4 ms·

One view of this is that the question ought to be whether or not those people are right in assigning blame to anyone. If the scientist is fully aware of the ris

One view of this is that the question ought to be whether or not those people are right in assigning blame to anyone. If the scientist is fully aware of the risk and willing to use himself as a test subject, it's hard to argue that there is any blame to go around.

blensor 6y ago
But what if the scientist feels pressured to provide results and cuts corners to get those results. That may be something intagible but still have an effect on the decisions he/she makes. It would be next to impossible to prove that and in term protect the person, so the only way would be to outright ban such tests.
- raducu 6y ago
  But what if all scientists feel pressured to do the same, in an effort to win relevance? .... what if .... entire nations feel pressured to do the same, not wait for trials, just proclaim victory on a hunch... like Russia?
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > .... what if .... entire nations feel pressured to do the same, not wait for trials, just proclaim victory on a hunch... like Russia? Funny for you to say that right now... https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/fda-willing-to-fast-track-covid-19-vaccine-before-end-of-phase-three-trials/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/fda-willing-to-fast-track-covi...
    - raducu 6y ago
      But it does make perfect sense -- if at some point a certain category was shown to have a very high projected morbidity rate -- say the overweight elderly with diabetes -- you could approve the medicine just for that group if it was deemed better than just letting those people die. Just like you give amphetamine salts to people with ADHD and not to the general population -- because the benefits outweigh the risks for that particular population. But scientists are not in that category. I don't event want to get into the legalities of self-administering a vaccine not yet marketed -- shouldn't you pay an astronomical price for it? Sort of like how spinraza costs 2$ million because there are so few patients and you have to split the development cost among them, if you self-administer a vaccine before mass marketing, perhaps you should pay the development costs out of your own pocket?
      - marcosdumay 6y ago
        I'm not really criticizing the policy, mostly because there is no policy there to criticize. There was a political outcry accusing the US government of bottlenecking treatments, so an agency makes a public statement saying they are willing to take risks. The actual content of the statement has nothing actionable in it, so it can never be an issue. The fact that the agency is reacting to some plain-Earth level nut outcry is an issue. And, yeah, of course, nothing really happened there, at least yet. Nothing did happen on Russia either, again, at least yet. It all just makes for a funny comment with really interesting timing.
alistairSH 6y ago
In a vacuum perhaps. But in real life, the scientist ends up making insurance claims when the self-administered vaccine goes wrong.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  in the US, this would be insurance that the scientist (and/or their emloyer) pays for. if enough scientists perform risky experiments that it meaningfully increases payouts, I'm sure the insurer could figure out a way to account for that in the premiums. in short: who cares?

blensor 6y ago

But what if the scientist feels pressured to provide results and cuts corners to get those results. That may be something intagible but still have an effect on the decisions he/she makes. It would be next to impossible to prove that and in term protect the person, so the only way would be to outright ban such tests.

raducu 6y ago
But what if all scientists feel pressured to do the same, in an effort to win relevance? .... what if .... entire nations feel pressured to do the same, not wait for trials, just proclaim victory on a hunch... like Russia?
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > .... what if .... entire nations feel pressured to do the same, not wait for trials, just proclaim victory on a hunch... like Russia? Funny for you to say that right now... https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/fda-willing-to-fast-track-covid-19-vaccine-before-end-of-phase-three-trials/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/fda-willing-to-fast-track-covi...
  - raducu 6y ago
    But it does make perfect sense -- if at some point a certain category was shown to have a very high projected morbidity rate -- say the overweight elderly with diabetes -- you could approve the medicine just for that group if it was deemed better than just letting those people die. Just like you give amphetamine salts to people with ADHD and not to the general population -- because the benefits outweigh the risks for that particular population. But scientists are not in that category. I don't event want to get into the legalities of self-administering a vaccine not yet marketed -- shouldn't you pay an astronomical price for it? Sort of like how spinraza costs 2$ million because there are so few patients and you have to split the development cost among them, if you self-administer a vaccine before mass marketing, perhaps you should pay the development costs out of your own pocket?
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      I'm not really criticizing the policy, mostly because there is no policy there to criticize. There was a political outcry accusing the US government of bottlenecking treatments, so an agency makes a public statement saying they are willing to take risks. The actual content of the statement has nothing actionable in it, so it can never be an issue. The fact that the agency is reacting to some plain-Earth level nut outcry is an issue. And, yeah, of course, nothing really happened there, at least yet. Nothing did happen on Russia either, again, at least yet. It all just makes for a funny comment with really interesting timing.

alistairSH 6y ago

In a vacuum perhaps. But in real life, the scientist ends up making insurance claims when the self-administered vaccine goes wrong.

leetcrew 6y ago
in the US, this would be insurance that the scientist (and/or their emloyer) pays for. if enough scientists perform risky experiments that it meaningfully increases payouts, I'm sure the insurer could figure out a way to account for that in the premiums. in short: who cares?