/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2361794]

Am I the only person here that wishes human experimentation was allowed? Even consensual experimentation is looked down upon and that irks to me hell. There's so much potential and effective data that can be mined out with experimenting on people, and the results and helpfulness towards humanity is too great to pass up, and I would gladly pay somebody $1000-5000 for each experiment they let me do on them. It's just not fair.

What about you /sci/?

[Anonymous No.2362239]

I'm fine with it but $5000 and a finance potential negative consequences fund would be very useful. The problem is that as in one episode of house pointed out. The only people who could feasibly consent with full knowledge is someone with as much knowledge as the scientist experimenting on him or smarter. Alot of people who get tested are sadly too dumb and some people see this as taking advantage of them.

[Anonymous No.2362267]

Playing Russian Roulette with a human life and potentially causing someone to die a painful, untimely death is a bit unsettling. We should grow human tissue using stem cells from the embryos from invitro clinics that would just be thrown away anyway and run tests on that.

[Anonymous No.2362272]

I agree wholeheartedly.

We should use prisoners like with their sentences being proportionate to the potential danger of the experiment, or rather vice versa.

So if a criminal was sentenced to life we could use them for a experiment that could potentially lead to death.

[Anonymous No.2362277]

There is lots of human experimentation on volunteers. At least in the pharmaceutical industry, where you don't really have much choice.
Oh and the stuff being tested is put through the most rigorous toxicity testing known to man first, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.2362280]

What we really need is involuntary experimentation on humans.

[Anonymous No.2362282]

>and I would gladly pay somebody $1000-5000 for each experiment they let me do on them.

the fact that you don't know it already exists unsettles me..

[Anonymous No.2362284]

>>2362280
The government does that all the time. At least in the US.

[Anonymous No.2362295]

>>2362272

and like a couple weeks in jail is like a swab of their saliva and a blood draw or something like that

[Anonymous No.2362304]

Just what is OP hoping to gain out of human experimentation?

Fact is that most human experimentation that goes on happens in fields where it's of limited applicable worth(psychology).

In other fields, it's just less than optimal. There's a lot of experiments that benefit from using model animals because they're cheap, disposable, and have fast generational times.

As it is, humans make terrible model organisms because we don't fully understand the extent of human genetics, and developing 'test humans' of set genetic makeup is not ideal since we have single births about a year apart and take so fucking long to grow up.

Even apes and monkeys, as prohibitively expensive as they are, are a bargain compared to humans when it comes to experimentation.

[Anonymous No.2362305]

>>2361794

Careful lad, you're treading into the "At Any Cost" zone. The happiness of many never justifies the pain of a few.

[Anonymous No.2362309]

>>2362280
The CIA's MK series of experiments showed that it happens quite a lot. Unfortunately, the CIA seems to only get its science from sci-fi movies and TV shows so they never actually researched anything worthwhile.

>I would gladly pay somebody $1000-5000 for each experiment they let me do on them
The problem with that is its considered to be financial coercion. An IRB will actually limit how much you can compensate people so that they don't feel compelled to do it just for the money (in other words we're only allowed to give people a trivial reward for participation).

[Anonymous No.2362318]

>The happiness of many never justifies the pain of a few.

So we should get rid of prisons?

[Anonymous No.2362316]

>>2362304
>Even apes and monkeys, as prohibitively expensive as they are, are a bargain compared to humans
The funny part is that's only true if you do things legally. The average cost of a human slave on the black market is $50.

[Anonymous No.2362323]

>>2362316

>$50

What!? WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU BUYING!?!? Shit, I need to shop with you! Most of the guys I talk to won't get outta bed for atleast 150

[Anonymous No.2362325]

>>2362318

>Free food
>Free clothes
>No rape if you aren't anti-social and know how to get in a gang

What? Prisions are painful to the majority of inmates?

[Anonymous No.2362329]

>>2362304

Now THIS is an ideal model organism. It's a vertebrate, so a whole lot of its embryonic development is relevant to other vertebrates, including humans, and thus, makes a great initial model organism for the field of teratology, especially birth defects.

