5 ms·

Why? Seriously why? We do so many unnatural things to us through technology. The article discusses editing genes to try and prevent viruses.

carbocation 8y ago
The modern biomedical ethical framework comes out of Nuremburg in response to Nazi atrocities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  There’s nothing in there that would obviously prohibit the experiment we’re all discussing here. I can see how someone who deals with university IRBs or professional bioethicists might think there is but if we used risk reward thresholds as high as they do, or held to the precautionary principle that strongly we would still be discussing whether fire was a good idea. IRBs are a one way ratchet with tiny incentives to approve and large ones to deny. They are a cancerous growth on science.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    You’re saying that you can see how an expert would think that there is something in the Nuremberg Code that prohibits the experiment we are talking about here, but you know better than the experts?
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      You are an expert in your field of medicine. You are much better at making predictions from data in it than lay people and you are vastly better at effecting changes in your domain of expertise than laymen. That’s real expertise, like engineers, meteorologists, astronomers, microeconomists, or engineers have. Then there are people who are experts on talking about something but have no expertise in doing. Art historians are quite close to astronomers here in that they can be very good at out of sample tests and prediction but have limited ability to do things because their field doesn’t call upon them to do more than render accurate judgments. Then there are people who master a body of lore, who are called upon to discuss things. Ethicists are in this group, like priests, pastors or imams. Ethicists are experts in talking about ethics. They have no special expertise in acting ethically, compared to other philosophers[1]. Ethicists have expertise in what amounts to a body of administrative law, like rabbis, imams or canon lawyers. And we have strong evidence of actual harm caused by them. If bioethicists can’t get their shit together enough to defend compensated kidney or gamete donation they aren’t even broadly neutral. There are people being paid to argue against saving lives, and against helping to bring into the world new lives that are actively wanted. There are ethicists who argue that poor people can’t really consent because the offer of some good to sufficiently poor person qualifies as duress. The Nuremberg Code is good. The system of IRBs and bioethicists built up around it is not just bad, it’s genuinely awful. [1]The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior Eric Schwitzgebel & Joshua Rust https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHTMB-4 https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHTMB-4
      - carbocation 8y ago
        What I often observe on HN is that SlateStarCodex didn't understand how IRBs work, wrote about it, and therefore many people think that IRBs are bad. So, I am wary of IRB arguments here. Not implying that your information on IRBs comes from that one person, just saying that I don't love arguing about IRBs on HN because of a repeated pattern here. If your point is that "IRBs could be improved in various ways", I'd be happy to agree in many cases. But also, there are some shining examples of enlightened IRBs that make human research at scale quite practical.
        barry-cotter 8y ago
        I feel ok with supporting Scott Alexander’s position when it is both (a) obviously correct, (b) IRBs regulate sociologists and psychologists doing surveys which is farcical, and (c) Carl E. Schneider, professor of medicine and law at the University of Michigan wrote an entire book on how IRBs fail to work. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7193 http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7193 https://kiej.georgetown.edu/carl-e-schneider-the-censors-hand-the-misregulation-of-human-subject-research-mit-press-2015/ https://kiej.georgetown.edu/carl-e-schneider-the-censors-han... IRBs do not have a problem. They are a problem. If we must have IRBs they should be deprofessionalised to the fullest extent possible rather than staffed by people whose job and motivation is to find problems where none exist and add more bureaucracy to prove they are actually doing some work. IRB as jury service seems like it could be acceptable. Twelve people, a three hour course on the Nuremberg code and the scientist presenting their application. And absolutely no bioethicists. If you’re interested in the book put it on an Amazon wish list and email me the link at barrypcotter at iCloud. I’ll buy it because more doctors and scientists should know IRBs are a cancer on society and science.
danenania 8y ago
Because it requires medical experimentation on human beings who can’t consent to it. Is it really so difficult to understand why that’s wrong?
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  If a few dozen or even thousand suffer to prevent the suffering of many millions or even billions in the long run, is that not a trade off one would have to make? It all comes down to the old debate of deontology vs utilitarianism
  - danenania 8y ago
    It’s called an experiment because no one knows whether it will prevent the suffering of anyone at all. If you had to live your entire life with a painful deformity because someone experimented on your genes, do you think you’d find this argument convincing?
  - linkmotif 8y ago
    I hope you’re first in line to be among the those who suffer.
    - ajmurmann 8y ago
      Fortunately that won't be necessary. Both of us are safe. The Chinese are doing the research for us. If they don't succeed they suffered and we are not impacted. If they do succeed, they suffered, get some food jobs and money and we likely get to benefit from most of the results. So we can have our cake and eat it to. Yay \O/
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

