Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
Start date Dec 17, 2012

Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!

Go here and give us your nominations! Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,941

fanaskin_sl said:
all I was demonstrating is that "ethics" is an imaginary line.

All you ended up demonstrating is that you don't know what you're talking about though.

fanaskin

Well known agitator

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,942

whatever minutia you want to cling to, to write a polemic about i'm sure somebody cares about but it's most likely not me.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,943

fanaskin_sl said:
whatever minutia you want to cling to, to write a polemic about i'm sure somebody cares about but it's most likely not me.

I realize you don't care about ethics in medicine.

That's why we're all lucky you don't have a degree in the hard sciences, and have no intention on attending medical school.

See, Fanaskin, we have this thing in the sciences called a self correcting process. When we make mistakes, we attempt not to repeat them. Ethical considerations is a line in the sand that we make up, yes. So is a line against murder, rape and theft. These are also invisible and completely made up standards that we humans have invented because we found them useful. That's how human society works: We find an issue we want to correct, and we make up laws, rules and regulations to do so. That's called reality.

Cad

scientia potentia est

<Bronze Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,944

hodj_sl said:
Incorrect, in medical science what is ethical is defined first and foremost by the Nuremburg laws, the Hippocratic oath and ethical doctrines that are a matter of law.

I'm going to help you out here by giving you two words. When you understand why they matter, let me know. The two words are: Henrietta Lacks.

Also I'll help you out with some links

Medical Ethics

AMA's Code of Medical Ethics

Medical ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me know when you're willing to admit that the scientific and academic and medical communities have standards, some legally binding, others taken up of our own accords, that do, in fact, define what is ethical and what is not in medical research, and that these codes of conduct do matter, and that violating them can result in disbarrment from practicing medicine, jail time, etc.

And the Chinese don't subscribe to lots of ethical considerations.

And neither did the Japanese and Germans in World War 2.

What you've done is committed a two wrongs fallacy. Just because they don't follow ethical codes of conduct, doesn't mean we shouldn't. We do. And we will. Because the lessons of history are clear: Medical testing on humans needs to be conducted in a proper manner and in a proper way, or we're committing a crime against humanity.

So, I don't see anything in here about chinese law. Whether the chinese are acting ethically under the law is up to their government and their laws.

Now if you want to discuss whether they are acting ethically under OUR LAWS, then sure! Thats a different conversation.

Another conversation is whether WE THINK they are acting ethically, regardless of the body of laws.

So, before you move the goalposts, which of these conversations are we having?

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,945

Cad_sl said:
So, I don't see anything in here about chinese law. Whether the chinese are acting ethically under the law is up to their government and their laws.

Now if you want to discuss whether they are acting ethically under OUR LAWS, then sure! Thats a different conversation.

Another conversation is whether WE THINK they are acting ethically, regardless of the body of laws.

So, before you move the goalposts, which of these conversations are we having?

Science is a world wide effort, and exists without borders. North Korea or China or whoever can allow scientists to dissect living humans and its still unethical behavior globally.

Just like when Unit 187 was doing exactly that in World War 2, they were behaving unethically, regardless what the Japanese government allowed them to do.

Just like when the Nazis were doing exactly the same things to Jews in World War 2, they were also behaving unethically, regardless what the German government allowed them to do.

Let me help you out with another link

The Nuremberg Code | HHS.gov

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

No experiment should be conducted, where there is an apriori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.

During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

khalid

Unelected Mod

Apr 23, 2015

#2,946

Ethics clearly isn't an imaginary line. However, different cultures and groups draw those lines in different places. Now I grant that there is some international consensus on what is ethical or not. However, I am not sure China agrees with us on where that line is. That doesn't mean we should change our line to theirs though.

Cad

scientia potentia est

<Bronze Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,947

So, we're just having the "hodj will restate his position over and over and ignore the questions posed to him to move the conversation forward" conversation?

As per usual I guess.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,948

Cad_sl said:
So, we're just having the "hodj will restate his position over and over and ignore the questions posed to him to move the conversation forward" conversation?

As per usual I guess.

I've answered your questions with facts and citations, actually.

What we've entered is the phase where you've run out of bad arguments to make like "Its ethical so long as their government says so", and now you're going to cry about how evil hodj is for being right.

khalid

Unelected Mod

Apr 23, 2015

#2,949

Do you think the Chinese will stop with this work? If they don't, will the international community come down them? If not, and discoveries start to come from it, it seems like other countries will be hard pressed not to try and keep up with it.

