11 ms·

To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the

To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particular bacterium. In any case, it was a violation of the Nuremberg code, and I'd hope no democratic state would do such a thing in the current time.

stfu 11y ago
I'd hope no democratic state would do such a thing in the current time. Wishful thinking. Let's hope we can meet again in 50 years and chat about the good old times.
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that such a trial would come out within years. The wikileaks and Snowden affairs have shown that it is virtually impossible for a reasonably democratic state to keep such secrets for long.
Shivetya 11y ago
I would hope NO state would do such a thing in the current time. We are well past the point in civilization to accept this type of action from any state or organization.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  Pre 2001 a lot of people would claim that we are also against torture, extrajudicial kidnapping, secret trials, locking people up without trial, mass surveillance, and unprovoked wars. Things change. Just as between WWII and the cold war people likely claimed "we'll never let stuff like what the Nazi's did happen again!" then the country(s) feel threatened and the gloves come off.
  - brillenfux 11y ago
    When was this "in between" you speak of? The cold war pretty much started with WWII.
    - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
      Per Wikipedia: "Historians have not fully agreed on the dates, but 1947–1991 is common" (WWII ended in 1945 for reference). But the cold war was a slowly building thing that took many more years to reach fruition. So now that we've dealt with pedantic complaints that are wrong anyway, do you have any substantive problems with what I said?
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        Marking a cold war feels almost like marking when one species becomes another.
      - brillenfux 11y ago
        This comment is so utterly generic, uninformed, condescending and pretentious, I have no words...
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    You can find lots of people after the Great Depression and the various responses arguing that the economic debates were settled and nobody would ever argue for unfettered investment banks and the like ever again. Meanwhile we got Alan Greenspan.
- talmand 11y ago
  Was there ever a time that such actions were acceptable to the people that they were performed on?
- neilk 11y ago
  Why are we well past it now, and not then? The 1950s wasn't the dark ages. People in positions of power had already been through the horror of gas attacks in the First World War, which is about the closest equivalent. The Nazis had experimented with biological weapons, and this was reasonably widespread knowledge at the time. So if your point is that it was a simpler, more ignorant time, I don't think that works. What we all have to face is that, when allowed to operate in secret, this is what governments have done and will continue to do. Often with "good" intentions. If there's something we need to evolve, it's the oversight of our institutions, or indeed abolishing some of them.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
cristianpascu 11y ago
There is no such a thing as demo-cracy.
andreyf 11y ago
> it was a violation of the Nuremberg code How so? The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test, where it doesn't sound to me like an objective definition of the word supports that framing in the least. A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed and on which data is being gathered. In this case, it is the bacteria, and the data that was gathered was their movement through the city. The humans were part of the environment the subject was tested in, but effects of the bacteria on the humans was not part of the hypothesis, and believed to be wholly negligible to humans.
- dmlorenzetti 11y ago
  The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test... A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people. Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Energy web page that defines the "scope of research" for human subjects studies. It says, in part, [R]esearch using human subjects encompasses a broader range of research than many investigators... often realize. In addition to traditional biomedical and clinical studies, human subjects research includes, but is not limited to, studies that... evaluate environmental alterations To make that even more explicit, they have a "regulations" web page [1]. The top link there is to a memo that clarifies that any "research involving intentional modification of an individual's or a group of individuals' environment" must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research. (All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.) [0] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm [1] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/ http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/
  - mentat 11y ago
    Was that understood to be the scope in 1950 though?
  - 11y ago
admax88q 11y ago
> Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions Who could possibly foresee that there could be other injuries, infections or conditions present in a fucking city.
- mentat 11y ago
  I'm not clear on how this is a productive comment. We have 60 years more science on how bacterial infections work. It was only 10 years ago that it was found to be dangerous. How many things are you doing today that will be found appalling in 60 years?
  - somebehemoth 11y ago
    I understand your concern and agree that we have a lot more knowledge now so we know better. However, it is hard to believe that no one thought something could go wrong during a simulated germ warfare attack on a major city. Furthermore, they violated the Nuremberg Code using their own citizens. So it is hard to absolve those involved of guilt simply due to their own ignorance. This is what makes me angry and I suspect it is what led the parent to use such colorful language.
    - mentat 11y ago
      I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed in the last 60 years. I'm sure there was the thought that something could go wrong, as almost always that's the case. That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds. Nonetheless the outrage here still isn't correlated with risk including the risks that for instance the current use of antibiotics on livestock introduce. If you want outrage, be outraged that we're destroying the main thing we have to protect ourselves against these sorts of threats.
      - fineman 11y ago
        > I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed [...] That's not the issue. That relates to us understanding why it's dangerous. But wondering if it's dangerous and testing small and willing populations at first is something we knew how to do back then too. > That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds. If they thought it was harmless they'd have tested it at the military base first. > If you want outrage, be outraged that [...] I don't, thanks. And I don't appreciate the redirect. (I agree, but it's not the topic.)
DINKDINK 11y ago
>To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. Ignorance is no excuse especially when non consenting people's health is at risk.
discardorama 11y ago
> To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe. Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?
- dimino 11y ago
  Probably, yes, assuming you mean "will effect the severity of your sentence". Intent matters.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid? This is more like firing directly into a group of people, but believing the gun is a harmless reproduction (or perhaps a paintball marker) when it actually a real weapon loaded with live ammo. And, yes, in that case it would be valid, at least to the extent that the crime you would be guilty of, if any, with that belief would be substantial less than the one you would be guilty of if you believed it was a live weapon and committed the same act.

stfu 11y ago

I'd hope no democratic state would do such a thing in the current time. Wishful thinking. Let's hope we can meet again in 50 years and chat about the good old times.

bayesianhorse 11y ago
I'm pretty sure that such a trial would come out within years. The wikileaks and Snowden affairs have shown that it is virtually impossible for a reasonably democratic state to keep such secrets for long.

