14 ms·

This is the case with literally all kinds of professional ethicists. Thanks to them, we do not routinely do scientific challenge trials and plenty of other valu

by xyzzyz 4y ago

This is the case with literally all kinds of professional ethicists. Thanks to them, we do not routinely do scientific challenge trials and plenty of other valuable experiments, and in many cases are reduced to collecting significantly worse data and doing it very slowly and expensively.

Eisenstein 4y ago
Much better off when were literally traumatizing babies to see how they would react to adverse stimulus. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  Ah yes, because there is no reasonable middle ground between forbidding experiments where a subject might get a mote in their eye, and literally sacrificing babies to Moloch. Please. You can make better argument than that.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    I was responding to 'scientific ethics enforcers are ruining science'. Sorry for the lack of nuance but why should I make the effort when you didn't?
  - dgb23 4y ago
    The irony with statements like these is that they are themselves ad-hoc ethical statements. Whatever "reasonable middle ground" you find, you'd have to make logically sound ethical arguments. This is what these people do for a living, and they are very well trained in those matters. As programmers and engineers we are also trained in logic, use it every day. But that typically pales in comparison of what philosophers do. They deal with much richer logical systems and can precisely apply them to statements and arguments. When applied to ethics, they typically end up with much more radical conclusions that we are dealing with here. In fact the resulting initiatives are already softened compromises and a "reasonable middle ground" before it even clashes with policy making.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  And the Tuskegee Syphilis Study … The goal was to observe the effects of syphilis even though a cure was available https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  I would agree to that sentiment only if we applied the same ethical standards to parents and people in general, not just scientists. Babies and children today are routinely subjected to avoidable adverse stimuli, such as circumcision and corporal punishment. That a typical parent can do this at will for no good reason, but a scientist wanting to do something similar to advance human knowledge must seek approval from an ethics board (which they would not get) is ridiculous.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    A scientist can certainly circumcise and spank their own child. It is doing it to other people's kids that is a no-go. If they want to traumatize their own kid and write it up then they certainly can, but it will make for a terrible study. I'm not sure what your point is.
munchbunny 4y ago
Perhaps so, but I’ve seen from the inside what people looking for their next promotion try to build when there isn’t the specter of the evil mad scientist label (why is it always a panopticon or an easily abused tool?) and it makes me grateful that there are people whose jobs are to think about frameworks for reasoning about what is and isn’t at least approximately ethically neutral.
skissane 4y ago
I wonder - is it possible that medical research in (say) China might overtake the US (even “the West” as a whole) at some point, due to having less stringent ethical standards? Maybe not in the immediate future, but how about in 25 years from now? Or 50 even?
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The ethical standards, interestingly enough, are actually relatively stringent but based on more self-control and collective feel. Now the use of the results of that research...
poulpy123 4y ago
which ones ?

by xyzzyz 4y ago

Eisenstein 4y ago

Much better off when were literally traumatizing babies to see how they would react to adverse stimulus. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment

xyzzyz 4y ago
Ah yes, because there is no reasonable middle ground between forbidding experiments where a subject might get a mote in their eye, and literally sacrificing babies to Moloch. Please. You can make better argument than that.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  I was responding to 'scientific ethics enforcers are ruining science'. Sorry for the lack of nuance but why should I make the effort when you didn't?
- dgb23 4y ago
  The irony with statements like these is that they are themselves ad-hoc ethical statements. Whatever "reasonable middle ground" you find, you'd have to make logically sound ethical arguments. This is what these people do for a living, and they are very well trained in those matters. As programmers and engineers we are also trained in logic, use it every day. But that typically pales in comparison of what philosophers do. They deal with much richer logical systems and can precisely apply them to statements and arguments. When applied to ethics, they typically end up with much more radical conclusions that we are dealing with here. In fact the resulting initiatives are already softened compromises and a "reasonable middle ground" before it even clashes with policy making.
TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
And the Tuskegee Syphilis Study … The goal was to observe the effects of syphilis even though a cure was available https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
welshwelsh 4y ago
I would agree to that sentiment only if we applied the same ethical standards to parents and people in general, not just scientists. Babies and children today are routinely subjected to avoidable adverse stimuli, such as circumcision and corporal punishment. That a typical parent can do this at will for no good reason, but a scientist wanting to do something similar to advance human knowledge must seek approval from an ethics board (which they would not get) is ridiculous.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  A scientist can certainly circumcise and spank their own child. It is doing it to other people's kids that is a no-go. If they want to traumatize their own kid and write it up then they certainly can, but it will make for a terrible study. I'm not sure what your point is.

munchbunny 4y ago

Perhaps so, but I’ve seen from the inside what people looking for their next promotion try to build when there isn’t the specter of the evil mad scientist label (why is it always a panopticon or an easily abused tool?) and it makes me grateful that there are people whose jobs are to think about frameworks for reasoning about what is and isn’t at least approximately ethically neutral.

skissane 4y ago

I wonder - is it possible that medical research in (say) China might overtake the US (even “the West” as a whole) at some point, due to having less stringent ethical standards? Maybe not in the immediate future, but how about in 25 years from now? Or 50 even?

AstralStorm 4y ago
The ethical standards, interestingly enough, are actually relatively stringent but based on more self-control and collective feel. Now the use of the results of that research...

poulpy123 4y ago

which ones ?