4 ms·

I can't see anything unethical in that, it's just highly impractical (which is why it might be difficult/expensive to find test subjects). But my guess is that

I can't see anything unethical in that, it's just highly impractical (which is why it might be difficult/expensive to find test subjects). But my guess is that there isn't actually any "spherical" vs. "non-spherical" distinction at the level of processing that is (presumably) untrained in blind people, but rather some more general recognition of sharpness of objects' edges of which spheres are just an extreme case, and that would be pretty much impossible to control for, as you'd need the test subject to live in a "uniform sharpness environment", which would have to include their own body's shape(s) ...

joesb 12y ago
> I can't see anything unethical in that You don't know how it will affect the life of the test subject. Same reason why experimenting with raising a child by never letting him hear anything for ten years (to test how brain would work) is unethical.
- verroq 12y ago
  Informed consent is impossible to obtain with children, if it was then it won't be a problem.
Ensorceled 12y ago
> I can't see anything unethical in that Really? "We're going to give you sight but not let you see anything round for 2 years. So we need to keep you in this cage unless you are blind folded." Yeah. No ethical issues here ...
- verroq 12y ago
  As long as the person is participating by free will.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  Please explain why it would be unethical to do that with someone who agrees to it for a payment of 10 Mio. USD and with the option to leave at any time with only partial payment. And while you are at it, please also explain why testing of new drugs with unknown effects on human subjects is not unethical (or is it according to your opinion?).
  - fortruce 12y ago
    They couldn't possibly consent to such when they have no idea what they are actually giving up. If someone who was previously able to see then went blind was given the same choice, then they would have a basis from which to value sight and make an informed decision of consent; however, I don't think a person who has never seen before can possibly give valid consent to such an experiment.
    - philh 12y ago
      That's a strange way to put it. Suppose I'm deadly allergic to all fish and fish-tasting foods. Now someone comes up with a way to cure that, so I can eat fish for the first time. And then they say, "actually, we'd like to see what happens if someone first tastes salmon several years after they first taste haddock", and they offer me a lot of money not to eat salmon for two years. Can I consent to that, even though I don't know what I'm giving up with salmon? What about if I started with no taste at all? (N.B. This isn't meant to be a knock-down argument against your position. I disagree with your position, and this is an argument against it, but it's not my true rejection. My true rejection is along the lines of "you have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to", but I don't care to get into that.)
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        "You have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to" I know you said you don't care to get into this, but I'm honestly curious; where do you draw the line (if at all) on that position? Because the concept of enforcing an inability to consent to things is the basis behind minimum wage laws, age-of-consent, the unenforcibility of draconic EULAs and non-compete clauses, and probably some other laws that I can't think of which are wholly designed to protect people from being able to make terrible choices that hurt not only themselves, but the rest of society by validating that choice as a potential option. I'm not trying to slag on you and I recognize that you don't want this to turn into a debate where everybody shouts at you, and that's probably what's going to happen if you respond; I'm just curious about the boundaries of your position.
- UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
  That's why it was done on cats, half a decade ago, and even that was controversial. David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel won a nobel prize for their research where they sewed kittens eyes shut and then unsewed them when they were adults. It was landmark research.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
The ethical problems arise, because when you allow for such human experimentation given some conditions are met (like informed consent), then various agents (people, companies) will have an incentive to game around those conditions. Suddenly human experimentation becomes a valid business practice as long as you can figure out how to get people into consenting.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  That's a slippery slope argument, that's not particularly convincing, in particular given that experimentation on humans with informed consent is very much a routine thing to do, both in psychological and in medical research. All new drugs are tested on humans at some point, when it's not really known all that well yet what the reactions will be, that's experimentation on humans right there, and very crucial experimentation at that, as that's how we figure out what's safe and what is not. The one thing that you can not do without, though, is informed consent.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Sure, but might end up on a slippery slope if you let any random person say "hey hospital, please treat me with that experimental drug; I give my informed consent and will pay you $100k for that".
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
      That's why we usually put the burden of proof on the person conducting the experiment that there actually was informed consent. And you don't give informed consent by stating "I give informed consent", but by demonstrating that you understand the (potential) consequences, and then consenting to what you have demonstrated to understand.

