7 ms·
(edited) This is such a clickbait. Everybody reading that title imagines that they tested spreading of some contagious disease (and put it in the same category
by zby 3y ago
(edited)
This is such a clickbait. Everybody reading that title imagines that they tested spreading of some contagious disease (and put it in the same category as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36256831 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36256831) - but what was tested was how the bacteria was moved by the air in the subway. They tried a common soil bacteria that they believed was harmless (and which wikipedia says "is thought to be a normal gut commensal in humans").
"""And while the people who conducted these experiments did so under the belief that the bacterial species they used were harmless, it has since been revealed that they can cause health problems."""
This is such a weasel language, everything can cause health problems (is water harmless? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication).
The bacteria used there was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_subtilis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_subtilis "This species is commonly found in the upper layers of the soil and B. subtilis is thought to be a normal gut commensal in humans."
We live surrounded by bacteria, an probably often by Bacillus subtilis - because it is a common bacteria found in soil.
- crazydoggers 3y agoAgree. Article contains misinformation and should be flagged. In fact the bacteria in question is often and readily consumed. Not to mention the fact that we are awash in bacteria all the time. The source stating that the bacteria are considered pathogens, is selling his book. The link to the National Academy of Sciences is also broken. Also most bacteria can be opportunistic pathogens, depending on the situation, even the ones in our gut. So while the ethics can be deemed questionable, the article presents the situation as if harm was certainly done, when in the most likely case not a single person was adversely effected.
- MagicMoonlight 3y agoThe common cold is also readily consumed and almost harmless, doesn’t mean you get to spray it in schools for the banta
- crazydoggers 3y agoI agree. But what does that have to do with an article that presents unjustified assertions? The issue is that if you call something pathogenic, and make the case that people were harmed, then the article should support that which it doesn’t. Hence it’s click bait. Let’s say I want people to take the Covid vaccine. Should I write articles with appeals to emotion, quotes from people writing books, and circumstantial evidence? Or let’s say I want to point out that Covid vaccines carry risks. Should I write articles with appeals to emotion, quotes from people writing books, and circumstantial evidence? Bad articles and bad science are not okay just because we agree with the assessment.
- bluefishinit 3y agoIt's not clickbait. It's completely unacceptable to perform biological experiments on people without their consent. It doesn't matter if you think the bacteria is harmless, it's an extreme violation of human rights to test on a unknowing citizens.
- crazydoggers 3y agoBut this wasn’t a biological experiment on the citizens, which is the issue. It was an experiment to test the spread of material in a subway system. The article is claiming without support that this was pathogenic biological testing on people, which is not the case. Let’s assume instead they used a harmless chemical tracer. Would that still count as a violation? What about releasing flour through ducts? The issue with the article that makes it click bait is they are making a claim of “germ warfare”, insinuating that citizens were exposed to dangerous infectious agents which is simply untrue. If the article approaches the subject honestly, and then question wether such action was ethical, even using a harmless substance, that would be one thing. But as it’s written, the article pushes misinformation, which is a shame, because it’s clearly an important subject.
- COGlory 3y ago>Let’s assume instead they used a harmless chemical tracer. Would that still count as a violation? What about releasing flour through ducts? Would the IRB let me do those things to people without their informed consent? I very much doubt it.
- crazydoggers 3y agoThat’s not the issue at hand. The issue is an article claiming pathogenic material was tested on people. An article talking about the ins and outs of IRB process approval would be much more informative, or going into detail about what is and is not ethical. False or at best misleading statements of pathogenic biological tests on people bring us no nearer to actually talking intelligently about the issues or making better decisions.
- numpad0 3y ago1) is it okay to splash tap water on people as an “experiment”? 2-1) if 1) is not okay, how it becomes okay with bacteria, OR, 2-2) if 1) is okay, what?
- lesuorac 3y ago1) Yes. 2-2) It's ok to infect people with Covid so it's clearly ok to hit em with water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_challenge_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_challenge_study
- phone8675309 3y ago[flagged]
- munificent 3y agoYour sentence would be more effective without the last four words.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jahsome 3y agoYou're either endorsing literal battery/assault or perhaps overlooking some context. Challenge studies involve consenting individuals and the actual events in the article don't. I presume GP's example of splashing water would be on unsuspecting, non-consenting people going about their daily business, as was the case with the Subway in the article.
- lesuorac 3y agoThen the question should've been "is it ok to perform experiments on uninformed participants" or "would it have been ok if they splashed water instead". The doesn't try to explicitly link their question to the article and instead its prose is a hypothetical. Instead, the guy ask if its ok to splash water. I can't think of any reason why splashing water would be the line at which its no longer ok to have an experiment. I certainly can see uninformedness being a reason not to have an experiment but that's a different question and so it would get a different answer.
- activiation 3y agoYeah.. that's not something they should have done.
- calmlynarczyk 3y agoI think the more click-baitey aspect of the article title is that they didn't specify that this occurred 60–80 years ago; it's phrased as if this test recently happened. The US defense agencies today sure aren't perfect, but they certainly aren't this reckless anymore. The fear during the first few decades of the Cold War instigated a lot of poor moral decisions by the US Government that can't just be extrapolated to the organization today.
- dicytea 3y agoI'm not sure why you are leaving out the fact that they also used Serratia marcescens, which is considered pathogenic[1]. As for the other bacteria, what they used was not the "common soil bacteria" Bacillus subtilis, but Bacillus atrophaeus[2] which was known as Bacillus globigii at the time. I think this is the only clear factual mistake I can find in the article. The article also claimed that Bacillus globigii is now considered a pathogen, but I can't find much information about it outside of the referenced book. I'll leave it to someone else to weigh in on this one. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens#Pathogenicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens#Pathogenic... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_atrophaeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_atrophaeus
- throwanem 3y ago> and which wikipedia says "is thought to be a normal gut commensal in humans" So is E. coli.
- wackget 3y agoYou're going to an awful lot of effort to defend a massive governmental organisation which conducted tests on unsuspecting people.