Its extremely low cost, fast generational times, and high fecundity, and ease of keeping allow most labs to maintain their own little zebrafish aquariums for usage.

Also, its embryo is transparent, which makes this thing ezmode for observing the embryo and otherwise tracking changes throughout the body.

[Anonymous No.2362333]

hit me up with details. [e-mail] ironic maybe. Details sir

[Anonymous No.2362334]

>>2362329

...But it's a fish

[Anonymous No.2362336]

>>2362325
Are you retarded? The inmates who do the raping are anti-social. Not the ones who are raped. Anti-social means not having capability for empathy and a high degree of narcissism. What you propably meant for is un-social. Regards: 3rd year psychology student.

[Anonymous No.2362337]

I would sign for medical testing any day. I don't know why, I always wanted to do that.
I'm not suicidal or depressed or any shit like that, I just want stuff to be tested on me. Some kind of a fetish I guess.
I just don't know any institution that does this. And even if I knew, I'd be to embarrassed to go and ask if they want to experiment on me.

[Anonymous No.2362341]

>>2362329
>>EASY MODO
IT'S UNFORGIVABLE TO PLAY ON EASY MODE UNLESS YOU'RE AN UNDERGRAD

[Anonymous No.2362338]

>>2362336

Wow u mad

[Anonymous No.2362339]

>>2362316

Yeah, but that's just some random fucktard you know nothing about.

You generally want to keep track of your animal's origins and stuff, and an ape requires less space than a human, too.

If humans actually go into demand in the research industry, their costs will skyrocket.

It's one thing to buy five people for your thai whorehouse.

It's another to order a battery of 20+ for toxicology experiments.

I doubt traffickers would be able to keep up.

[Anonymous No.2362343]

>>2362325
>focus on reforming prisoners rather than blind punishment
>criminals across the nation cry out in anguish
>need to get a job to pay and pay for themselves
>trollface.jpg

[Anonymous No.2362344]

>>2362334

And humans are just fish with specialized kidneys and limbs, essentially.

It's not a human, you're right. However, as an initial model for the most preliminary experiments, zebrafish are wonderful.

Many teratogens can affect really basic developmental mechanisms, and will have obvious effects on most vertebrates. This is the easiest way to tell, by exposing the embryos to suspected teratogens and charting out their survival rate/abnormal development.

Zebrafish are fucking -wonderful-.

[Anonymous No.2362346]

>>2362343

>Prision debate
>Always makes me think the Big Brother route is better

I'd be drinkin' victory gin atleast...

[Anonymous No.2362347]

>>2362336

I'm pretty sure he was being ironic...

[Anonymous No.2362348]

>>2362323
Africa, Burma, and other 3rd world shitholes. As it turns out, when you've got 4 billion people living in deep poverty the value of human life gets pretty diluted.

[Anonymous No.2362351]

I wonder how useful it would be.
A lot of medical experimentation/research is performed on mice and it can be made to work on humans too.
Unlike mice, humans take a long time to grow.

I tend to be of the opinion that "headless" human clones (let's say with genes for generating the brain beyond the brain stem being deleted) should be perfectly legal to make and experiment on. Doing so should be a lot more humane than experimenting on monkeys or even mice as they would technically have more consciousness and intelligence than such a clone. Too bad this won't be happening too much since politicians and some other people think this is somehow unethical (how is it more unethical than experimenting on animals whose brain is not that much different in structure than that of the human? Those animals would likely suffer more). Such clones might also be useful for transplants and other things. It might however be less of use these days as people learn to grow tissue from stem cells, which is faster than growing a whole human.

[Anonymous No.2362352]

>>2362346

Victory Gin? Motherfucker, we'd be in the inner party drinking some of that black shit!

