4 ms·

“We do animal research because we have to. There is no other way around it. If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early ex

by Veserv 3y ago

“We do animal research because we have to. There is no other way around it. If tomorrow laws were changed and the FDA said okay you can do some of this early experimentation in willing human participants that would be a very interesting option I think there would be a lot of people who would step up.” There I added some context. He said they do animal testing because they have no other choice as the FDA has said such testing is illegal on humans. If, however, the laws were changed and it were no longer illegal then they would be excited to do it on willing humans. The law changing does not affect the morality of the underlying act. The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. Saying you would do it, without any concern for the underlying morality, just because they unban it is textbook unethical. I mean seriously, if somebody said: “If tomorrow laws were changed and the government said okay you can murder people who deserve it that would be a very interesting option.” would you also think this person is a fine morally upstanding person because they said (1) if it were legal, (2) if the government approves, (3) people who deserve it. No, because that would be a comically stupid argument as it is obvious to any observer that their moral compass is being guided purely by what it legal and not by what is ethical and they would totally murder people if it was allowed.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. This regulation draws a line in a very wide territory, and you have a lot more faith that it hits just the right spot than I do. > their moral compass is being guided purely by what it legal Are you sure you're not letting your moral compass be guided by what is legal? Like, if you came at this from purely moral grounds, with no knowledge of the law or past cases, would you make the same decisions as the FDA? No deviations? But more to the point, your hypothetical bad person is guided "purely" by the law, but you haven't given evidence that this actual neurosurgeon is guided "purely" by the law. He said he wants to do "some" experiments that aren't allowed. That doesn't mean he wants to go hog-wild.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
you are still entirely making up an assumption for what the human testing is and then deciding it is grossly unethical. >The law changing does not affect the morality of the underlying act. The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. You say it isn't about the law or FDA but ethics. OK, then the ethics depend on the specific act you are performing and it's risk, not the government rules. You cant have it both ways. You can't claim that anything that differs from current law makes it inherently unethical
- foldr 3y ago
  > You can't claim that anything that differs from current law makes it inherently unethical The person you're responding to didn't claim this, and explained in detail why early-stage testing on humans is unethical without reference to current law.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical, not any attribute or characteristic of the act itself. This is circular. It does nothing to explain what is ethical or not. Have someone who's worked in preclinical testing and clinical trials, my impression is also that they don't have firm understanding of what the current status even is. It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis.
    - foldr 3y ago
      >They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 >It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis. Of course it's not a hard line, but this particular case falls way over on the 'not allowed' side. It's not any kind of borderline case.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        >>They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical >No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 They are making arbitrary assumptions for what is a procedure is, when it is in fact open ended, calling it "dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure" They are assuming that the same procedure done in monkeys would be done in humans, which is not supported by the quote, or how the real world works. You can different experiments in humans than monkeys to achieve the same goal, they need not be identical, or even similar.

by Veserv 3y ago

Dylan16807 3y ago

> The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. This regulation draws a line in a very wide territory, and you have a lot more faith that it hits just the right spot than I do. > their moral compass is being guided purely by what it legal Are you sure you're not letting your moral compass be guided by what is legal? Like, if you came at this from purely moral grounds, with no knowledge of the law or past cases, would you make the same decisions as the FDA? No deviations? But more to the point, your hypothetical bad person is guided "purely" by the law, but you haven't given evidence that this actual neurosurgeon is guided "purely" by the law. He said he wants to do "some" experiments that aren't allowed. That doesn't mean he wants to go hog-wild.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

you are still entirely making up an assumption for what the human testing is and then deciding it is grossly unethical. >The law changing does not affect the morality of the underlying act. The underlying act is immoral, that is why it is currently banned. You say it isn't about the law or FDA but ethics. OK, then the ethics depend on the specific act you are performing and it's risk, not the government rules. You cant have it both ways. You can't claim that anything that differs from current law makes it inherently unethical

foldr 3y ago
> You can't claim that anything that differs from current law makes it inherently unethical The person you're responding to didn't claim this, and explained in detail why early-stage testing on humans is unethical without reference to current law.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical, not any attribute or characteristic of the act itself. This is circular. It does nothing to explain what is ethical or not. Have someone who's worked in preclinical testing and clinical trials, my impression is also that they don't have firm understanding of what the current status even is. It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis.
  - foldr 3y ago
    >They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 >It isn't a hard line, but negotiated with the FDA on a Case by case basis. Of course it's not a hard line, but this particular case falls way over on the 'not allowed' side. It's not any kind of borderline case.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >>They are using the current state of the law as their definition for what is unethical >No, they're not. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35837498 They are making arbitrary assumptions for what is a procedure is, when it is in fact open ended, calling it "dangerous, highly experimental, early stage medical procedure" They are assuming that the same procedure done in monkeys would be done in humans, which is not supported by the quote, or how the real world works. You can different experiments in humans than monkeys to achieve the same goal, they need not be identical, or even similar.