4 ms·
> It's unfortunate that this kind of innovative idea seems to illicit a knee-jerk negative response in terms of ethics. It's a shame that autocomplete can stil
by cbd1984 12y ago
> It's unfortunate that this kind of innovative idea seems to illicit a knee-jerk negative response in terms of ethics.
It's a shame that autocomplete can still elicit laughs.
I like to think about it in another way: If poor people were given preference in terms of going on drug trials, would the same groups be up in arms about the poor being used as guinea pigs for the rich?
- tempestn 12y agoI wish I could blame autocomplete for that one!
- peteretep 12y ago> If poor people were given preference in terms of going > on drug trials, would the same groups be up in arms > about the poor being used as guinea pigs for the rich? From the NY Times: > What if the first doses of the drug — which had never > been used in people and had not even finished the > typical animal safety testing — had been given to > African patients instead? > “It would have been the front-page screaming headline: > ‘Africans used as guinea pigs for American drug > company’s medicine,’ ” said Dr. Salim S. Abdool Karim, > director of Caprisa, an AIDS research center in South > Africa. And also, while trying to refind this article: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=ebola+"Guinea+pigs"&oq=ebola+"Guinea+pigs" https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=ebola+"Guinea+pigs"&...
- Alex3917 12y ago> If poor people were given preference in terms of going on drug trials, would the same groups be up in arms about the poor being used as guinea pigs for the rich? That's already how most drugs are currently tested. We used to test new drugs on prisoners and conscientious objectors, now we just test them on the poor and indigent.