[Anonymous No.2362353]

I hate atheists more than theists.
burn

[Anonymous No.2362355]

>>2362351

>tend to be of the opinion that "headless" human clones (let's say with genes for generating the brain beyond the brain stem being deleted) should be perfectly legal to make and experiment on

[Anonymous No.2362357]

>>2362351

You. YOU AND EVERYONE LIKE YOU. You are the reason that we will have a caste-system based on whether you're naturally born or cloned or genetically enhanched.

[Anonymous No.2362359]

>>2362351

>let's say with genes for generating the brain beyond the brain stem being deleted
>Implying we can be that specific

Ok, even if that was horribly unethical, we're not at that level of technology to be able to do this cheaply. Come back in 20 or 30 years.

[Anonymous No.2362360]

>>2362357
Fucking Dinkleberg, always 1uping him.

[Anonymous No.2362364]

>>2362355
>>2362357
>>2362359
Explain how this is morally wrong. If there is no consciousness, there is no pain. An animal would feel more pain than that. Are you merely basing this off the fact that it's based on human DNA and not some of our distant mammalian ancestor or sister/brother?

[Anonymous No.2362369]

>>2362364

If you can't see the ethical implications in making fucking headless beings, you need to see a doc.

[Anonymous No.2362374]

>>2362369

To be fair, it's about as unethical as abortion.

So if you're against aborting perfectly normal humans, then it stands to reason you'd be against this.

But whatever. Said model humans would still be terrible due to time and cost.

[Anonymous No.2362377]

>>2362369
I doubt it could even function as a normal animal. How is this more unethical than let's say growing entire organs separately from stem cells (assuming it would be possible, not saying it is now)?

What truly makes a person is their brain, if they lack it, that's just the rest of the organism, not a human being.

[Anonymous No.2362380]

>>2362369
Jellyfish would like to have a word with you.

[Anonymous No.2362383]

>Take biology
>ABORTIONS, CLONES, ETHICS, MORALS
>Drop class

>Take Physics
>STARS, FORCES, FUCKING LASERS
>I'm home

Dear god, I have no idea why anyone would take biology in today's political enviorment.

[Anonymous No.2362385]

Dead god, this fucking thread...Where's Sagan or Nye when you need them?

[Anonymous No.2362396]

>>2362380
no they wouldn't

[Anonymous No.2362399]

>>2362396
Exactly, they have no brain. Ethics, fuck em all.

[Anonymous No.2362403]

>>2362399

[Anonymous No.2362405]

>>2362383
Studying various (to put it lightly) aspects of organisms, human or otherwise.

But you already knew that.

[Anonymous No.2362411]

>>2362403
I'm okay with this.

[Anonymous No.2362412]

>>2362374
It'd probably be even less troublesome than abortion. At least those fetuses have a slightly developed nervous system (not saying any form of consciousness), but this would have none of that (it would be incapable of, for the genes to generate those organs would not exist). It is essentially just equivalent to growing all the organs except the brain.

Harming humans is immoral because you're harming a conscious being. Slashing a piece of meat cannot be immoral as there's no consciousness/perception there.

[Anonymous No.2362418]

>>2362412
>immoral
I should care why?

[Anonymous No.2362427]

>>2362418
science cares not for morals...only data

stand aside rubes!

[Anonymous No.2362428]

>>2362418
Just saying that it should be an alternative to some forms of human trials/experimentation. Most scientists try to be ethical in their research. I'm arguing that something like this would be perfectly ethical, even moreso than some forms of animal experimentation.

[Anonymous No.2362449]

HEY DUMBASS

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or if you're so fucking antisocial and morally clueless that you don't understand, but the ethical issues don't come from experimenting on this headless being, they come from MANIPULATING FUCKING HUMAN DNA TO CREATE THE FREAK.

You are exactly the reason religion is a good thing, because without having basic ethical rules ingrained at a young age some people are really incapable of understanding basic human morals.

[Anonymous No.2362460]

>>2362449
I'm not religious.

