Human Experimentation

[S.A.M.]

When we enter graduate study, we have a course on ethics which tells us about all the unethical people that used to experiment on the institutionalised, imprisoned, mentally challenged or the socially backward individuals. We are told about the consequences of experimentation on the individuals targeted by scientists or organisations. There are examples of Jenner testing his vaccine on children, of Dalziels giving electric shock to humans and animals, of the Vipeholm experiments

But whats objectively or scientifically or intrinsically wrong with human experimentation? What makes it unethical? Don't we all practice self experimentation to some degree?

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research

National Academy of Sciences. 2009. On Being a Scientist: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The national Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192

Ethical Practice: Principles and Guidelines for Research with Vulnerable Individuals and Families An ethical protocol for social science research developed by the Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System link

 

[Neverfly]

It's because we hate to think of our mentally family members etc nbeing experimented upon by mad scientists.

Morality is so supernatural.

 

[James R]

But whats objectively or scientifically or intrinsically wrong with human experimentation?

Nothing. Everybody who agrees to be a subject in a clinical trial is a human experimental subject.

What makes it unethical?

Lack of informed consent is one thing.

Don't we all practice self experimentation to some degree?

Do we? I suppose most people would consent to self-experimentation, don't you think?

 

[S.A.M.]

Do we? I suppose most people would consent to self-experimentation, don't you think?

Not necessarily, I don't experiment with hard drugs for instance and I am unlikely to experiment with self mutilation beyond nail biting and waxing, and highly unlikely to opt to experiment with self killing, but that is just me.

Is there any value on human life greater than what we assign to our own?

 

[Neverfly]

Is there any value on human life greater than what we assign to our own?

Yes. Mostly within our monkey sphere.
Even so, selfishness does seem to be the law of the land...

 

[lightgigantic]

When we enter graduate study, we have a course on ethics which tells us about all the unethical people that used to experiment on the institutionalised, imprisoned, mentally challenged or the socially backward individuals. We are told about the consequences of experimentation on the individuals targeted by scientists or organisations. There are examples of Jenner testing his vaccine on children, of Dalziels giving electric shock to humans and animals, of the Vipeholm experiments

But whats objectively or scientifically or intrinsically wrong with human experimentation? What makes it unethical? Don't we all practice self experimentation to some degree?

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research

National Academy of Sciences. 2009. On Being a Scientist: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The national Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192

Ethical Practice: Principles and Guidelines for Research with Vulnerable Individuals and Families An ethical protocol for social science research developed by the Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System link

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article on the subject

A prominent ethician once observed to me that back in the mid-1960s, when he first started in the field of what would come to be called bioethics, a standard discussion in medical ethics was about whether it was licit to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, in which the fetus was incapable of developing and its presence in a fallopian tube would quickly kill the mother. His point wasn't that we shouldn't allow the removal of an ectopic fallopian tube. It was, rather, that we used to assume even this life-saving procedure required a sophisticated and delicate argument before we permitted it. Hedge by hedge, that old sophistication and delicacy was bulldozed down until, thirty-odd years later, on December 20, Stanford University announced that it was building a $12 million research center that would deliberately create cloned human fetuses in order to destroy them for biomedical research.

IOW when you start to knock out what appears to be a single isolated hedge in ethics, you can easily path the way for bulldozing the entire garden.

Once upon a time, we built hedge after hedge of protection around the deep things about life and death a culture must maintain. The hedges themselves are not all that important, but when they fall they weaken our defenses--however much those people who knock them down insist they are only clearing away a single hedge.

 

[siledre]

technically isn't life an experiment. biological life form interaction causes changes that can be good or bad and nature is always favoring one over another depending on those changes.

 

[wynn]

But whats objectively or scientifically or intrinsically wrong with human experimentation? What makes it unethical?

For one, such experimentation begs the question of the purpose of experimenting; it implies that science must progress even at the cost of human life. But if the aim of science is to improve the quality of human life, isn't then sacrificing human life for that a contradiction in purposes?

As for the arguments from eugenics and similar "one species/race/kind is superior to another" views:
If the Nazis were convinced that the Jews were an inferior race, then how did they believe that experimenting on them could bring any results that could be relevant for the superior race?
Similar goes for experiments on animals, handicapped humans, prisoners etc.

If the results of the experiments on an inferior (or expendable) species/race/kind are to be considered relevant for the superior species/race/kind - then how exactly is the inferior one different from the superior one?

And if they are not different, how can sacrificing any of them be justified?

 

[S.A.M.]

For one, such experimentation begs the question of the purpose of experimenting; it implies that science must progress even at the cost of human life. But if the aim of science is to improve the quality of human life, isn't then sacrificing human life for that a contradiction in purposes?

As for the arguments from eugenics and similar "one species/race/kind is superior to another" views:
If the Nazis were convinced that the Jews were an inferior race, then how did they believe that experimenting on them could bring any results that could be relevant for the superior race?
Similar goes for experiments on animals, handicapped humans, prisoners etc.

If the results of the experiments on an inferior (or expendable) species/race/kind are to be considered relevant for the superior species/race/kind - then how exactly is the inferior one different from the superior one?

And if they are not different, how can sacrificing any of them be justified?

Does science have any such purpose? One would argue that science has enabled man to plunder destroy and exhaust the earth but that also assumes that there is a status quo for the earth which must be maintained.

Considering that, aren't human beings also resources, why not use/abuse them? Its not like we are running out of material.

So why assign some arbitrary value to "human life"?

 

[786]

Hmm... Environmentalists talk about our 'footprint' on Earth- maybe we can return the favor by grinding up dead humans and feeding them to the dogs or lions instead of burying them...... Is there something wrong with this :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

Hmm... Environmentalists talk about our 'footprint' on Earth- maybe we can return the favor by grinding up dead humans and feeding them to the dogs or lions instead of burying them...... Is there something wrong with this :shrug:

Peace be unto you

I've thought along similar lines. Seems like such a waste.

 

[Michael]

Only a lack of informed consent. Other than that, if you can provide a competent human with all the available information, there's nothing wrong with experimenting on humans.

 

[wynn]

So why assign some arbitrary value to "human life"?

Because we are apparently unable to actually function without ascribing such value to our lives - whether we openly declare that or not.
Despite what all those "we are just biomechanical blobs" proponents are saying.


I think there is much duplicity going on in so-called scientific pursuits and that there are many taboos.
Often, scientists seem to be no better than kids in a sandbox, except that the scientists can incur so much harm and spend enormous amounts of resources.

 

[Trippy]

Hmm... Environmentalists talk about our 'footprint' on Earth- maybe we can return the favor by grinding up dead humans and feeding them to the dogs or lions instead of burying them...... Is there something wrong with this :shrug:

Peace be unto you

George Orwell 'A Brave New World'.

The dead are incinerated, and every available ounce of useful nutrient and material is recycled.