My Answers to HWcase3, Q1

Q1: Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

 

 

• A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
• A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
• A list of questions (3 or more) about the case.
• A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case. 

Answer: 

My sources are: 

• https://www.history.com/news/what-was-operation-paperclip
  
• https://www.npr.org/2014/02/15/275877755/the-secret-operation-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america
• https://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassified-records/rg-330-defense-secretary
  
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-nazi-scientists-brought-u-s-operation-paperclip/5690870002/

Eight important facts are:

1. "The Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) was established in 1945 as a subcommittee of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330). 
2. "The JIC served as the intelligence arm of the JCS, responsible for advising the JCS on the intelligence problems and policies and furnishing intelligence information to the JCS and the Department of State" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330).
3. "The JIC was composed of the [US] Army's director of intelligence, the [US] chief of naval intelligence, the [US] assistant chief of Air Staff-2, and a [US] representative of the Department of State" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330).
4. "The JIOA was given direct responsibility for operating the foreign scientist program, initially code-named Overcast and subsequently code-named Paperclip" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330). Thus, Operation Paperclip launched in 1945.
5. Operation Paperclip aimed to identify, capture, interrogate, and then recruit around 1,600 Nazi scientists that had committed war crimes (participation in the Holocaust) during World War II.
6. The aforementioned war crimes would be completely forgiven as long as the Nazi scientists agreed to work for the United States.
7. Not only were there crimes forgiven, they were seemingly forgotten. The scientists were praised for their accomplishments, which were likely built on information acquired during World War II via unwilling human experimentation.
8. These Nazi scientists went on to infiltrate branches of the government, NASA, hospitals, and our society as a whole. Ultimately they were able to meld seamlessly into the United States and suffered essentially no consequences for aiding in committing arguably one of the worst atrocities this planet has ever seen.

Eight questions to ask about the case:

1. Was it a strategically wise choice to not only allow Nazis to enter the United States, but to allow them to enter sensitive positions within society such as branches of government, NASA, hospitals, etc.?
2. Was it an ethical choice to "forgive and forget" when it came to the war crimes of Nazis, who had aided in the Holocaust?
3. Was it ethical to make use of the information the Nazis gathered during World War II via unwilling human experimentation?
4. Was it a wise choice to allow Nazis to have children inside of the United States and give them the time and freedom to teach those children about Naziism?
5. Was it wise to give Nazis access to US children, whose minds are still being molded?
6. Could this choice have compromised the security of the United States considering Nazis were able to infiltrate branches of government, were given full lives to have children, and ample time to indoctrinate those children?
7. Considering that Nazi scientists were allowed to live seemingly normal lives here in the United States, is it possible that some of these Nazis who infiltrated the government might have had access to computers, databases, information, etc. and then either stole or edited that information to benefit their own cause?
8. Was this evidence of incompetence within the government or perhaps some level of it?

Three additional questions:

1. What does virtue ethics say about this case?
2. What does utilitarianism say about this case?
3. What does deontology say about this case?