carbocation 8y ago

The modern biomedical ethical framework comes out of Nuremburg in response to Nazi atrocities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

barry-cotter 8y ago
There’s nothing in there that would obviously prohibit the experiment we’re all discussing here. I can see how someone who deals with university IRBs or professional bioethicists might think there is but if we used risk reward thresholds as high as they do, or held to the precautionary principle that strongly we would still be discussing whether fire was a good idea. IRBs are a one way ratchet with tiny incentives to approve and large ones to deny. They are a cancerous growth on science.
- carbocation 8y ago
  You’re saying that you can see how an expert would think that there is something in the Nuremberg Code that prohibits the experiment we are talking about here, but you know better than the experts?
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    You are an expert in your field of medicine. You are much better at making predictions from data in it than lay people and you are vastly better at effecting changes in your domain of expertise than laymen. That’s real expertise, like engineers, meteorologists, astronomers, microeconomists, or engineers have. Then there are people who are experts on talking about something but have no expertise in doing. Art historians are quite close to astronomers here in that they can be very good at out of sample tests and prediction but have limited ability to do things because their field doesn’t call upon them to do more than render accurate judgments. Then there are people who master a body of lore, who are called upon to discuss things. Ethicists are in this group, like priests, pastors or imams. Ethicists are experts in talking about ethics. They have no special expertise in acting ethically, compared to other philosophers[1]. Ethicists have expertise in what amounts to a body of administrative law, like rabbis, imams or canon lawyers. And we have strong evidence of actual harm caused by them. If bioethicists can’t get their shit together enough to defend compensated kidney or gamete donation they aren’t even broadly neutral. There are people being paid to argue against saving lives, and against helping to bring into the world new lives that are actively wanted. There are ethicists who argue that poor people can’t really consent because the offer of some good to sufficiently poor person qualifies as duress. The Nuremberg Code is good. The system of IRBs and bioethicists built up around it is not just bad, it’s genuinely awful. [1]The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior Eric Schwitzgebel & Joshua Rust https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHTMB-4 https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHTMB-4
    - carbocation 8y ago
      What I often observe on HN is that SlateStarCodex didn't understand how IRBs work, wrote about it, and therefore many people think that IRBs are bad. So, I am wary of IRB arguments here. Not implying that your information on IRBs comes from that one person, just saying that I don't love arguing about IRBs on HN because of a repeated pattern here. If your point is that "IRBs could be improved in various ways", I'd be happy to agree in many cases. But also, there are some shining examples of enlightened IRBs that make human research at scale quite practical.
      - barry-cotter 8y ago
        I feel ok with supporting Scott Alexander’s position when it is both (a) obviously correct, (b) IRBs regulate sociologists and psychologists doing surveys which is farcical, and (c) Carl E. Schneider, professor of medicine and law at the University of Michigan wrote an entire book on how IRBs fail to work. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7193 http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7193 https://kiej.georgetown.edu/carl-e-schneider-the-censors-hand-the-misregulation-of-human-subject-research-mit-press-2015/ https://kiej.georgetown.edu/carl-e-schneider-the-censors-han... IRBs do not have a problem. They are a problem. If we must have IRBs they should be deprofessionalised to the fullest extent possible rather than staffed by people whose job and motivation is to find problems where none exist and add more bureaucracy to prove they are actually doing some work. IRB as jury service seems like it could be acceptable. Twelve people, a three hour course on the Nuremberg code and the scientist presenting their application. And absolutely no bioethicists. If you’re interested in the book put it on an Amazon wish list and email me the link at barrypcotter at iCloud. I’ll buy it because more doctors and scientists should know IRBs are a cancer on society and science.

danenania 8y ago

Because it requires medical experimentation on human beings who can’t consent to it. Is it really so difficult to understand why that’s wrong?

ajmurmann 8y ago
If a few dozen or even thousand suffer to prevent the suffering of many millions or even billions in the long run, is that not a trade off one would have to make? It all comes down to the old debate of deontology vs utilitarianism
- danenania 8y ago
  It’s called an experiment because no one knows whether it will prevent the suffering of anyone at all. If you had to live your entire life with a painful deformity because someone experimented on your genes, do you think you’d find this argument convincing?
- linkmotif 8y ago
  I hope you’re first in line to be among the those who suffer.
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    Fortunately that won't be necessary. Both of us are safe. The Chinese are doing the research for us. If they don't succeed they suffered and we are not impacted. If they do succeed, they suffered, get some food jobs and money and we likely get to benefit from most of the results. So we can have our cake and eat it to. Yay \O/
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]