4 ms·

> That you're a bunch of subhumans generally unqualified for anything but menial labor That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. Sure, may

> That you're a bunch of subhumans generally unqualified for anything but menial labor That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. Sure, maybe scientific evidence can fuel discrimination, but at least it gives us something over which we can have an intelligent conversation. It bounds a discussion that nowadays encounters no resistance or counterarguments in certain groups. And there will always be a group of people genetically smarter, more athletic, good looking than yours. So it doesn't take much thinking to reach the conclusion that we are all in this together.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. That distinction doesn't change anything. Even if you can keep that sort of language out of even the preprints, you'll have politicians citing the studies and making those statements themselves. It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them.
- rafaelero 4y ago
  > It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them. Scientists collect data to discover the truth, not to "do good", whatever that may be.
  - bccdee 4y ago
    No, I'm sorry, you haven't thought that through. Scientists don't research cancer simply because they're curious about "the truth about cancer"; they do it to cure cancer patients, because they think that's good. And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments, ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good."
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      Scientists may do research for any reason. In your own example, plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. >And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? (I'm doing it because I'm quoting it as word, rather than using the word itself.) >ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good." The issue would be ths experiment, not the truth that comes out of it. The truth is always good in my view.
      - bccdee 4y ago
        > plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. Presumably because they think being paid is good. Pure truth-seeking is fairly marginal. > Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? "Truth" and "good" weren't really the best words to use in either of the contexts I used them above ("knowledge" and "right" would have been more correct), but I wanted to specifically use those words because they were the ones you had originally framed the discussion with, so I put them in quotation marks to draw attention to the fact that I was reusing your words. It was kind of cumbersome, looking back on it. > The truth is always good in my view. Suppose a physicist in Nazi Germany runs away rather than help the German nuclear program to invent the atom bomb because he knows Nazi leadership would do terrible things with it. This is an example of a scientist choosing not to pursue knowledge because that knowledge would, in that context, be harmful. I don't think any truths are inherently harmful, but some are contextually harmful when known by certain people (e.g. Nazis), and I think it's ethically justifiable for even a scientist to prevent those people from learning those truths.
    - junofan 4y ago
      Everyone’s just trying to get that Nature paper. If torturing mice will do it you will torture mice. This kinda research is so hard that really you just care about getting your thing out there; thinking about abstract stuff like doing good is a luxury you can’t afford.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Regardless of what motivates scientists, they need the consent of people they are collecting DNA/etc from. That consent won't be given without some persuasive justification and that comes in the form of arguments about the good that will come from the research. If the research actually brings misery, you're going to have long term trust problems with the people you're trying to study.
onos 4y ago
My interpretation of the point here: the people running this data set work for a scientific org but they don’t consider science to be their sole or top priority. Rather modern progressive mores sometimes take precedence. I suppose it’s ok to consider the trade offs between these concerns. But at times this comes off as pure censorship in support of dogma, and that fails to convince anyone except those who already want to be convinced. Ie it’s not improving our discourse it’s just making science worse.
DoctorOW 4y ago
Would you invite the allegedly subhuman human races to this intelligent discussion? Would you really want to start a dialogue with whether or not you deserve equal treatment? If you'd like to talk to someone who discriminates against your people, you're welcome to do so now without distracting the broader scientific community from better pursuits.
melagonster 4y ago
last time this offer a reason people to do their racism behaviour, biologist had learned this and don't want to do it again soon.
hanselot 4y ago
For physical excellence, we have a literal competition around the world comparing our most physically fit specimens against each other to determine how they rank against each other. I could draw some interesting conclusions based on simply analyzing that data alone. For intellectual excellence we could look towards chess tournaments and Olympiads as some of the forms of data available for analysis, drawing similar conclusions as we do from the physical excellence observations. One could say that those are both secondary sources of information, where direct genetic sequencing could be seen as a primary source of information. It would of course be wonderful to be able to say with certainty, our most advanced intellectuals have concluded that our findings based on secondary sources correlate with our findings from primary sources, and additionally have made their findings public to allow for scrutiny - but of course, who would want to do that, when its much easier to handwave away any attempt to draw conclusions as racist or biased. Somewhere out there is a person with the genes to unlock biological immortality, but sure, lets block access for researchers because their public (scrutinizable) results are biased, or based on biased data. Btw, there is no unbiased data in the world, should we cancel all science?

