Gregor, Gross, and their associates appear to be disturbed because the AAA Task Force and its Final Report are not perfect, but neither is their referendum as several individuals have demonstrated in their comments here. Instead of rescinding the elected Executive Board’s approval of the FR, as if they have no right to express their collective opinion which is all they did, there are at least three alternatives.

1. One alternative is most parsimonious and expedient. The AAA administration and/or membership could rescind the Final Report, the Code of Ethics, the Committee on Ethics, Tierney’s book, Borofsky’s book, and Douglas Hume’s web site. That would clear the way for the AAA to try to promote science without conscience under the pretense that it could ever be apolitical, asocial, and amoral.

2. Another alternative would be for the current EB to appoint a new TF to sift through the FR and decide which parts can be salvaged as conclusive, which should be rejected as problematic, and then to issue a second Final Report. The members of the second TF must be more carefully chosen this time. None should have taken any stand on this scandal previously. Also the members of the second TF must be honest, objective, serious, critical, and respected scholars, not that any of the members of the first TF were not so.

Fortunately most of the work for a second TF has already been accomplished. In addition to the FR, there is the book edited by Robert Borofsky and the web site of Douglas Hume both of which provide a wealth of information on all sides and aspects of the controversy. Finally, there are Chagnon’s publications and faculty web page as well.

If the AAA does implement a second TF, then at least it will have tried to correct some previous problems. I favor that as the next step in the further development of professional ethics in the AAA. Short of that, the future progress of the Code of Ethics, the Committee on Ethics, and the AAA may well be compromised.

3. There is a third alternative in addition to, or instead of, the second one. Anyone who is seriously concerned with this controversy can carefully read the book edited by Borofsky with an open mind, draw their own conclusions, and then proceed to act on their own conscience in their teaching, research, and publications.

For further material see:

http://www.publicanthropology.org