Shivetya 11y ago

I would hope NO state would do such a thing in the current time. We are well past the point in civilization to accept this type of action from any state or organization.

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
Pre 2001 a lot of people would claim that we are also against torture, extrajudicial kidnapping, secret trials, locking people up without trial, mass surveillance, and unprovoked wars. Things change. Just as between WWII and the cold war people likely claimed "we'll never let stuff like what the Nazi's did happen again!" then the country(s) feel threatened and the gloves come off.
- brillenfux 11y ago
  When was this "in between" you speak of? The cold war pretty much started with WWII.
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    Per Wikipedia: "Historians have not fully agreed on the dates, but 1947–1991 is common" (WWII ended in 1945 for reference). But the cold war was a slowly building thing that took many more years to reach fruition. So now that we've dealt with pedantic complaints that are wrong anyway, do you have any substantive problems with what I said?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Marking a cold war feels almost like marking when one species becomes another.
    - brillenfux 11y ago
      This comment is so utterly generic, uninformed, condescending and pretentious, I have no words...
- emodendroket 11y ago
  You can find lots of people after the Great Depression and the various responses arguing that the economic debates were settled and nobody would ever argue for unfettered investment banks and the like ever again. Meanwhile we got Alan Greenspan.
talmand 11y ago
Was there ever a time that such actions were acceptable to the people that they were performed on?
neilk 11y ago
Why are we well past it now, and not then? The 1950s wasn't the dark ages. People in positions of power had already been through the horror of gas attacks in the First World War, which is about the closest equivalent. The Nazis had experimented with biological weapons, and this was reasonably widespread knowledge at the time. So if your point is that it was a simpler, more ignorant time, I don't think that works. What we all have to face is that, when allowed to operate in secret, this is what governments have done and will continue to do. Often with "good" intentions. If there's something we need to evolve, it's the oversight of our institutions, or indeed abolishing some of them.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

cristianpascu 11y ago

There is no such a thing as demo-cracy.

andreyf 11y ago

> it was a violation of the Nuremberg code How so? The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test, where it doesn't sound to me like an objective definition of the word supports that framing in the least. A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed and on which data is being gathered. In this case, it is the bacteria, and the data that was gathered was their movement through the city. The humans were part of the environment the subject was tested in, but effects of the bacteria on the humans was not part of the hypothesis, and believed to be wholly negligible to humans.

dmlorenzetti 11y ago
The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test... A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people. Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Energy web page that defines the "scope of research" for human subjects studies. It says, in part, [R]esearch using human subjects encompasses a broader range of research than many investigators... often realize. In addition to traditional biomedical and clinical studies, human subjects research includes, but is not limited to, studies that... evaluate environmental alterations To make that even more explicit, they have a "regulations" web page [1]. The top link there is to a memo that clarifies that any "research involving intentional modification of an individual's or a group of individuals' environment" must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research. (All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.) [0] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm [1] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/ http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/
- mentat 11y ago
  Was that understood to be the scope in 1950 though?
- 11y ago

admax88q 11y ago

> Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions Who could possibly foresee that there could be other injuries, infections or conditions present in a fucking city.

mentat 11y ago
I'm not clear on how this is a productive comment. We have 60 years more science on how bacterial infections work. It was only 10 years ago that it was found to be dangerous. How many things are you doing today that will be found appalling in 60 years?
- somebehemoth 11y ago
  I understand your concern and agree that we have a lot more knowledge now so we know better. However, it is hard to believe that no one thought something could go wrong during a simulated germ warfare attack on a major city. Furthermore, they violated the Nuremberg Code using their own citizens. So it is hard to absolve those involved of guilt simply due to their own ignorance. This is what makes me angry and I suspect it is what led the parent to use such colorful language.
  - mentat 11y ago
    I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed in the last 60 years. I'm sure there was the thought that something could go wrong, as almost always that's the case. That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds. Nonetheless the outrage here still isn't correlated with risk including the risks that for instance the current use of antibiotics on livestock introduce. If you want outrage, be outraged that we're destroying the main thing we have to protect ourselves against these sorts of threats.
    - fineman 11y ago
      > I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed [...] That's not the issue. That relates to us understanding why it's dangerous. But wondering if it's dangerous and testing small and willing populations at first is something we knew how to do back then too. > That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds. If they thought it was harmless they'd have tested it at the military base first. > If you want outrage, be outraged that [...] I don't, thanks. And I don't appreciate the redirect. (I agree, but it's not the topic.)

DINKDINK 11y ago

>To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. Ignorance is no excuse especially when non consenting people's health is at risk.

discardorama 11y ago

> To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe. Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?

dimino 11y ago
Probably, yes, assuming you mean "will effect the severity of your sentence". Intent matters.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid? This is more like firing directly into a group of people, but believing the gun is a harmless reproduction (or perhaps a paintball marker) when it actually a real weapon loaded with live ammo. And, yes, in that case it would be valid, at least to the extent that the crime you would be guilty of, if any, with that belief would be substantial less than the one you would be guilty of if you believed it was a live weapon and committed the same act.