/sci/ - Science & Math

Humans have rights

ethics

We do. I've participated in a few drug trials myself.

>>1072379
>rights ahahahahahahah

>>1072379

Humans have... rights? Where are you? The fucking 21st century? Get out of your rock.

We do perform human experiments. People actually volunteer.

Can we experiment on u?

l2 unit 731 and dr. joseph mengle

Just by living all humans already are performing valuable experiments that science can collect data and analyze.

Because once we start, you'll be the first human experimented on.

motherfucking hippies are holding us back

I believe that we should test on Death Row inmates. Not like they're going anywhere.

>>1072426
Would you like to be experimented on?

>>1072434
No, but I'd rather not die of AIDS, either.

maybe some secret organizations (UMBRELLA lol) are doing it without us knowing. The motherfuckers!

>>1072392
But what if we were to breed humans like we do rabbits in trials? That would be much easier, and we could monitor them at all times, guaranteering results that we can trust.

>>1072459
Would you like it if you were a human who was bred with the specific purpose of being tested on his/her whole life?

>>1072459
Okay. Can I have your sister/girlfriend/mother to start my breeding program? I need subjects.

>>1072484
>>1072482
But if they were only used for that purpose (from birth to death) they would know no different.

>>1072497
Okay, I'll be needing your firstborn child as Subject Zero then. Are we agreed?

>>1072497

Not completely relevant, but have you seen The Island? It was fucking awful, but the plot is basically that.

>>1072497
But that's not what I asked.
Would you LIKE IT if you were bred with only the purpose of being tested on (keeping in mind that some of these tests can even get quite unpleasant)?

>>1072509
Obviously they wouldn't wait 9 months for each test subject. Test tubes are faster.

this is why we need to enslave the jews

>>1072369

Because most of us have an understanding of the golden rule, you fuckwit.

>>1072525
No, I suppose I wouldn't.
Then again, I have already been assimliated into society, and realize what I am missing. Therefore I am irrelevant.

>>1072528
>implying invitro fertilization actually involves the fetus growing inside a test tube
There's a reason it's called fertilization and not incubation. You still need a surrogate mother, at least.

>>1072540
Haven't you ever seen a report on those kids that get locked in a cage for their whole lives? They look anything but happy.

>>1072540
Look, whether you've been assimilated into society or not does not matter. What matters is that we're all humans and we should respect each other equally and respect each others' dignity, even if the price is a little bit of scientific progress (which I'm sure we'll make anyway).

>>1072563
I see...
But that is not in human nature at all, is it?
To respect one another without question.

>>1072587

In practice, no, but most people realize that it's an ideal worth striving for, so that society as a whole will run more smoothly.

Or if the phrase "to respect one another without question" is too charged and unqualified (it is), insert some variant. "Don't break my shit and I won't break your shit."

>>1072601
You make a good point. Thanks.

>>1072587
Not animal nature, no.
But humans are more than your average animal, are they not?

Also:

/sci/- Ethical Debates

>>1072369

motehrfucking human rights, give yourself up douchebag

>>1072587
Actually, it's been shown that empathy tends to come together with self-awareness, since we're also aware that other humans are like us, and have at least some ability to put ourselves in their shoes.

People without empathy are called sociopaths for a reason.

>>1072459
That's a stupid idea even if nobody cared. It would take way too long to breed and grow them enough for testing.

>>1072369
we need some real scientists in here who understand why animal models are often far superior.

1. human reproduce super slowly
2. human diseases are often rare, but animal models of human disease can be created in the laboratory
3. not having to worry about making other things worse (you don't want to give someone cancer by treating them for asthma)
4. you can euthanize the animal at the end of the experiment to see if it worked (e.g. doing histology with their spinal cords, etc.)
5. scientific expertise: we know how to make cloned mice pretty damn easily, so it's far easier to test all the parameters with them first
6. it's far cheaper to work with animals
7. ...
8. omg i could think of good reasons for days...
9. etc.

>>1072620
Why is my right not to be experimented on superior to my right not to die of horrible diseases? It seems to me that, either way, I'd (probably) be dead. Therefore the route involving less eventual loss of human life must be morally superior.

bump for interesting subject

>>1072529
agreed.

>>1072978
well, you could do some stuff secretly and maybe it would be ethical, but I think it's too tricky to work out the logistics on a national or international level, too much opportunity for misuse, remember, scientists need money, they aren't above that. I know a number of people with terminal diseases are all too willing to try experiment drugs and other dangerous research

It's called ethics, OP. From your misanthropic view of life you may see others as objects, but remember that the test subject could be your mother, father, brother, sister. Would you want someone you love vivisected? We agree not to test on others so others won't test on us or people we love.

>>1075853
This.
Science has limits.

>>1075864
>>1075853

Oh please, we could test it on murderers. Even Christians don't have a problem with them being killed.

>>1075889
We have laws against torture.
For a reason. Also, prison is not a real world environment for a patient in study.

>>1075906

>We have laws against torture.
For a reason. Also, prison is not a real world environment for a patient in study.

>Implying animals used for testing are in a "real world environment

>Implying the governments don't torture anyway,

>Implying all testing would be torture

>>1075889
I don't know about your nationality but here in the U.S. we have this thing called a constitution, and there is a little amendment in there about cruel and unusual punishment. Same with the Brits' bill of rights.

>>1075889

Then you're stooping to the level of the murderer.

I'm surprised a biofag doesn't support human ethics.

>>1075918

What if the prisoners agreed to it?

>>1075933

fucking dumbass

>>1075927

Well yes and no, i'm more into protecting animals anyway.

>>1075938

Good explanation. Keep it up.

>>1072977

Also....

>Use human test subjects to try and cure disease
>Tests go wrong
>Disease mutates and becomes resistant to tested medicines
>Breakout occurs
>1/3 of humanity dies

>>1075853
OP here
You used the word misanthropic. Is that what it seems like?

>>1075976

I must admit, I'm not sure if your question was asking about experimenting with consent or without consent.
But assuming you're talking about experimenting without consent: you're asking a question which seems to characterize you as unsympathetic to people.

Hey, guys, don't you know that there are human experiments being conducted? They are just limited to what is deemed 'safe'.