What's so wrong with modifying human DNA? It's just genetic code that was evolved over time, with reasonably small (in precentage) differences from a monkey. It's not some fucking sacred thing. Human DNA is altered by evolutionary processes whenever you breed. It's altered by stochastic chemical processes and many more. It's nothing too fucking magical.

If the only allowed modification in your book is that performed by cold and cruel evolution, you're free to die if you so wish. Myself, I'll always be supporting improving ourselves through any means possible. Just like a strong AI of the future could improve on itself, so should humans, except that this doesn't happen because evolved genetic code is not engineered and it's a complex mess of a program, what you would expect of anything that is product of evolution - no easy engineering practices there.

[Anonymous No.2362463]

its called a slippery slope dumbass ,

[Anonymous No.2362467]

>>2362460
I know you're not religious.

You probably should be. And it's the large number of people like you who do in fact rely on their religion for any sort of moral guidance beyond basic rules that create the need for religion to exist in the first place.

My ex girlfriend was like that. Smart enough and a fine person to be around, but just completely incapable of understanding the moral reasoning that most people take for granted.

[Anonymous No.2362479]

>>2362467
>Moral guidance.
Time for you to go bed. You're speaking gibberish.

[Anonymous No.2362480]

>>2362467
I base my moral reasoning on objective standards that I've decided to follow. At a simple level it's the golden rule and at a more advanced level it's minimizing the total amount of suffering of the group as a whole.

You may view our species and existences as something sacred, while I don't. If given the option to upload myself in the future or become a cyborg, I would take it. I only care about my consciousness and the consciousness of other human beings. I don't have any qualms about people altering themselves. Of course, I also don't see any problem with tinkering with human DNA itself, however I do imagine that since our current technology is quite imperfect, it would probably result in a lot of unsuccesful experiments before some success, which is what would be unethical as it could create conscious beings (in the headless example) before they succeeded in removing the gene. In which case, I would agree that this would be immoral. However, if they did it by analyzing the same genes in another mammal and then transfering this knowledge to humans, it would probably be okay.

[Anonymous No.2362492]

>>2362467
Religion is hardly a good moral standard. Secular moral standards are far superior and more objective. Saying something is immoral because "some imaginary being said so" is stupid and will only create pain and suffering. Such absolute moral standards are immoral in themselves are partially responsible for the suffering in the world today.

[Anonymous No.2362529]

>>2362467
learn moral relativity, learn that their is no such thing as souls, learn that humans are just a series of complex chemical reactions keeping a bunch of cells alive, thats all we are, now STFU and get out of /sci/ with your morality shit.

[Anonymous No.2362533]

>>2362467

Unless you're part of some modern cult, then your religion likely makes no claims whatsoever regarding the ethics of genetic manipulation.

I also think you overestimate your case for this being considered immoral. Is it more moral to harm an animal of limited cognitive ability, that is sentient and can feel the pain caused by testing; or to grow a genetic duplicate of the species that the treatment/product is ultimately intended for that has no cognitive abilities and cannot feel pain? Recognizing that that is not specifically your point of conflict, why is it exactly wrong to manipulate genetic code carefully, with understanding of the mechanics of the changes made (I'm assuming this technology being in the future, as this whole premise is not realistically feasible right now) if they, for example, cure genetic diseases? I ask this because if your argument is that the genetic code is where the morality comes into play, then treating genetic diseases like hemophilia is unethical.

[Anonymous No.2362550]

>>2362533
I'm trying to think exactly what his moral objections could be.

I know a religious(creationist) person which objects to DNA modification because he thinks we shouldn't tinker with "God's perfect work" and he doesn't really believe in evolution, thus making this person's understand of DNA fairly incomplete.

If he does not have such a silly moral justification like the previous one, maybe he does not want society to turn into the case >>2362357 is arguing about. However, I think such worries are unfounded. Even if society does turn that way, it would only benefit society at large and those that would lose from it (or be discrimnated against) would be those whose parents decided against genetic manipulation (see the movie: Gattaca). However even if such a society would be inevitable in the future, I think the overall gain society would have from removing genetic diseases would be higher. Improving ourselves can only be positive. He is probably on the same stupid line of thought that says that humans die and we shouldn't do anything to prevent that as it's the natural outcome.

