4 ms·

There are things worse than people experimenting on themselves. A world where there are such stringent controls that people are caught and/or punished for doing

There are things worse than people experimenting on themselves. A world where there are such stringent controls that people are caught and/or punished for doing it, or where scientists are do not continue to study and publish for fear of what a few people will do is quite obviously worse. I am glad that there is at least an attempt here to engage and warn people. (If I were interested in doing this, I would definitely heed the warning myself!) Having said that, we ultimately have to remember and respect the right to individual self-determination, as well as the incredible value of openness in scientific research. While I'm not willing to do this to myself, what if these people are onto something, and their experimentation leads to something that enriches our world? (I'm not saying that it's likely, but it is possible.) It's not anyone's place to do much more than warn them, as has been done, and then to let them be.

derrida 10y ago
Essentially agreeing with what you're saying, but it's important to note that there are ethics boards and regulations on medical research to prevent situations such as the data obtained by scientists during the holocaust. A key word is informed consent. Research by its nature is conservative and small steps. There's a whole world of bioethics out there & it's a common undergraduate major, to continue this discussion :)
thaw13579 10y ago
There are concerns w.r.t. the scientific value of this kind of DIY experimentation though. First, there are the sample size and control problems, but more critically, the experiment is meant to change the brain of the experimenter. That's quite a bias! However, one feature of these kind of experiments is that they can push the limits past what would normally be allowed by an institutional review board...
- jjeaff 10y ago
  I'm grateful there are people out there willing to push past what is "allowed" by review boards and regulatory agencies. Some of the data provided may be dubious, but if it weren't for unsafe, seat of the pants DIYers out there willing to take risks, I think we would be in a much less advanced world.
  - thaw13579 10y ago
    There are historical examples that justify the review boards though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... Personally, I'd chose to trade those events for whatever scientific advancements were gained. But I think you're probably referring to things besides human subjects research, which is a different story.
    - BurningFrog 10y ago
      Well, that shows the review boards have benefits. You can't determine if they're justified until you've also looked at their costs.
    - benchaney 10y ago
      All of the relevant examples from that link are about experiments performed on people other than the experimenter. That is a pretty big difference from what is being discussed.
placebo 10y ago
While I'm in agreement with everything you've said, I'd like to try and play devil's advocate: You could expand this to say that not wearing a seat-belt should be made legal or that all drugs should be made legal or many other things where informed consent should be made legal. The problem is that not only many people are less responsible or intelligent than you might be, their irresponsibility can lead to harming other people. Suppose the effects of a person experimenting on themselves might cause some temporary loss of focus or control as a direct result and this would happen while they were driving or operating heavy machinery etc. There is a certain balance between personal freedom and laws that limit it, and sometimes this balance is not in favor of a minority that don't need the law, but it has to apply to all. Again, I don't agree with the above argument - just think one should be ready for it when it is given.
- thaw13579 10y ago
  A related possibility is tDCS being applied to children, in hopes to improving their performance in school. Doesn't seem too far-fetched given that articles like this are circulating: http://kuow.org/post/electricity-could-boost-your-kids-brainpower http://kuow.org/post/electricity-could-boost-your-kids-brain...
- woah 10y ago
  Not wearing a seatbelt SHOULD be legal, as well as all drugs. What should not be legal is allowing your children to not wear seat belts, or allowing them to do drugs. Also, doing drubs while driving obviously endangers others.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Not wearing a seatbelt is legal in many places, or at least not enforced. And enforcing brain zapping would be even harder, because people do it in the privacy of their own homes. But the argument isn't about legality. It's whether scientists should work with these people. They are going to brain zap anyway. The scientists have nothing to lose by collecting their data. They could also give helpful warnings and information to limit the harm. But above all don't call them idiots for trying this. There are desperate people with serious conditions that are willing to take a small risk for anything that might help their condition. The medical system is very slow, conservative, and risk averse, in adopting new treatments. So people that want better treatments are forced to take it into their own hands. If doctors offered this treatment today, this wouldn't be an issue.
DanBC 10y ago
Some of them are experimenting on their children.
- bnolsen 10y ago
  while this seems bad, remember the "medical community" gave a go ahead on sticking fluoride in the water supply which actually harms children's brain development. Then there's the whole fats fiasco that went on for decades. I think the electro stimulation is lame just as I think the arrogance of medical "science" can at times also be lame.

