Subject: Re: A draft "lite" COI disclosure form To: "Peter B Gilkey" Add to address book... From: Suzanne Clark Add to address book... Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:33:59 -0800 full header | printable view | literal | original message Peter, I definitely prefer separating COI and COC. I prefer your approach. But I remain desirous of separating what is a legal question (what could leave us open to lawsuit etc no matter what our discipline) and what is related to a professional judgment and practice. How does Stanford get away with a four question form, plus "Explain"? Why should we not do this? Yes, of course, post my comment. Suzanne On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Peter B Gilkey wrote: > Dear Suzanne. > > May I post your comment on the web? Right now my question is. Do you > prefer this or the original proposal (attached). > > Don't forget. Politics is the art of the possible. So which do you > prefer. Mine or the attachment. > > PBG > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:14:46 -0800, Suzanne Clark > wrote: >> Peter, >> >> It still seems too complicated and too general to me, because what >> each question means seems to depend not on our professional >> understanding but on some legal standard unknown to me. I believe >> that one's "professional judgment" ought to be important in these >> determinations. As I have argued before, we have worked hard in our >> various disciplines to acquire a "professional judgment," and the >> reference to standards of judgment in any document ought not to seem >> pointed toward some central and general standard, but toward the >> various departments and other disciplinary groupings to which we >> belong at the university. The math dept. ought to be able to >> administer its own interpretations according to widely understood >> practices in math. Etc. >> >> Suzanne >> >> >> >> On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Peter B Gilkey wrote: >> >>> >> > > > -- > Peter Gilkey > Mathematics Department > University of Oregon > Eugene OR 97403 > http://uoregon.edu/~gilkey