12 ms·

It'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

It'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 ago
But 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 ago
    That’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.
    - John23832 3y ago
      How does the bacteria spread amongst the subway? HUMANS. They are the substrate. “ They wrote that clouds engulfed people as trains pulled away, but that they "brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." No one was concerned. Army scientists concluded that it took between four and 13 minutes for train passengers to be exposed to the bacteria.” If they put the bacteria in the system with no human interaction I’m sure the study would be much less valuable.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        No, it spreads via the air. Air transmission was the study, how far the bacteria traveled in air measurements. Nothing was about human-to-human transmission. This wasn't about contagion at all. I'm not defending the study in any way but at least let's get our facts right.
        John23832 3y ago
        Air to who? JFC Come on. It’s not spreading through the air to surfaces. I question, did you even read the article?
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    I mean, this study was done in 1966. The IRB was established in 1974. I'm not saying we should celebrate this research, but ... we already learned the lesson about being careful with human experimentation? If there's a more recent study that circumvented the IRB or that the IRB okayed despite obvious problems, there's an interesting discussion to have there. But I'm more in the camp above, that this pre-IRB study wasn't particularly egregious, at least by the scale of atrocities of early 20th century research.
- njovin 3y ago
  The gov't doesn't have a great track record when it comes to treating the citizenry as unwilling participants in their Bond villain-esque nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    You forgot the non-consensual plutonium injection experiments
- MarkMarine 3y ago
  The did experiments on US citizens, they spread a bacteria in the SF fog to see if it would be spread to the citizens in SF. They picked a bacteria they thought was harmless, but showed up brightly on a stain for microscope slides. Turns out some people are actually harmed by this bacteria, but again, bio-warfare testing on an uninformed US civilians. A war crime. They actually killed someone: On October 11, 1950, eleven residents checked into Stanford Hospital in San Francisco with very rare, serious urinary tract infections. Although ten recovered, Edward J. Nevin, who had had recent prostate surgery, died three weeks later from a heart valve infection. The urinary tract outbreak was so unusual that the Stanford doctors wrote it up for a medical journal. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray
  - smnrchrds 3y ago
    I dislike the emphasis on the "US citizen" part. Would it have been any better if they had done it to us Canadian citizens instead? Or to any other nationality? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-carcinogen-in-western-canada-during-the-cold-war-researcher-discovers https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-car...
    - sergiomattei 3y ago
      I believe the point is that it’s being done on US soil, which infringes on the rights of US citizens.
    - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
      Wasn't the test done on US citizens? If the test was done on Canadians, we would be talking about Canadian citizens and not US citizens.
      - OwenFM 3y ago
        Were the people wearing glasses? Did they have curly hair? It's not mentioned because it makes no difference. Calling out that they're US citizens or Canadian citizens implies that these people are somehow first-class people, and everyone else is riff raff − fair game for such experiments.
- the_doctah 3y ago
  > But 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. This is like saying I was just practicing throwing punches at thin air, it just happened to be inside a crowded elevator. Absolutely can't stand "well technically" disingenuous HN comments like this.
orangepurple 3y ago
Check out the Human Plutonium Injection Experiments
crazygringo 3y ago
It is interesting to think about where the line should be drawn though. Raising the humidity level 5% to see if it reduces coughing? Reducing harmful ozone in the air to see if it reduces breathing issues? Bringing a puppy on the subway to see if riders smile more? Presumably these are all OK without getting consent of everyone on the subway. Or are these violations of human rights as well? I mean I suppose it all comes down to whether there are any expected harms? Or no?
- HPsquared 3y ago
  I guess it's more controversial if you put it the other way: "does dropping the humidity level increase coughing" etc
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago
  [dead]
- brigandish 3y ago
  No. Include someone in an experiment and it is unethical not to ask them. That’s the line.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    In my opinion actually big tech that has been pushing these boundaries a lot. A lot of new services are really experiments on society. Tracking, Adtech, A/B testing. Move fast and break things, but don't forget that at the scale these companies operate, one of the things to break is our entire society. Especially social media bubbles have caused a lot of polarization IMO. I feel the social responsibility in these companies is severely lacking. And because they're getting away with everything, the Overton window shifts in that direction.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    So all A/B testing is unethical? Like figuring out if people navigate your desktop site better depending on whether it uses a menu bar or hamburger menu? Why is a product change ethical if it's done not as part of an experiment, but it becomes unethical if it's part of an experiment? If the end user has the exact same experience in both cases?
jimmygrapes 3y ago
Presuming you have thought your argument through and can defend it justly: You better not fucking change my desired PM 2.5 or <insert other environmental factor>. Be careful.

