Ethics or Breakthrough

Off Topic
41

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]BreStruction wrote:

So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]

Ive never really understood how ethics can justify testing on animals (who can never consent) but not test on humans (who are capable of consent).

Im far from a tree hugging PETA lover. But it’s inconsistent to believe that testing on animals IS ethical but testing on humans is not UNTIL animal tests are completed.

I believe it’s necessary to test on animals, but it’s definitely not ethical if there are humans willing to consent. [/quote]

But the issue arises that WHY would they consent to ground level testing? Early clinical trials (Phase I) that use healthy volunteers usually pay them, so I imagine you would do the same were you to do pre-clinicals on people, would you only get the destitute poor? Is that ethical?

Testing on animals is a necessary evil, and a necessary step before you test something on people. When they’re doing animal studies they’re just seeing IF and HOW it works, they’re not terribly concerned about safety (dosing). People wouldn’t stand for human subjects getting killed/permanently damaged in drug/device trials in early stages and important devices and drugs might never hit the market.

The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment. [/quote]

The first paragraph is not an issue at all. Its none of your business WHY the person has consented so long as he is an adult of sound mind.

One day humans or human-like organisms will be synthetically created or cloned (whatever) and they can be used for testing drugs.

42

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:

The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment. [/quote]

Just so you know, this isn’t taken into consideration other than keeping PETA out of the lab. Most people running experiments on animals haven’t read one book on the actual animal care-wise.

I was going to work in a finch lab last semester and they were feeding the things a straight seed diet, had them in smaller cages, and wondered why their breeding program wasn’t yielding the greatest results. Their experiment involved draining more blood out of the newborns every other day (to test hormone levels and growth rates) than you could possibly take out of an adult without killing it. That’s pretty normal and not surprising as far as lab work goes.

I suppose it’d be impossible to do what those people do with the animals if you knew much about them. That’s why I work with plants now. On a bright note, the green house is a much more relaxing place to spend an afternoon than a small, crowded, colder animal lab.

43

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]BreStruction wrote:

So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]

Ive never really understood how ethics can justify testing on animals (who can never consent) but not test on humans (who are capable of consent).

Im far from a tree hugging PETA lover. But it’s inconsistent to believe that testing on animals IS ethical but testing on humans is not UNTIL animal tests are completed.

I believe it’s necessary to test on animals, but it’s definitely not ethical if there are humans willing to consent. [/quote]

But the issue arises that WHY would they consent to ground level testing? Early clinical trials (Phase I) that use healthy volunteers usually pay them, so I imagine you would do the same were you to do pre-clinicals on people, would you only get the destitute poor? Is that ethical?

Testing on animals is a necessary evil, and a necessary step before you test something on people. When they’re doing animal studies they’re just seeing IF and HOW it works, they’re not terribly concerned about safety (dosing). People wouldn’t stand for human subjects getting killed/permanently damaged in drug/device trials in early stages and important devices and drugs might never hit the market.

The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment. [/quote]

The first paragraph is not an issue at all. Its none of your business WHY the person has consented so long as he is an adult of sound mind.

One day humans or human-like organisms will be synthetically created or cloned (whatever) and they can be used for testing drugs. [/quote]

Are you saying you think human clones will be made for the sole purpose of clinical trials?

44

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why can’t the means justify the ends? I’m curious why you or BC believe this is 100% always the case. [/quote]

Do you understand the meaning of “precedent” ?

I don’t mean that as a jab at you and I’m not just asking for the textbook definition.

What does it mean to set a bad precedent? What could possibly happen? Can you “flesh out” what would happen with a bad ethical precedent?

(As a corollary to this discussion, I’ll go ahead and say that, if it’s “right” one time, it must be “right” 100% of the time. So, either it’s right or it’s not–ever.)[/quote]

So for example if a man approaches you with a gun in hand and says, “where is (insert friends name here)”.

Now he doesn’t say why he wants to know where you friend is, but you’ve got a pretty good idea it’s not good. You of course just saw your friend 5 minutes ago and know he’s at such and such place.

Do you lie for your friend or tell the truth regardless of the possible consequences?

If a lie is always wrong correct at least according to Kant. It doesn’t fit Kant’s universal law theory. So you would be setting a bad precedent if you lie right?

Or is it in the best interest of your friend to lie? If you lie once because it is right is it right to lie 100% of the time?

Anytime you say 100% of the time you are bound to have some problems.

I agree bad precedent it well bad, but the world isn’t black and white / all or none. [/quote]

You are right and that was a bad example I used, because of the variance of scenarios where the “100%” argument could be flawed.

But I meant it solely in the context of clinical trials.

If you do something unethical just once (for the sake of a greater good), you will set a bad precedent, and that every clinical trial thereafter will look to yours and people will try to argue the ethical merits of their trial endeavors. That’s what I meant, really.

If it’s “slightly wrong” to run the trial, it will always be “slightly wrong”–given the same set of circumstances, not gross unethical behavior–and as a society we’ll have to accept “slightly wrong” as “just fine.”