Cad

scientia potentia est

<Bronze Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,950

So then I guess what hodj is saying is, ethics are whatever American law or American medical ethics codes say it is? I guess that's fine as a position, but a whole lot of people aren't going to agree with that.

To me, there's two different kinds of ethics: there's laws or codes that I can enforced through a justice system or professional organization, and then there's "I don't like that conduct and I think it's wrong because reasons".

Hodj is confusing the former for the latter when it comes to foreign countries.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,951

No, they've already said they're going to press forward with it, and of course the world can't stop them, its not worth going to world war over.

But there won't be a need to "keep up with" them. What do people think China's gonna do, start pumping out Space Marine-esque super humanoid soldiers? That's not going to happen either.

They'll probably keep giving it a go for awhile, find that they're incapable of overcoming the same barriers that prevent us from moving on to human embryonic trials in the West, because the technology doesn't exist yet to engineer the primers and enzymes used to cut the dna accurately and precisely enough times to warrant going forward with it.

There are actual, physical barriers to this technology at this time, in terms of our ability to manipulate genetic material at the degree of accuracy and precision required to make this work. That's why we need to refine it with animal testing and let it progress naturally.

People have some really weird, science fiction-esque understandings of how well we understand genes, and how genetics works in general. Everyone has these ideas of 1 gene coding for exactly 1 phenotypic effect, and in some cases that's true, but not remotely all, especially as we move into complex organisms larger than a few cells, with complex interworking organ systems and tissue systems and the like.

Cad_sl said:
So then I guess what hodj is saying is, ethics are whatever American law or American medical ethics codes say it is?

Is Nuremburg in America now?

The international community devises these standards, and even if they didn't, and even if America said it was okay to dissect living people unanesthetized tomorrow, it wouldn't make the activity ethical.

there's two different kinds of ethics: there's laws or codes that I can enforced through a justice system or professional organization, and then there's "I don't like that conduct and I think it's wrong because reasons".

You're confusing ethics and morality, but regardless, what is right is right, regardless whether a particular person, group of people, or governing bodies, thinks so or not. Human compassion and empathy are real things, and we know when we're violating them.

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

<Gold Donor>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,952

hodj_sl said:
The four basic principles in human health care ethics are Respect for Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence, and Non-Maleficence.

This has the potential to outright violate three of these four conditions from the get go, if not conducted properly. That's why every care must be taken to ensure that these techniques are thoroughly mastered in animals, before moving on to humans, and human embryos that are non viable long before they can be employed on human embryos intended for implantation.

Right now we're still stuck on step 1. We shouldn't be jumping to step 2 and especially not step 3, when we can't even get step 1 right. Hopefully that makes sense to you.

Unit 731 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People have no problem at all experimenting on humans. Worst of all, we let everyone in involved in that real life hellhole go free, in exchange for the data from their "experiments".

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,953

1. I already cited Unit 731 as one of the reasons why the Nuremburg laws and our modern code of ethics exists. I messed up and called it Unit 178, which might be why you missed it, and that was my bad.
2. This isn't Japan
3. This isn't the 1920s and 1930s
4. These sorts of examples areexactly why we have these rules and regulations in place today
5. In fact, the case you're citing is a great example ofpeople having a real serious problem with this sort of behavior, hence our modern ethical standards in medical research

Can you guys get off the shitty two wrongs fallacies and appealing to the exact sorts of activities that led to modern medical ethics as some sort of twisted retard reverse logic trying to justify your cases?

Its like you're citing Jeffrey Dahmer as a justification for eating people "Well he did it, so its okay!"

No, its not. This is infantile logic of the highest, most absurdist order.

Worst of all, we let everyone in involved in that real life hellhole go free, in exchange for the data from their "experiments".

That's a distortion of what occurred, but whatever.

Added: Actually fuck that but whatever.

The American government let them go free because they feared the Soviets would get the results of their work. This goes back to the "Even if the American government allowed vivisection on live, fully aware human beings tomorrow, it wouldn't suddenly make that behavior ethical"

Yes we let those bastards go free. No it wasn't right. No it doesn't make it ethical, and no it doesn't justify doing the same types of experiments today. Its that simple. Two wrongs do not now, nor will they ever, add up to a right.

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

<Gold Donor>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,954

Uhh Im not saying experimentation is okay because of what the japs did during WW2. Im saying your code of ethics means absolutely nothing in terms of stopping people from doing all the experimentation they want.