crazydoggers 3y ago

But 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 ago
  That’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.
  - John23832 3y ago
    How does the bacteria spread amongst the subway? HUMANS. They are the substrate. “ They wrote that clouds engulfed people as trains pulled away, but that they "brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." No one was concerned. Army scientists concluded that it took between four and 13 minutes for train passengers to be exposed to the bacteria.” If they put the bacteria in the system with no human interaction I’m sure the study would be much less valuable.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      No, it spreads via the air. Air transmission was the study, how far the bacteria traveled in air measurements. Nothing was about human-to-human transmission. This wasn't about contagion at all. I'm not defending the study in any way but at least let's get our facts right.
      - John23832 3y ago
        Air to who? JFC Come on. It’s not spreading through the air to surfaces. I question, did you even read the article?
- saalweachter 3y ago
  I mean, this study was done in 1966. The IRB was established in 1974. I'm not saying we should celebrate this research, but ... we already learned the lesson about being careful with human experimentation? If there's a more recent study that circumvented the IRB or that the IRB okayed despite obvious problems, there's an interesting discussion to have there. But I'm more in the camp above, that this pre-IRB study wasn't particularly egregious, at least by the scale of atrocities of early 20th century research.
njovin 3y ago
The gov't doesn't have a great track record when it comes to treating the citizenry as unwilling participants in their Bond villain-esque nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
- orangepurple 3y ago
  You forgot the non-consensual plutonium injection experiments
MarkMarine 3y ago
The did experiments on US citizens, they spread a bacteria in the SF fog to see if it would be spread to the citizens in SF. They picked a bacteria they thought was harmless, but showed up brightly on a stain for microscope slides. Turns out some people are actually harmed by this bacteria, but again, bio-warfare testing on an uninformed US civilians. A war crime. They actually killed someone: On October 11, 1950, eleven residents checked into Stanford Hospital in San Francisco with very rare, serious urinary tract infections. Although ten recovered, Edward J. Nevin, who had had recent prostate surgery, died three weeks later from a heart valve infection. The urinary tract outbreak was so unusual that the Stanford doctors wrote it up for a medical journal. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray
- smnrchrds 3y ago
  I dislike the emphasis on the "US citizen" part. Would it have been any better if they had done it to us Canadian citizens instead? Or to any other nationality? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-carcinogen-in-western-canada-during-the-cold-war-researcher-discovers https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-car...
  - sergiomattei 3y ago
    I believe the point is that it’s being done on US soil, which infringes on the rights of US citizens.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    Wasn't the test done on US citizens? If the test was done on Canadians, we would be talking about Canadian citizens and not US citizens.
    - OwenFM 3y ago
      Were the people wearing glasses? Did they have curly hair? It's not mentioned because it makes no difference. Calling out that they're US citizens or Canadian citizens implies that these people are somehow first-class people, and everyone else is riff raff − fair game for such experiments.
the_doctah 3y ago
> But 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. This is like saying I was just practicing throwing punches at thin air, it just happened to be inside a crowded elevator. Absolutely can't stand "well technically" disingenuous HN comments like this.

orangepurple 3y ago

Check out the Human Plutonium Injection Experiments

crazygringo 3y ago

It is interesting to think about where the line should be drawn though. Raising the humidity level 5% to see if it reduces coughing? Reducing harmful ozone in the air to see if it reduces breathing issues? Bringing a puppy on the subway to see if riders smile more? Presumably these are all OK without getting consent of everyone on the subway. Or are these violations of human rights as well? I mean I suppose it all comes down to whether there are any expected harms? Or no?

HPsquared 3y ago
I guess it's more controversial if you put it the other way: "does dropping the humidity level increase coughing" etc
isitmadeofglass 3y ago
[dead]
brigandish 3y ago
No. Include someone in an experiment and it is unethical not to ask them. That’s the line.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  In my opinion actually big tech that has been pushing these boundaries a lot. A lot of new services are really experiments on society. Tracking, Adtech, A/B testing. Move fast and break things, but don't forget that at the scale these companies operate, one of the things to break is our entire society. Especially social media bubbles have caused a lot of polarization IMO. I feel the social responsibility in these companies is severely lacking. And because they're getting away with everything, the Overton window shifts in that direction.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  So all A/B testing is unethical? Like figuring out if people navigate your desktop site better depending on whether it uses a menu bar or hamburger menu? Why is a product change ethical if it's done not as part of an experiment, but it becomes unethical if it's part of an experiment? If the end user has the exact same experience in both cases?

jimmygrapes 3y ago

Presuming you have thought your argument through and can defend it justly: You better not fucking change my desired PM 2.5 or <insert other environmental factor>. Be careful.