I’m not sure if I’m articulating this idea properly. Might need to eat lunch…

45

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:

The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment. [/quote]

Just so you know, this isn’t taken into consideration other than keeping PETA out of the lab. Most people running experiments on animals haven’t read one book on the actual animal care-wise.

I was going to work in a finch lab last semester and they were feeding the things a straight seed diet, had them in smaller cages, and wondered why their breeding program wasn’t yielding the greatest results. Their experiment involved draining more blood out of the newborns every other day (to test hormone levels and growth rates) than you could possibly take out of an adult without killing it. That’s pretty normal and not surprising as far as lab work goes.

I suppose it’d be impossible to do what those people do with the animals if you knew much about them. That’s why I work with plants now. On a bright note, the green house is a much more relaxing place to spend an afternoon than a small, crowded, colder animal lab.[/quote]

I had meant that ideally that would be the way it would be conducted, that since animal testing is so necessary that we should still try to be humane, though I am aware that it is not as commonplace as it should be.

46

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
But the issue arises that WHY would they consent to ground level testing? Early clinical trials (Phase I) that use healthy volunteers usually pay them, so I imagine you would do the same were you to do pre-clinicals on people, would you only get the destitute poor? Is that ethical?

Testing on animals is a necessary evil, and a necessary step before you test something on people. When they’re doing animal studies they’re just seeing IF and HOW it works, they’re not terribly concerned about safety (dosing). People wouldn’t stand for human subjects getting killed/permanently damaged in drug/device trials in early stages and important devices and drugs might never hit the market.

The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment. [/quote]

The first paragraph is not an issue at all. Its none of your business WHY the person has consented so long as he is an adult of sound mind.

One day humans or human-like organisms will be synthetically created or cloned (whatever) and they can be used for testing drugs. [/quote]

It is, though, which is why certain populations that are more vulnerable to coercion/pressure have certain amounts of protection regarding obtaining their consent (soldiers, prisoners).

Inappropriate financial compensation can count as coercion and you would most certainly have to pay well to get people to do pre-clinical testing.

47

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
@BC:

If you know that by killing someone you can save three lives, what does natural law say in this case?
[/quote]

Matters. Is this person actively endangering these three lives (e.g., holding a gun to their heads, has a bomb strapped to his torso, &c.), or is this a kill one person save everyone on the Island scenario? If it’s the former nothing immoral about the act of killing the person, although prereqs should be followed (discussion, &c.) before killing the guy if possible. The latter, the option shouldn’t even come up. The means cannot be justified by the end.

48

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Test the drugs on pedophiles.[/quote]

Uh, the means can’t be justified by the end.[/quote]

Correct, because doing something like this would set BAD PRECEDENT, which is what should always be considered. In other words, don’t think of this as something to be done once, think: “Am I ok with ALWAYS doing it this way from here on out?”

If the answer is no, don’t do it.

BONEZ has a great point about consent which someone in my class last year brought up (we did similar thought experiments).

For now, animal testing leading to Phase 3 trials is the only option.

I guess declaring IPO so you can actually fund Phase 3 trials is the only option as well. Oh, wait.[/quote]

Why can’t the means justify the ends? I’m curious why you or BC believe this is 100% always the case. [/quote]

Bad precedent, as was said. You can never justify the means by the end, because who is to then say what means are unjust. If you can kill one person to save three, then you can kill 100 to save 1.

With lying, yes lying is wrong 100% of the time. If you are looking at it straight, but if you throw something in such as you are the U.S. and you’re fighting the Nazi’s or a threat of violence is introduced into the situation, it is not the same situation. Was America obligated to tell the Nazis were they were going to attack? Was it wrong to leak fake information about attacking on one front and attacking on the other? Was it wrong for those who lied to the Gestapo about hiding the Dutch Jews in their attic? I can’t give a hundred percent certain answer, but the introduction of things like war and the threat of violence changes the situation completely. Are you now lying or are you protecting an innocent life? Are you lying or are is it an intelligence attack on your enemy? I can’t say, I am only starting to learn moral theory.

49

You just have to realize that there’s NOTHING humane about animal testing.

Morally good or bad (I’m not going to make a judgement call. It’s going to continue regardless), it’s not done with anything in mind other than keeping the specimens clean and alive.

50

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Test the drugs on pedophiles.[/quote]

Uh, the means can’t be justified by the end.[/quote]

Correct, because doing something like this would set BAD PRECEDENT, which is what should always be considered. In other words, don’t think of this as something to be done once, think: “Am I ok with ALWAYS doing it this way from here on out?”

If the answer is no, don’t do it.

BONEZ has a great point about consent which someone in my class last year brought up (we did similar thought experiments).

For now, animal testing leading to Phase 3 trials is the only option.

I guess declaring IPO so you can actually fund Phase 3 trials is the only option as well. Oh, wait.[/quote]

Why can’t the means justify the ends? I’m curious why you or BC believe this is 100% always the case. [/quote]

Bad precedent, as was said. You can never justify the means by the end, because who is to then say what means are unjust. If you can kill one person to save three, then you can kill 100 to save 1.