Case and point;

Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shit went on until 1972, in the good ole U S of A.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,955

Laws against murder don't stop people from murdering either.

But those laws provide guidelines that the non sociopathic sick fucks in society follow, and allow avenues of reproach for the sociopathic sick fucks that don't follow them.

And again, most of these ethical guidelines were put in place in reaction to events like the tragedies of World War 2, and the vast vast majority of the planet does in fact follow them, or at least pay lip service to them, including Japanese researchers who, in the 1930s, would have been engaging in the Unit 731 type atrocities.

And dude, are you reading the thread at all? We've been over the Tuskegee shit as well.

There were still forced sterilization laws on the books in places like Virginia into the late 60s as well. Doesn't make it right. Tuskegee has long been understood to be a huge ethical lapse. Same with taking poor old Henrietta Lacks cancer cells and creating the HeLa stem cell line from it and then selling it and shit without her permission.

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

<Banned>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,956

Ethics is ever evolving, and when a particular development, methodology or process is developed which holds great promise for bettering the well being of humans, we must readjust our ethics/morality accordingly.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,957

I think people miss the boat if they think I'm saying that this sort of research isnecessarily unethicalor that, at some point in the future,it won't become unethical.

If that's the impression you've gotten from my posts, let me correct that for the record now.

There are lots of diseases that this sort of medical technology and procedures can and will hopefully address. The reason it is unethical today is because its not ready for human trials. Its not ready for human trials because we can barely get it working with animal embryos and in animal trials, because of the limitations of modern technology.

I, like all of you, can't wait for the day when we can repair people's genomes early in gestation, or possibly immediately after fertilization of an embryo, such that we never have to watch another person suffer from a serious genetic disorder. We all want that.

But we have to proceed on these paths in ethical ways. We don't rush headlong around the corner without some idea what we'll encounter there.

The ethical studies in this arena right now are conducted on animals. Once we perfect that process to a degree where we're not getting a handful of lucky strikes out of a mess of a hundred plus embryos, and review boards and the like determine that the time is now right for progressing that research into the human trials arena, then I hope we do so, and I hope we resolve serious medical conditions for million, possibly hundreds of millions of patients.

Its just that, and you know this Z as well as I do, right now this shit ain't ready for prime time. And that's what makes it unethicalat this juncture.

Cad

scientia potentia est

<Bronze Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,958

Actually bro I think you started out with "definitionally unethical".

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,959

Cad_sl said:
Actually bro I think you started out with "definitionally unethical".

No, I was stating that your position was definitionally wrong because you were asserting that since its just human embryos, it doesn't matter if they have research conducted on them regardless of the outcome or the pre-existing animal trials and the successes/failures of those.

I did not state that gene editing of humans is definitionally unethical at all points in time for all time, that there is no reason justification or cause to engage in this activity, and in fact multiple times I've stated that the time will come when it is ethical and acceptable, but that that time is not yet here.

If I wasn't clear enough for you, I apologize, but I was most definitely not attempting to imply that, say, 20 plus years down the line when we have (hopefully) significantly improved the success rate in animal tests and have much higher resolution technological capabilities when it comes to gene editing, that this sort of research would still be unethical. I think you should go back and reread my position.

Here's the relevant passage

What I find is that people who are hell bent on being unethical will find any justification for that goal. And luckily most scientists aren't unethical, and so aren't going to find these arguments you're making convincing. I don't care if I convince you or not, since you aren't a geneticist, and won't be engaging in this sort of research. Ergoyour opinion on the subject is functionally irrelevant

I'm not even making an argument here, I'm explaining to you why you're wrong, and you can either accept that, or not, and be wrong as a result.

We do not move on to testing on human tissues, until animal testing is to a sufficient level of success and viability to justify it.That's called doing ethical science, and since ethics in science is defined around certain principles, it is a definitional quality, and if you disagree with it, that makes you incorrectby definition.

Now how you get from me stating thatyour position that leaping past animal testing straight to human embryonic testing is unethical by definitionto thinking I'm saying thathuman embryonic testing is always unethical and always will be unethical by definition for all timeI don't really know.

Sometimes people justread what they want toand that's not a problem I can fix.

Cad

scientia potentia est

<Bronze Donator>

Apr 23, 2015

#2,960

I'm sure if you type 17 rambling fucking paragraphs in each post rather than succinctly stating a point you can find a sentence or two to agree with yourself somewhere.

Also, you misstated my position in any case.

Show hidden low quality content

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share: