3 ms·

I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way, and neither do I. There are lots of things that we could do to speed up scientific progress, but they're not all necess

I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way, and neither do I. There are lots of things that we could do to speed up scientific progress, but they're not all necessarily ethical. Making private individuals' medical records effectively public is quite possibly one of those things.

j-pb 9y ago
I'm pretty sure there are enough people that voluntarily give up their medical privacy AND want to go to space. If you don't want to disclose your medical record, fine. But don't expect others to funnel billions into you just to make your dream of going to space come true.
- nkozyra 9y ago
  Maybe they can do so voluntarily. If you exclude people from the program because they're not bending to the will of "my tax dollars" arguments you'll assuredly lose out on talented people in a small specialization pool.
  - phyller 9y ago
    My understanding is that there are literally hundreds of qualified, passionate applicants for each spot. I've met a few. If we are spending billions of dollars to strap that particular person to a rocket, I think humanity should be able to benefit as much as possible. I don't think its unreasonable to have as a requirement for that service that certain health records might not remain private. Just like it would not be unreasonable to require certain high level public servants to divulge their tax records, as long as it was understood as a requirement beforehand.
    - grayhatter 9y ago
      The problem is not, if we have enough applicants. It's did THESE people agree to it. If not, it's wrong to disclose this data publicly without their consent. This is an example of better to ask permission, not forgiveness. Combined with the notion that I'm sure the paper will be anonmised and re-released. I'd even bet this is a non-issue. (Assuming the assertions previously made in this thread of course).
- fipar 9y ago
  I fully agree with your first sentence but I don't think the amount of people who want to go to space is a good measurement here, since most would not qualify for the job anyway. So with all due respect, to me that means your second sentence may well be replaced by "If you want to make the disclosure of medical records a requisite to be an astronaut, don't expect too many qualified applicants to show up for the job".
dmitriid 9y ago
> I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way The know that they are test subjects. Read "An Astronaut's Guide to Living on Earth", and they know it's a part of their job to be test subjects.
- watwut 9y ago
  Test subject does not imply having public your medical data.
  - dmitriid 9y ago
    That data is extremely valuable way outside NASA, it's routinely shared with other countries that fly to space (yes, with Russia, too, and Russia sends their data to the States). As long as it's space-related, the astronaut's medical history is really anything but private. What NASA could be trying to do is limit press access to individual astronauts because they are still entitled to their private lives. In this case, yes, they will be concerned about personal details leaking.
    - giarc 9y ago
      They can share the data across organizations without sharing it with everyone in a publication.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Maybe not all of it, but the default should probably be switched. There's no need to keep eyeball data private.

j-pb 9y ago

I'm pretty sure there are enough people that voluntarily give up their medical privacy AND want to go to space. If you don't want to disclose your medical record, fine. But don't expect others to funnel billions into you just to make your dream of going to space come true.

nkozyra 9y ago
Maybe they can do so voluntarily. If you exclude people from the program because they're not bending to the will of "my tax dollars" arguments you'll assuredly lose out on talented people in a small specialization pool.
- phyller 9y ago
  My understanding is that there are literally hundreds of qualified, passionate applicants for each spot. I've met a few. If we are spending billions of dollars to strap that particular person to a rocket, I think humanity should be able to benefit as much as possible. I don't think its unreasonable to have as a requirement for that service that certain health records might not remain private. Just like it would not be unreasonable to require certain high level public servants to divulge their tax records, as long as it was understood as a requirement beforehand.
  - grayhatter 9y ago
    The problem is not, if we have enough applicants. It's did THESE people agree to it. If not, it's wrong to disclose this data publicly without their consent. This is an example of better to ask permission, not forgiveness. Combined with the notion that I'm sure the paper will be anonmised and re-released. I'd even bet this is a non-issue. (Assuming the assertions previously made in this thread of course).
fipar 9y ago
I fully agree with your first sentence but I don't think the amount of people who want to go to space is a good measurement here, since most would not qualify for the job anyway. So with all due respect, to me that means your second sentence may well be replaced by "If you want to make the disclosure of medical records a requisite to be an astronaut, don't expect too many qualified applicants to show up for the job".

dmitriid 9y ago

> I'm sure they wouldn't see it that way The know that they are test subjects. Read "An Astronaut's Guide to Living on Earth", and they know it's a part of their job to be test subjects.

watwut 9y ago
Test subject does not imply having public your medical data.
- dmitriid 9y ago
  That data is extremely valuable way outside NASA, it's routinely shared with other countries that fly to space (yes, with Russia, too, and Russia sends their data to the States). As long as it's space-related, the astronaut's medical history is really anything but private. What NASA could be trying to do is limit press access to individual astronauts because they are still entitled to their private lives. In this case, yes, they will be concerned about personal details leaking.
  - giarc 9y ago
    They can share the data across organizations without sharing it with everyone in a publication.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Maybe not all of it, but the default should probably be switched. There's no need to keep eyeball data private.