With lying, yes lying is wrong 100% of the time. If you are looking at it straight, but if you throw something in such as you are the U.S. and you’re fighting the Nazi’s or a threat of violence is introduced into the situation, it is not the same situation. Was America obligated to tell the Nazis were they were going to attack? Was it wrong to leak fake information about attacking on one front and attacking on the other? Was it wrong for those who lied to the Gestapo about hiding the Dutch Jews in their attic? I can’t give a hundred percent certain answer, but the introduction of things like war and the threat of violence changes the situation completely. Are you now lying or are you protecting an innocent life? Are you lying or are is it an intelligence attack on your enemy? I can’t say, I am only starting to learn moral theory.[/quote]

Your second paragraph is justifying lying is it not? It’s either right 100% of the time or never right correct? If that is what you are saying how can you then justify lying to the Nazi’s or the Gestapo. You can’t not if you believe in lying being 100% wrong all the time.

I understand what you are getting at, but just like with PonceDeLeon anytime you use 100% you run into problems. For the record I would lie my ass off to save a family member.

I don’t necessarily agree killing 1 to save 3 will result in killing 100 to save 1. It’s a possibility I wouldn’t rule it out, but I think that is a little extreme.

51

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Your second paragraph is justifying lying is it not? It’s either right 100% of the time or never right correct? If that is what you are saying how can you then justify lying to the Nazi’s or the Gestapo. You can’t not if you believe in lying being 100% wrong all the time.
[/quote]

No, it is not justifying lying, I said I don’t know how it would work out because I do not understand the ins and outs of moral theory. However, I did propose certain situations on what vaguely I do understand about moral theory. The threat of violence does change a situation drastically. And, preserving life seems to me to be one of the highest orders. But, no…not justifying throwing out examples.

Universal laws have exceptions to them and those exceptions can be argued for or against. Killing is wrong 100% of the time…except in war if it is an enemy combatant or self defense.

What we run into when we just throw out the Universal laws is trouble.

[quote]
I don’t necessarily agree killing 1 to save 3 will result in killing 100 to save 1. It’s a possibility I wouldn’t rule it out, but I think that is a little extreme. [/quote]

Really? What about Stalin and his tens of millions so a few could live in a Utopia? He felt it was justified to do that. I know Stalin is an extreme, but when you let go of the idea that the means cannot be justified by the ends and you start justifying the means by the ends who is going to be the person who is in charge of what means are justified?

52

Alright, I’m going to disregard the bullshit that has come before in this thread, and answer the original question.

No, I would not perform the experiment. The laws of informed consent not only exist to safeguard any and all test subjects, they also safeguard the reputation and credibility of science in general. No breakthrough, no matter how great, will be accepted if it was written in human blood and suffering. This is why scientists are not burned at the stake as witches performing dark rituals any more, because of thousands of years of mostly positive PR has gotten us to this point. Human experimentation without consent is RIGHTLY illegal.

Also, no breakthrough can be used without being confirmed by other groups. This means more human experimentation and suffering, actions that will actually undermine the credibility of your research, and all of science.

There are ways of making subjects aware of the effects of the experiment, without actually affecting the data. Psychological studies do this all the time, by listing the all of the possible effects of the experiment, and informing patients that they can stop whenever they want to. Thusly, the patient is still in the dark about the actual experiment, yet your results are intact.

All experiments, including those done on animals, are reviewed by independent Review Boards for their risks and benefits. For animal testing, the processes are evaluated to avoid cruelty towards the animals. The consent process is evaluated if done on humans, in order to make certain each patient is informed of the risks they face.

53

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Your second paragraph is justifying lying is it not? It’s either right 100% of the time or never right correct? If that is what you are saying how can you then justify lying to the Nazi’s or the Gestapo. You can’t not if you believe in lying being 100% wrong all the time.
[/quote]

No, it is not justifying lying, I said I don’t know how it would work out because I do not understand the ins and outs of moral theory. However, I did propose certain situations on what vaguely I do understand about moral theory. The threat of violence does change a situation drastically. And, preserving life seems to me to be one of the highest orders. But, no…not justifying throwing out examples.

Universal laws have exceptions to them and those exceptions can be argued for or against. Killing is wrong 100% of the time…except in war if it is an enemy combatant or self defense.

What we run into when we just throw out the Universal laws is trouble.

[quote]
I don’t necessarily agree killing 1 to save 3 will result in killing 100 to save 1. It’s a possibility I wouldn’t rule it out, but I think that is a little extreme. [/quote]

Really? What about Stalin and his tens of millions so a few could live in a Utopia? He felt it was justified to do that. I know Stalin is an extreme, but when you let go of the idea that the means cannot be justified by the ends and you start justifying the means by the ends who is going to be the person who is in charge of what means are justified?[/quote]

Stalin is an extreme example and you are right his actions are a prime reason to consider ethics in a given situation. Events such as that are few and far between and almost universally considered wrong. The world we live in; however, is filled with much less drastic events. Do you kill 5 dogs if it means saving 2 human lives? How about killing 100 men to cure HIV?

You could argue for or against, but either way you really cannot be wrong.

The idea of a universal law is definitely trouble in and of itself because there is no such situation at least that I can think of where a universal law is just that universal. That is why I typically agree with a utilitarian approach to ethics although there are plenty of flaws with that theory as well.