3 ms·

I possess the very same scientific mindset and curiosity that you describe, which is why I dedicated my life to science. But I wouldn't let my children insert

by beambot 13y ago

I possess the very same scientific mindset and curiosity that you describe, which is why I dedicated my life to science. But I wouldn't let my children insert probes into my cat's brain. Comparing Lego Mindstorms (which I love and endorse) to mutilating a living animal is misguided at best. Telling me to be "ashamed of myself" is completely ignorant of all the scientific outreach I've done. Don't project. As for IRB... it's a pain in the ass. But for good reason: standard ethics training. Just go look at some of the shit that has been done in the name of "research" (eg. Stanford prison experiment, Tuskegee experiment, etc). In this case, IRB approval simply says, "we've thought about the processes and the ethics behind these experiments, and we got the review board to agree to our protocols." EDIT: Would you be OK if the animal was a mouse? cat? dog? person? Where do you draw the line between "scientific exploration" and "cruelty"? That's why universities use IRB -- because even well-intentioned individuals can be blinded.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
> Comparing Lego Mindstorms (which I love and endorse) to mutilating a living animal is misguided at best. > Telling me to be "ashamed of myself" is completely ignorant of all the scientific outreach I've done. Don't project. I quote those two together because I wrote the things you object to for the same reason. Your original comment is very heavily flavored with "this is OK... for professionals". I object to that. As biology is your field, so programming is mine; I draw a parallel between my worry that programming is for professionals only and yours that biology is. I wouldn't let my (they're hypothetical) children probe my (also hypothetical) cat's brain either. But that's because I know my cat. If I thought they stood any chance of accomplishing something (a worry this kit easily satisfies), I'd be happy to get them a cat from an animal shelter or some such. You state, "Thankfully, my work on the dragonfly project was the biotelemetry radio link rather than working with live animals" (my emphasis). That suggests you're not comfortable with this sort of thing. That's fine, most things aren't for everyone. But just because it's not for you, doesn't mean it should be for no one. The potential in this general area is obvious; there is no call for you to go around telling people to stay away unless they have ten years of "preparation". As to your examples of unethical science... - both of those involve humans - much, much worse experiments have been done - the prison experiment in particular has a bunch of methodological issues, but is widely discussed today in support of various ideas. I'd kind of like to see replications; I'm really not comfortable with simultaneously saying "we need to draw these important lessons" and "we must never test the lessons we've drawn, as it's ethically impossible to do so". EDIT: Replied without seeing your edit. There is no line between "scientific exploration" and "cruelty"; they are orthogonal concepts. The Nazis gave us invaluable knowledge of how long a human can expect to stay afloat in water at various temperatures by drowning Jews in water of various temperatures. Obviously, that won't (and shouldn't) be getting by any ethics boards. But people in Europe have protested the posting at beaches of signs with the information, because it comes to us from an evil source. That disgusts me. It's still true, and pretty relevant to the beaches where it's posted. I would be OK with doing this to a person assuming they consented freely. (And I note that very similar things have been done to human subjects.) I'm not worried by whether paying people is in fact coercing them; it's not. I am not bothered by doing this to a nonhuman regardless of whether they consent. Obviously, they don't consent. I don't care.
- beambot 13y ago
  My statements were not "it's for professionals only." It was: I believe the kit creators have done a piss-poor job of talking about the deeper questions, or even acknowledging them. I'd want my scientifically-minded children to really think about these when performing experiments. (I actually thought the kit sounded mad-cool when I first learned of it. I think you could make a good case for it being analogous to an ant farm -- but that's not what you're saying.) Minor nit... I'm a roboticist and RF engineer (EECS). Currently I'm (basically) a web programmer. I'm not a biologist. EDIT: Per your edits... you are wrong. "Facts" and "cruelty" may be orthogonal, but "responsible scientific exploration" and "cruelty" are not.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Look back at the question you asked me. Look for the word "responsible". Sorry to have misunderstood your profession; I'm not going to edit previous post(s) because my false belief significantly informed my arguments and rhetoric. Obviously, not being a biologist, this doesn't make you protectionist, but I still deeply disagree with what you've said, and though some of what I said doesn't apply to you particularly, I feel it has some general validity.

by beambot 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> Comparing Lego Mindstorms (which I love and endorse) to mutilating a living animal is misguided at best. > Telling me to be "ashamed of myself" is completely ignorant of all the scientific outreach I've done. Don't project. I quote those two together because I wrote the things you object to for the same reason. Your original comment is very heavily flavored with "this is OK... for professionals". I object to that. As biology is your field, so programming is mine; I draw a parallel between my worry that programming is for professionals only and yours that biology is. I wouldn't let my (they're hypothetical) children probe my (also hypothetical) cat's brain either. But that's because I know my cat. If I thought they stood any chance of accomplishing something (a worry this kit easily satisfies), I'd be happy to get them a cat from an animal shelter or some such. You state, "Thankfully, my work on the dragonfly project was the biotelemetry radio link rather than working with live animals" (my emphasis). That suggests you're not comfortable with this sort of thing. That's fine, most things aren't for everyone. But just because it's not for you, doesn't mean it should be for no one. The potential in this general area is obvious; there is no call for you to go around telling people to stay away unless they have ten years of "preparation". As to your examples of unethical science... - both of those involve humans - much, much worse experiments have been done - the prison experiment in particular has a bunch of methodological issues, but is widely discussed today in support of various ideas. I'd kind of like to see replications; I'm really not comfortable with simultaneously saying "we need to draw these important lessons" and "we must never test the lessons we've drawn, as it's ethically impossible to do so". EDIT: Replied without seeing your edit. There is no line between "scientific exploration" and "cruelty"; they are orthogonal concepts. The Nazis gave us invaluable knowledge of how long a human can expect to stay afloat in water at various temperatures by drowning Jews in water of various temperatures. Obviously, that won't (and shouldn't) be getting by any ethics boards. But people in Europe have protested the posting at beaches of signs with the information, because it comes to us from an evil source. That disgusts me. It's still true, and pretty relevant to the beaches where it's posted. I would be OK with doing this to a person assuming they consented freely. (And I note that very similar things have been done to human subjects.) I'm not worried by whether paying people is in fact coercing them; it's not. I am not bothered by doing this to a nonhuman regardless of whether they consent. Obviously, they don't consent. I don't care.

beambot 13y ago
My statements were not "it's for professionals only." It was: I believe the kit creators have done a piss-poor job of talking about the deeper questions, or even acknowledging them. I'd want my scientifically-minded children to really think about these when performing experiments. (I actually thought the kit sounded mad-cool when I first learned of it. I think you could make a good case for it being analogous to an ant farm -- but that's not what you're saying.) Minor nit... I'm a roboticist and RF engineer (EECS). Currently I'm (basically) a web programmer. I'm not a biologist. EDIT: Per your edits... you are wrong. "Facts" and "cruelty" may be orthogonal, but "responsible scientific exploration" and "cruelty" are not.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Look back at the question you asked me. Look for the word "responsible". Sorry to have misunderstood your profession; I'm not going to edit previous post(s) because my false belief significantly informed my arguments and rhetoric. Obviously, not being a biologist, this doesn't make you protectionist, but I still deeply disagree with what you've said, and though some of what I said doesn't apply to you particularly, I feel it has some general validity.