[Eternal Student]

Hi all.

   I like science as much as the next person and I've worked in an area that is closely allied to it (Mathematics).
   Science doesn't exempt you from human obligations and morality.  If you pass a gun to someone when they want to shoot a person, then you have some responsibility for that shooting whether or not you pulled the trigger.
   If you believed that the person needed to be shot then that is one thing but simply deceiving yourself into thinking that you didn't pull the trigger so it wasn't your fault in any way is absurd.
   Alancalverd, you are evidently playing devils advocate here.  Ethical review boards were set up in Universities after events like the Stanford Prison experiment came to light.  You obviously don't think these experiments were all just fine and dandy.  Anyway, it hardly matters what one person thinks, there are ethical review processes in place, following them is not usually an "option"  and in many school syllabuses for science it is stated that you have to teach young students about them.

Here's one example:   (Snippet of a syallabus from https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/International%20GCSE/Science%20(Double%20Award)/2017/teaching-and-learning-materials/Transferable-Skills-Mapping-for-Science-Double-Award.pdf )
ethics.JPG (34.28 kB . 1347x121 - viewed 3987 times)

[Bored chemist]

We need only look at historical examples like the Stanford Prison experiment to see where things can go wrong if you are driven by scientific curiosity and too involved to be objective in identifying potential harm. 

The Stanford prison experiment simply replicated  conditions that were  present in all the world's prisons, in order to study the outcome. The experiment was monitored, and short-term.
So the thousand political systems that permitted those prisons (and thus the conditions)  without having done the experiment are responsible for the real harm.


Are you saying U should not research scalpels in case someone uses one as a dagger?

[alancalverd]

    If you pass a gun to someone when they want to shoot a person, then you have some responsibility for that shooting whether or not you pulled the trigger.

The Stanford Prison experiment did not involve any such prior desires, but was designed to (and did) explore what happens when you put one random group of people in authority over another. The principal investigator halted it after a week. It went a long way to explaining or at least predicting mob behavior such as demonstrated by Nazi sympathisers, and suggests that a group of  usually law-abiding intelligent middle class people can quickly abuse normal freedoms, like Extinction Rebellion.

   

Ethical review boards were set up in Universities after events like the Stanford Prison experiment came to light. 

Just 26 years after the formal establishment of medical research ethics boards in the wake of Mengele's work at Auschwitz. I have served on one for the last 20 years. Interestingly, the only really dangerous and morally questionable human research projects I have come across in that time, originated in universities rather than industry. They are easy to spot because academics do not recognise the difference between principle and principal, even when they are set out in the application form (and one of them is written on somebody's office door!) .

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.  I still hope everyone is well.

Are you saying U should not research scalpels in case someone uses one as a dagger?

  No.    You can't research daggers and then be surprised if someone uses it as a dagger.

The Stanford Prison experiment did not involve any such prior desires, but was designed to.......

   The ends do not always justify the means.  You know this if you work on a Medical ethics board.  You're talking about what the Stanford Prison experiment hoped to achieve.  That's interesting but it does not mean that a young scientist can justify any experiment if the final result will be interesting.

An experiment that demonstrates a fundamental problem with human behavior cannot be considered "wrong" if it informs us of the dangers of granting authority without responsibility and accountability.  The object of scientific curiosity was to see how quickly and how badly things go wrong.

    You're talking about abstract morality and I'm not even sure you could justify it in that setting.  I was just keeping things grounded and a bit more concrete in this discussion.  An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries).  For example, the state will prosecute you if you inject people or allow people to ingest substances that may have significant physiological effects and they were not informed.  An argument that you were trying to perform the best "blind trial" of a new drug for the benfit of humanity will not wash.

[charles1948]

Science will continue to advance unless it's stopped by Religion.

Religion, at least in its traditional form, is not conducive to the empirical method required by Science.

Science relies on experiments to verify its data,  whereas Religion relies on "Scripture". which can't be questioned.

An example of this occurred in the development  of "Scientology".  This started out as an attempt to explain human behaviour in strictly scientific terms, based on the principles set out by L Ron Hubbard in his numerous writings and text-books. 

However, when these principles failed to achieve practical results, "Scientology" was re-branded as a "Religion".
And the books written by Hubbard, became known in Scientology as "Scripture". Which can't be questioned.

Is something like this happening in Physics, where "Relativity" and "Quantum Theory" have become almost "Religious Beliefs", which any aspiring physicist is required to accept?

[Bored chemist]

They are easy to spot because academics do not recognise the difference between principle and principal,

In QM this is referred to as the "principal uncertainty".

An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries). 

Sticking a needle in someone causes harm- that's why it hurts.

Are you saying we should abandon blood tests?

[charles1948]

If the authorities are so determined to get everyone vaccinated, couldn't they put the vaccine into the water-supply.

[Zer0]

P.S. -

94ce4fdbab376a73b5fecb812f7da5e0.jpg (79.42 kB . 564x789 - viewed 18032 times)

[Bored chemist]

If the authorities are so determined to get everyone vaccinated, couldn't they put the vaccine into the water-supply.

No.

[Eternal Student]

Hi

Are you saying we should abandon blood tests?

   I would say something like that but I don't need to, it's already the law in most countries.   You can't assault people with needles (except under extraodrinary conditions, such as having a court order to proceed or authority under a section of the Mental Health act  - based on UK Law).
  In general, you have to ask them first and they have the right to refuse.  I assume we are speaking hypothetically and you haven't actually assaulted anyone to gain a sample for your experiments. 

If the authorities are so determined to get everyone vaccinated, couldn't they put the vaccine into the water supply.

  I think B_C answered this succinctly.  Unlike Fluride, the vaccine has to kept under special conditions and the currently recommending method of administration is intravenous and not pouring it into a Hydrochloric acid bath that exists in your stomach.