joesb 12y ago

> I can't see anything unethical in that You don't know how it will affect the life of the test subject. Same reason why experimenting with raising a child by never letting him hear anything for ten years (to test how brain would work) is unethical.

verroq 12y ago
Informed consent is impossible to obtain with children, if it was then it won't be a problem.

Ensorceled 12y ago

> I can't see anything unethical in that Really? "We're going to give you sight but not let you see anything round for 2 years. So we need to keep you in this cage unless you are blind folded." Yeah. No ethical issues here ...

verroq 12y ago
As long as the person is participating by free will.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
Please explain why it would be unethical to do that with someone who agrees to it for a payment of 10 Mio. USD and with the option to leave at any time with only partial payment. And while you are at it, please also explain why testing of new drugs with unknown effects on human subjects is not unethical (or is it according to your opinion?).
- fortruce 12y ago
  They couldn't possibly consent to such when they have no idea what they are actually giving up. If someone who was previously able to see then went blind was given the same choice, then they would have a basis from which to value sight and make an informed decision of consent; however, I don't think a person who has never seen before can possibly give valid consent to such an experiment.
  - philh 12y ago
    That's a strange way to put it. Suppose I'm deadly allergic to all fish and fish-tasting foods. Now someone comes up with a way to cure that, so I can eat fish for the first time. And then they say, "actually, we'd like to see what happens if someone first tastes salmon several years after they first taste haddock", and they offer me a lot of money not to eat salmon for two years. Can I consent to that, even though I don't know what I'm giving up with salmon? What about if I started with no taste at all? (N.B. This isn't meant to be a knock-down argument against your position. I disagree with your position, and this is an argument against it, but it's not my true rejection. My true rejection is along the lines of "you have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to", but I don't care to get into that.)
    - CocaKoala 12y ago
      "You have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to" I know you said you don't care to get into this, but I'm honestly curious; where do you draw the line (if at all) on that position? Because the concept of enforcing an inability to consent to things is the basis behind minimum wage laws, age-of-consent, the unenforcibility of draconic EULAs and non-compete clauses, and probably some other laws that I can't think of which are wholly designed to protect people from being able to make terrible choices that hurt not only themselves, but the rest of society by validating that choice as a potential option. I'm not trying to slag on you and I recognize that you don't want this to turn into a debate where everybody shouts at you, and that's probably what's going to happen if you respond; I'm just curious about the boundaries of your position.
UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
That's why it was done on cats, half a decade ago, and even that was controversial. David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel won a nobel prize for their research where they sewed kittens eyes shut and then unsewed them when they were adults. It was landmark research.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

The ethical problems arise, because when you allow for such human experimentation given some conditions are met (like informed consent), then various agents (people, companies) will have an incentive to game around those conditions. Suddenly human experimentation becomes a valid business practice as long as you can figure out how to get people into consenting.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
That's a slippery slope argument, that's not particularly convincing, in particular given that experimentation on humans with informed consent is very much a routine thing to do, both in psychological and in medical research. All new drugs are tested on humans at some point, when it's not really known all that well yet what the reactions will be, that's experimentation on humans right there, and very crucial experimentation at that, as that's how we figure out what's safe and what is not. The one thing that you can not do without, though, is informed consent.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Sure, but might end up on a slippery slope if you let any random person say "hey hospital, please treat me with that experimental drug; I give my informed consent and will pay you $100k for that".
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
    That's why we usually put the burden of proof on the person conducting the experiment that there actually was informed consent. And you don't give informed consent by stating "I give informed consent", but by demonstrating that you understand the (potential) consequences, and then consenting to what you have demonstrated to understand.