Originally Posted by Wayfarer (Post 599684)

in the individual case of stem cell research, only naivety or an utter inability to think logically could evince in allegations of immorality; however, i do feel that the libertarian principle of non-aggression should by all means be employed in scientific investigation, though it's feasible that such an ethical stance could ultimately impede progress.

Originally Posted by FaSho (Post 599242)

But how can you judge what those things are?

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 599705)

They took bets, when they bombed Japan in WWII, that the after effect would rip the atmosphere off of the planet.

Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter (Post 599620)

I think it's irresponsible to say that science should not use ethics in their experiments/research. I don't think you can say that science is amoral because it's done by people, and people will always have morals, ethics, and principles that can be violated. I think that ethics in science is something that is always evolving because we have to answer new questions, like "is it ethical to use aborted fetuses to help other people?"

I think that as long as there are human scientists that are part of a culture, science will always, and should always have ethics. There has to be some line drawn (in pencil, because like I said science is always evolving but there has to be discussion as to whether the research being done is ethical before it can be allowed to continue) because what if you have a drug that you know would be dangerous or fatal to a person taking it but the fastest way to figure out how to improve it was to give it to someone who is sick? What ratio of people dying to the drug : people being saved by the drug is acceptable?

And I think fireincairo brought up a good point about the nazis, because they thought they were acting amorally by creating horrific experiments on the jews because they didn't see the jews as human beings.

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog (Post 599708)

They created the bomb. How isn't that science?

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 599718)

I think he was more getting at the fact the actual act of dropping the bombs had more to do with war than curiosity.

Originally Posted by sleepy jack (Post 599718)

I think he was more getting at the fact the actual act of dropping the bombs had more to do with war than curiosity. However to use a less debatable example there was that whole black hole scare with the Large Hadron Collider last year.



Point A. I fail to see how aborted (key word here) fetuses is even worthy of an ethical debate.
Point B. In response to your example about the drug, people who are sick do give consent to take dangerous drugs if there's a chance that it will cure them. I see no reason why a consenting adult aware of the risks should be denied participating based on what others deem "ethical."
Point C. They weren't acting amorally in what they did, they were acting immorally. There is no factual reason to believe Jewish people are inferior so there is no reason to believe experimentation on them as opposed to another group of people would be more or less moral. It's absurd when people get into these slippery slope arguments. Science IS an amoral process, the scientists aren't of course but I fail to see why as long as you're not interfering with someone else's life (without it being permissiable) there should be any sort of restriction.

Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter (Post 599821)

A. I actually am in favor or stem-cell research, but whether you are for it or against it, it still raises ethical questions.

B. I was saying that the scientists knew that the drug could be fatal, and yes people who are terminally ill do consent to having drugs with a lot of negative side-effects, but it's (IMO) unethical to test a drug on someone that you knew could cause death as an effect of the pill.

Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter (Post 599821)

C. It is not a fact that jews are any less human than anyone else, but it was the viewpoint of the nazis that they were no better than lab rats to be experimented on, so from their perspective they were operating amorally, but from our perspective they were operating immorally which means that innately there are ethics in science.

Originally Posted by The Robot Hunter (Post 599821)

Even the fact that you say "as long as you're not interfering with someone else's life (without it being permissable)" means that science innately has ethics. I'm not debating your ethical stances on science, I'm simply saying that science has ethics.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In health care, clinical trials are conducted to allow safety and efficacy data to be collected for new drugs or devices. These trials can only take place once satisfactory information has been gathered on the quality of the product and its non-clinical safety, and Health Authority/Ethics Committee approval is granted in the country where the trial is taking place.

<--- snip --->

Clinical trials are closely supervised by appropriate regulatory authorities. All studies that involve a medical or therapeutic intervention on patients must be approved by a supervising ethics committee before permission is granted to run the trial. The local ethics committee has discretion on how it will supervise noninterventional studies (observational studies or those using already collected data). In the U.S., this body is called the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Most IRBs are located at the local investigator's hospital or institution, but some sponsors allow the use of a central (independent/for profit) IRB for investigators who work at smaller institutions.
To be ethical, researchers must obtain the full and informed consent of participating human subjects. (One of the IRB's main functions is ensuring that potential patients are adequately informed about the clinical trial.) If the patient is unable to consent for him/herself, researchers can seek consent from the patient's legally authorized representative. In California, the state has prioritized the individuals who can serve as the legally authorized representative.
In some U.S. locations, the local IRB must certify researchers and their staff before they can conduct clinical trials. They must understand the federal patient privacy (HIPAA) law and good clinical practice. International Conference of Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP) is a set of standards used internationally for the conduct of clinical trials. The guidelines aim to ensure that the "rights, safety and well being of trial subjects are protected".
The notion of informed consent of participating human subjects exists in many countries all over the world, but its precise definition may still vary.
Informed consent is clearly a necessary condition for ethical conduct but does not ensure ethical conduct. The final objective is to serve the community of patients or future patients in a best-possible and most responsible way. However, it may be hard to turn this objective into a well-defined quantified objective function. In some cases this can be done, however, as for instance for questions of when to stop sequential treatments (see Odds algorithm), and then quantified methods may play an important role.