Is something like this happening in Physics, where "Relativity" and "Quantum Theory" have become almost "Religious Beliefs", which any aspiring physicist is required to accept?

   Well, that could be worth discussing but I'm concerned it falls outside the scope of this thread, which may have already grown a bit more than the OP intended already.

@Zer0
   There's nothing I can quote here, it's all videos and internet memes etc.
   I think you're talking about testing on animals?  That's too big a topic for me today.  The video you seem to have attached focuses on cosmetic testing which is a soft target.  Most people would agree that testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary.

[Bored chemist]

it's already the law in most countries.   

Do you remember what you actually said?

An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries). 

Even a blood test does harm.

So, according to your edict, it is "wrong".

[alancalverd]

You're talking about what the Stanford Prison experiment hoped to achieve.  That's interesting but it does not mean that a young scientist can justify any experiment if the final result will be interesting.

Britannica: 

It was intended to measure the effect of role-playing, labeling, and social expectations on behaviour over a period of two weeks.

There is no point in carrying out any investigation if you know the answer. In this case, nobody knew how quickly the group would degenerate (because the experiment had never been done before) and it was abandoned early when the harm was evident and escalating. It wasn't pure "fishing" because Milgram (1963) had reported the disconnect between torturer and victim when liability appeared to be transferred by authority, but the variant here was of a group assigning and defining its own authority - very important when, for instance, governments devolve executive power to unaccountable bodies like HSE.

Ethics committees are wary of fishing expeditions. Just because a result might be "interesting" does not justify probable harm: there must be a significant potential benefit and fully informed consent to any risk of harm.

One frequently contentious case is "sham surgery": does a particular surgical intervention actually improve outcomes compared with natural remission? The only way to conduct a blind randomised control trial is to anesthetise, cut and stitch the control group, who will be subject to potential infection and retain a scar as well as their original pathology, but a well-managed RCT can save a lot of unnecessary surgery with its attendant risks in future if it demonstrates that the real procedure is no more effective than this "placebo".

[alancalverd]

Is something like this happening in Physics, where "Relativity" and "Quantum Theory" have become almost "Religious Beliefs", which any aspiring physicist is required to accept?

Absolutely not. The consequences of relativity and quantum mechanics are applied and critically tested every day. People may be skeptical if you report a shift in a well-known spectral line or a massive particle travelling faster than c, but rather than burn you as a heretic or worship you as a deity, your critics will try to repeat the experiment.

Physics is nothing more or less than the business of building mathematical models of what happens. If the model doesn't usefully describe and predict, it's wrong.

[Eternal Student]

Hi everyone.  Another half a day, another interesting discussion.

Do you remember what you actually said?

Quote from: Eternal Student on Yesterday at 17:38:30

    An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries).

Even a blood test does harm.

So, according to your edict, it is "wrong".

Yes Bored Chemist, I remember what I said.  You took an extract from reply #23 of this thread but cut away most of the context.

None the less we can take that sentence in isolation if you wish:
  An experiment certainly can be considered "wrong" if it causes harm to human participants (and it is in most countries).
   That's a true statement, it can.  When harm is caused to human beings there is often law in place that will determine that the experiment was "wrong".  It is not upto the scientist to ignore or over-rule this and do the experiment anyway.  If we do then we have broken the law and more generally, since we are discussing ethics and science here, we may have acted immorally or unethically.
    The statement is not a definition of morality in conducting experiments.  There are obviously some situations where the law has not been broken but some harm was caused.  Taking a blood sample from a person who has given their consent is one example. 

I'm not in a position to make "edicts", I'm just making discussion.

My belief was stated in reply #15
It is unreasonable to propose that scientists have no responsibility whatsoever.
Science is something that human beings do but it is not an excuse to forget about your human obligations.
   I'm sorry if this makes you (and Alancalverd) feel uncomfortable.  I'm not intending to cause distress.  It's just that a question was asked (by Paul) and answers were given that seem one-sided.

   About the Prison experiment and @alancalverd 's recent remarks:  There's lot's of good things that can be said about both the experiment and the principal researchers.  If they hadn't been so open about the consequences, well intentioned throughout and willing to take some responsibility for a situation they were involved in, I wouldn't have picked them out as an example to use.

[alancalverd]

 I'm sorry if this makes you (and Alancalverd) feel uncomfortable. 

No discomfort at all. The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute, and I am delighted that so many of my family and teachers were involved in every technical activity from the atom bomb via magnetic mines to actually bombing the crap out of German cities and throwing out the chemical toilet as an encore. But I wouldn't x-ray a mouse without a damn good reason.

[Bored chemist]

   That's a true statement, it can. 

It's also a meaningless statement, since I can label such an experiment "bad", or I can label it "good"; depending on other factors.

[jeffreyH]

  I'm sorry if this makes you (and Alancalverd) feel uncomfortable. 

No discomfort at all. The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute, and I am delighted that so many of my family and teachers were involved in every technical activity from the atom bomb via magnetic mines to actually bombing the crap out of German cities and throwing out the chemical toilet as an encore. But I wouldn't x-ray a mouse without a damn good reason.

Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.

[Bored chemist]

Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.

I don't often agree with Alan but...

The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute

[jeffreyH]

Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.

I don't often agree with Alan but...

The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute

But fascism wasn't destroyed. It persists to this day. If the bombs had been dropped on Hitler then maybe I'd agree. As the late George Carlin used to say "It's a big club and you ain't in it." It is never the powerful who suffer. Just tens of thousands of civilians who have no power at all. So much for the conscience of science.

[alancalverd]

Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.

Who said anything about relish? There are no silver medals in war, just "them or us" choices. I vote for us.

We are indeed doomed for as long as idiots give other idiots the power to order them about.