I severly disagree with such statements and I think their morals are immoral.

[Anonymous No.2362625]

This thread really feels like a circle jerk of narcissists. You guys can talk about how morals are subjective all you please, but when 99% of humanity is disgusted by your action, you'd best be prepared for some backlash.

Also whats this shit about making a headfless human. First of all I hope you don't mean literally headless. You might be aware that without a brain the body has been found to die. Don't believe me? Try shooting yourself in the head. You will find that within mere moments vital body processes cease and within minutes all cellular activity comes to an end.

But supposing you could create a human being that has simply no conciousness or sentient thought, you still run into an area where it could be easily argued that the person being tested would have been a healthy human being if not for the interference of you derps. Simply put the line between a 'souless' husk and a regular human being is far too hazy to make these 'headless' people an ethically viable option.

Also, the scientific community very regularly conducts limited human experimentation. I.E. clinical trials for new medicines or studies inthe softer sciences such as psychology or sociology.

[Anonymous No.2362629]

>>2362625
>You guys can talk about how morals are subjective all you please, but when 99% of humanity is disgusted by your action, you'd best be prepared for some backlash.
So?

[Anonymous No.2362643]

>>2362629

So you go to jail for the next 20 years for human rights violations and lose the ability to practice in your field ever again.

[Anonymous No.2362644]

>>2362629
I really couldn't care less as long as the act was within a proper moral standard. Various countries also outlawed drugs (and other victimless crimes) and religion fucked up Africa worse than it could by saying condoms are bad, so now you have even more AIDS and dieing children. I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to the same "moral" standards as certain popular groups.

[Anonymous No.2362645]

>>2362625
There was backlash when we built the A-bomb.

Being narcissists we dont give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.2362646]

>>2362550

Yeah, I can understand the concern about the derailment of society, and I thought that that might be what his concern was, but that isn't actually a moral issue. Objecting to a technology because of what it MIGHT be used for isn't really a moral issue but rather a concern for its potential to lead to immoral applications.

This kind of thing annoys me in general. One's concern that something may have immoral applications doesn't make the technology itself immoral. Such concern is fine and a perfectly healthy subject to debate, but it is not a moral issue, and as such you cannot complain about the immorality of those who disagree with you simply because of that.

[Anonymous No.2362659]

>>2362645

Science is a tool meant to serve man. As a scientist your duty should therefore be focused on the improvement and safety of mankind.

Besides, I doubt the people who lived through the Cold War would directly share your sentiments.

[Anonymous No.2362667]

>>2362659
We did use it to serve man. True some men more than others but it's use was justified.

Riddle me this: How many people would you be willing to sacrifice to cure, lets say cancer?

The people can be old, terminal, braindead whatever.

[Anonymous No.2362671]

>>2362667
Cancer can happen to anyone. It's a very serious concern, however there is no one cure for it. However targetted cures for specific cancers can be made and it's an active field of research.

[Anonymous No.2362672]

>>2362659

I'm gonna go ahead and say that most of the kiddies in this thread who talk about ethics being irrelevant to science are not representative of any scientific field, but are rather mostly high schoolers who learned about ethics in science by watching T.V. programs which were supposed to be anti-science, but were misinterpreted by narcissistic children who would see no problem with the literal interpretation of the statement "We do what we must, because we can."

[Anonymous No.2362686]

>>2362671
>Implying this isn't a hypothetical

[Anonymous No.2362700]

>>2362672
ad hominem. Very mature

[Anonymous No.2362706]

>>2362667

Thats a terrible question. I don't deal in 'what if's and 'could be's. I work with facts, evidence, and scientific theory. There exist a very large amount of possible sources for cancer and proper treatment varies significantly based on the patient. There will very likely never be any sort of miracle cure for cancer and I wouldn't sacrifice anybody in an attempt to MAYBE find a cure.