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> That seems more like a moral conclusion than a scientific one. That distinction doesn't change anything. Even if you can keep that sort of language out of even the preprints, you'll have politicians citing the studies and making those statements themselves. It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them.

rafaelero 4y ago
> It boils down to this: if you tell people you're collecting data to help them, then you can't allow that data to harm them. Scientists collect data to discover the truth, not to "do good", whatever that may be.
- bccdee 4y ago
  No, I'm sorry, you haven't thought that through. Scientists don't research cancer simply because they're curious about "the truth about cancer"; they do it to cure cancer patients, because they think that's good. And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments, ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good."
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    Scientists may do research for any reason. In your own example, plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. >And despite how much "truth" they could discover by performing unethical experiments Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? (I'm doing it because I'm quoting it as word, rather than using the word itself.) >ethics boards and the Hippocratic oath subordinate that goal to the broader ideas of medical ethics and what is "good." The issue would be ths experiment, not the truth that comes out of it. The truth is always good in my view.
    - bccdee 4y ago
      > plenty are doing cancer research simply to get paid. Presumably because they think being paid is good. Pure truth-seeking is fairly marginal. > Why have you put the word "truth" in quotation marks here? "Truth" and "good" weren't really the best words to use in either of the contexts I used them above ("knowledge" and "right" would have been more correct), but I wanted to specifically use those words because they were the ones you had originally framed the discussion with, so I put them in quotation marks to draw attention to the fact that I was reusing your words. It was kind of cumbersome, looking back on it. > The truth is always good in my view. Suppose a physicist in Nazi Germany runs away rather than help the German nuclear program to invent the atom bomb because he knows Nazi leadership would do terrible things with it. This is an example of a scientist choosing not to pursue knowledge because that knowledge would, in that context, be harmful. I don't think any truths are inherently harmful, but some are contextually harmful when known by certain people (e.g. Nazis), and I think it's ethically justifiable for even a scientist to prevent those people from learning those truths.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Everyone’s just trying to get that Nature paper. If torturing mice will do it you will torture mice. This kinda research is so hard that really you just care about getting your thing out there; thinking about abstract stuff like doing good is a luxury you can’t afford.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Regardless of what motivates scientists, they need the consent of people they are collecting DNA/etc from. That consent won't be given without some persuasive justification and that comes in the form of arguments about the good that will come from the research. If the research actually brings misery, you're going to have long term trust problems with the people you're trying to study.

onos 4y ago

My interpretation of the point here: the people running this data set work for a scientific org but they don’t consider science to be their sole or top priority. Rather modern progressive mores sometimes take precedence. I suppose it’s ok to consider the trade offs between these concerns. But at times this comes off as pure censorship in support of dogma, and that fails to convince anyone except those who already want to be convinced. Ie it’s not improving our discourse it’s just making science worse.

DoctorOW 4y ago

Would you invite the allegedly subhuman human races to this intelligent discussion? Would you really want to start a dialogue with whether or not you deserve equal treatment? If you'd like to talk to someone who discriminates against your people, you're welcome to do so now without distracting the broader scientific community from better pursuits.

melagonster 4y ago

last time this offer a reason people to do their racism behaviour, biologist had learned this and don't want to do it again soon.

hanselot 4y ago

For physical excellence, we have a literal competition around the world comparing our most physically fit specimens against each other to determine how they rank against each other. I could draw some interesting conclusions based on simply analyzing that data alone. For intellectual excellence we could look towards chess tournaments and Olympiads as some of the forms of data available for analysis, drawing similar conclusions as we do from the physical excellence observations. One could say that those are both secondary sources of information, where direct genetic sequencing could be seen as a primary source of information. It would of course be wonderful to be able to say with certainty, our most advanced intellectuals have concluded that our findings based on secondary sources correlate with our findings from primary sources, and additionally have made their findings public to allow for scrutiny - but of course, who would want to do that, when its much easier to handwave away any attempt to draw conclusions as racist or biased. Somewhere out there is a person with the genes to unlock biological immortality, but sure, lets block access for researchers because their public (scrutinizable) results are biased, or based on biased data. Btw, there is no unbiased data in the world, should we cancel all science?