Ethics of science experiments that hurt people not animals

[Lyudmilascience]

i read an article actually, many articles on science experiments that harm people that catch people off guard and plays with their emotion, even if you get consent to create the experiment the people dont really know what they are consenting to. One guy pretends to be homeless to see how much money he can get for science. this is giving false pretenses is'nt this against the law or is it protected. There is a different experiment that a person pretends to get a heart attack to see how many people will react and help him., i do think its wrong to test things on animals but it is justified because its better then testing it on humans but i think playing with peoples emotions to do an experiment should not be allowed and not be done. people dont take them sreiously enought like a joke or they say its fine because its for science.I dont think its right just because its for science.

its interesting how scientists can be viewed immoral by the public like a mad scientist but really they are moral, they are trying to improve our health by finding cures for diseases and improving our lives from televisions to preservatives in food.

do you think that social experiments like this are immoral and should not be done?

[Arete]

Are you sure the social experiments are genuine scientific experiments and not youtube videos? A lot of the so called "social experiment" videos you see on the internet are staged and certainly not scientific.

[imatfaal]

Or very very old. Some of the child psych experiments of the 50s and early 60s would - quite literally - get you locked up if you tried them now. The general view is that many experiments carried out in the past were immoral and unethical - that's why we have ethical research committees which prevet (prevent?) experiments nowadays. But that said - most experimenters were not the "mad scientist" then, and they are not now; the MERCs unfortunately make life massively more difficult for responsible researchers because the Committees have to guard against the fringe element who might push the bounds of acceptability. Perhaps we have gone too far - but when you see some of the films or read the reports of some truly nasty experiments you realise that we must continue to be careful.

[CharonY]

Well up to the 50s (at least) there was also distinctly unethical medical research including the infamous Guatemala syphilis study in which US researchers infected patients and monitored the progression with and without penicillin treatment.

[imatfaal]

Well up to the 50s (at least) there was also distinctly unethical medical research including the infamous Guatemala syphilis study in which US researchers infected patients and monitored the progression with and without penicillin treatment.

 

I hadn't realised that things had reached levels of depravity like that - deliberately and clandestinely infecting unwitting subjects with potentially fatal diseases; and all at the same time as we were hanging Nazis for doing the same thing

[kisai]

Ironically enough,Nazi Germany was the first country to ban animal vivisection.

 

An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself.... I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp.

 

- Göring

Edited December 2, 2015 by kisai

[CharonY]

 

I hadn't realised that things had reached levels of depravity like that - deliberately and clandestinely infecting unwitting subjects with potentially fatal diseases; and all at the same time as we were hanging Nazis for doing the same thing

 

Rather unfortunately, there is more. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment which ran until the 70s on rural African-American men. While they did not (IIRC) actively infected patients, they pretended to treat them, but instead just observed disease progression.

[Lyudmilascience]

Are you sure the social experiments are genuine scientific experiments and not youtube videos? A lot of the so called "social experiment" videos you see on the internet are staged and certainly not scientific.

yea you might be right if they are staged.

immatfaal good to hear that the ethics is looked at in science

"Or very very old. Some of the child psych experiments of the 50s and early 60s would - quite literally - get you locked up if you tried them now. The general view is that many experiments carried out in the past were immoral and unethical - that's why we have ethical research committees which prevet (prevent?) experiments nowadays. But that said - most experimenters were not the "mad scientist" then, and they are not now; the MERCs unfortunately make life massively more difficult for responsible researchers because the Committees have to guard against the fringe element who might push the bounds of acceptability. Perhaps we have gone too far - but when you see some of the films or read the reports of some truly nasty experiments you realise that we must continue to be careful. "

what is vivisection?

[imatfaal]

...

what is vivisection?

 

Technically vivisection is the cutting open and dissection of a living animal or person - now it tends to mean any experimentation on live animals. Animal experimentation is necessary to advance medical techniques and the understanding of animal/human physiology and biochemistry. Bio-medical researchers would love to be able to do all their work in vitro (literally "in glass" - but meaning on a simple processed substrate that replicates the results found by working in vivo or on a living creature) but this is impossible at present and may remain so for any foreseeable future

[puppypower]

Didn't some of the earliest medical research involve the scientist/doctor trying new medicines on themselves, first, before giving it to others; do no harm!

 

Maybe we can have researchers, who wish to do experiments on humans and animals, first have to have it done to them to make sure it will do no harm. This way we don't have as many hack researchers, doing harm.

 

The job of the public servants in the FDA is to protect the citizens, so why aren't they the front line ginny pigs? It would make sense for those who impose the need, be the first test subjects.

[Strange]

Didn't some of the earliest medical research involve the scientist/doctor trying new medicines on themselves, first, before giving it to others; do no harm!

 

I haven't heard that before.

 

But there many cases of modern researchers doing this. For example:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery

[hypervalent_iodine]

Didn't some of the earliest medical research involve the scientist/doctor trying new medicines on themselves, first, before giving it to others; do no harm!

 

Maybe we can have researchers, who wish to do experiments on humans and animals, first have to have it done to them to make sure it will do no harm. This way we don't have as many hack researchers, doing harm.

 

The job of the public servants in the FDA is to protect the citizens, so why aren't they the front line ginny pigs? It would make sense for those who impose the need, be the first test subjects.

 

You realise how ridiculous and counterproductive this is, right?

[Lyudmilascience]

 

Technically vivisection is the cutting open and dissection of a living animal or person - now it tends to mean any experimentation on live animals. Animal experimentation is necessary to advance medical techniques and the understanding of animal/human physiology and biochemistry. Bio-medical researchers would love to be able to do all their work in vitro (literally "in glass" - but meaning on a simple processed substrate that replicates the results found by working in vivo or on a living creature) but this is impossible at present and may remain so for any foreseeable future

thankyou I also read an interesting article I don't think its vivisection, but japans scientists created a light sheet fluorescence microscopy in order to create tissue nearly opaque. it allows "examine the mouse’s organs without cutting into them" here is the article http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/japanese-scientists-turn-mouse-invisible-article-1.2004756its really interesting to me and exiting we might discover how to turn people invisible. relating this back to ethics it might also really be bad. people can more easily spy on other countries and might find something out that causes a war. there are so many interesting experiments being created.