Studying possible treatments is very important but treating human life as some kind of currency is entirely the wrong way to go about such research.

[Anonymous No.2362707]

>>2362686
If you want me to reason it out as a hypothetical, I'll say that my morals prohibit me from taking a conscious life (I'm the headless clone advocate that posted earlier), so even if the cure could have great benefit to humanity (such a cure would be impossible, since cancer is not one disease, but many, for each you'd need specific cures) I wouldn't dare take a life from a conscious human being. That said, I would have no qualms on experiments being done on beings for which consciousness is an impossiblity and which merely share the genetic code (however it could be argued that such a research wouldn't really need these headless clones as it can be studied in much simpler/restricted environments, you don't need a whole body for it).

[Anonymous No.2362723]

>>2362672
You're right. We do what we must because we can. =) Welcome to the seeking of true knowledge without restraint.

[Anonymous No.2362734]

>>2362700

The last bit was, but really the idea that science is unconcerned with morality is generally false. The exact reason we work so hard to avoid hurting humans in research is directly related to this. Whether or not these moral values are correct is completely irrelevant to whether or not the scientific community conforms to them.

[Anonymous No.2362737]

>>2362707
what if someone volunteered to sacrifice their life to achieve this cure?

[Anonymous No.2362742]

>>2362734

I phrased that last sentence poorly, because certainly most in the scientific community DO accept these moral principles to be correct which has an effect on adherence, I meant that the questions "is ethical behavior important?" and "does the scientific community find ethics important?" are not the same.

[Anonymous No.2362748]

>>2362737
If their choice is to risk their life in an attempt to find the cure (not that such situations are very realistic for this, but okay), it would be okay as each human being is his own master. While I don't think suicide is a smart choice, I'm not one to deny the right from someone.

[Anonymous No.2362761]

In reply to op's statement (and not bothering to read the thread)

The main problem with consensual experimentation is legal action. Sure you can sign a waver to remove all your rights and make the researchers exempt from cival lawsuits ect. BUT the main issue is if a test subject dies and the cause is shown to be due to the research then the researchers are probably going to be charged with murder or at least manslaughter. The fact is it is illegal to kill another human being, even for the sake of progress. Stupidly enough it's even illegal to kill somebody in a horrible situation who wants to die (read: euthanasia). But yeah unless some major changes happen to the homicide laws of America (and the world) there wont be any very risky human testing happening even though it could potentially reduce the time it takes for new drugs and treatments to be developed by years.

[CNS !ZB6kpElKD6 No.2362796]

>>2361794
>Am I the only person here that wishes human experimentation was allowed?
It is. We can only violate physical integrity to a certain extent though.

But I guess that's what you mean. In that sense I don't really mind that it's not allowed. I work with human subjects myself. I find it a challenge to create knowledge with the (limited) tools at our disposal. It's a chance to create a life's work, if you will. We have ways of creating temporary lesions to neural tissue for instance and lesions occur naturally (e.g.: strokes or head trauma). In some patient groups it's even allowed to place invasive recording electrodes for clinical purposes (e.g, locating of epileptogenic tissue). Coupled with techniques that measure brain activity non-invasively such as magnetoencephalography, or techniques that approximate brain activity such as BOLD MRI we can piece together the puzzle. And it's more fun that way.

By the way, $1000-5000 won't nearly be enough. That kind of money is usually already payed in studies which involve medication of any kind.

[Anonymous No.2362854]

>>2362761
>Stupidly enough it's even illegal to kill somebody in a horrible situation who wants to die (read: euthanasia)
Lol, in the non-crazy world euthanasia isn't illegal. Enjoy your religious craziness.

[Anonymous No.2362937]

>>2362854

Seriously. Hell, even some of the states in the US allow it.

Or at least Oregon does.

Oregon: "We may not be able to educate our children worth shit, and we have a hard time keeping business interests in state, but goddamn it, at least we allow you to die with dignity if you're dying horribly."