it reasonable to deny a letter to a student for a particular profession because of their personal beliefs—for example, can a strong belief in creationism make a person unsuited or incompetent to become a physician?
• If a professor puts students to a “litmus test” before agreeing to a letter of reference, is the letter worth anything anyway?
• Where do we draw the line between unsound intellect and a belief we think a reasonable person can hold while remaining reliable/responsible in their scientific knowledge?

One professor’s approach to this problem of strong belief systems was to announce to the new class of a few hundred students that he did not care if they believed in evolution or applied it in their lives, but they did have to understand and apply the theory of evolution during his course. His stance is that academic freedom in part is challenging one’s own belief systems. He says that each year several students drop the course over this issue—they cannot or will not learn about evolutionary theory because they do not ascribe to it. Genetically modified organisms have sparked similar furor at UW.

Another professor, quoting the student in question in Texas, agreed with the professor’s refusal to write on behalf of this particular student, arguing that “medical practice depends on fundamental scientific processes, or the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and that, as a physician he probably would be unable to distinguish between marketing hype and sound research when deciding on prescriptions for his patients.”

When is refusing to write a letter of reference ethical? When is it unethical? When is agreeing to write a letter of reference unethical?

Next: Ethics and useful letters of reference

Dina Mandoli
University of Washington, Seattle
mandoli@u.washington.edu

Addendum: April 22, 2003—The Justice Department ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement in his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.
—Associated Press