derrida 10y ago

Essentially agreeing with what you're saying, but it's important to note that there are ethics boards and regulations on medical research to prevent situations such as the data obtained by scientists during the holocaust. A key word is informed consent. Research by its nature is conservative and small steps. There's a whole world of bioethics out there & it's a common undergraduate major, to continue this discussion :)

thaw13579 10y ago

There are concerns w.r.t. the scientific value of this kind of DIY experimentation though. First, there are the sample size and control problems, but more critically, the experiment is meant to change the brain of the experimenter. That's quite a bias! However, one feature of these kind of experiments is that they can push the limits past what would normally be allowed by an institutional review board...

jjeaff 10y ago
I'm grateful there are people out there willing to push past what is "allowed" by review boards and regulatory agencies. Some of the data provided may be dubious, but if it weren't for unsafe, seat of the pants DIYers out there willing to take risks, I think we would be in a much less advanced world.
- thaw13579 10y ago
  There are historical examples that justify the review boards though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... Personally, I'd chose to trade those events for whatever scientific advancements were gained. But I think you're probably referring to things besides human subjects research, which is a different story.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    Well, that shows the review boards have benefits. You can't determine if they're justified until you've also looked at their costs.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    All of the relevant examples from that link are about experiments performed on people other than the experimenter. That is a pretty big difference from what is being discussed.

placebo 10y ago

While I'm in agreement with everything you've said, I'd like to try and play devil's advocate: You could expand this to say that not wearing a seat-belt should be made legal or that all drugs should be made legal or many other things where informed consent should be made legal. The problem is that not only many people are less responsible or intelligent than you might be, their irresponsibility can lead to harming other people. Suppose the effects of a person experimenting on themselves might cause some temporary loss of focus or control as a direct result and this would happen while they were driving or operating heavy machinery etc. There is a certain balance between personal freedom and laws that limit it, and sometimes this balance is not in favor of a minority that don't need the law, but it has to apply to all. Again, I don't agree with the above argument - just think one should be ready for it when it is given.

thaw13579 10y ago
A related possibility is tDCS being applied to children, in hopes to improving their performance in school. Doesn't seem too far-fetched given that articles like this are circulating: http://kuow.org/post/electricity-could-boost-your-kids-brainpower http://kuow.org/post/electricity-could-boost-your-kids-brain...
woah 10y ago
Not wearing a seatbelt SHOULD be legal, as well as all drugs. What should not be legal is allowing your children to not wear seat belts, or allowing them to do drugs. Also, doing drubs while driving obviously endangers others.
Houshalter 10y ago
Not wearing a seatbelt is legal in many places, or at least not enforced. And enforcing brain zapping would be even harder, because people do it in the privacy of their own homes. But the argument isn't about legality. It's whether scientists should work with these people. They are going to brain zap anyway. The scientists have nothing to lose by collecting their data. They could also give helpful warnings and information to limit the harm. But above all don't call them idiots for trying this. There are desperate people with serious conditions that are willing to take a small risk for anything that might help their condition. The medical system is very slow, conservative, and risk averse, in adopting new treatments. So people that want better treatments are forced to take it into their own hands. If doctors offered this treatment today, this wouldn't be an issue.

DanBC 10y ago

Some of them are experimenting on their children.

bnolsen 10y ago
while this seems bad, remember the "medical community" gave a go ahead on sticking fluoride in the water supply which actually harms children's brain development. Then there's the whole fats fiasco that went on for decades. I think the electro stimulation is lame just as I think the arrogance of medical "science" can at times also be lame.