Slashdot Mirror
Ten Strangely Cruel Science Experiments
aalobode writes "The Times of London has a current story based on the review of a book by Alex Boase, Elephants on Acid and Other Bizarre Experiments. There they list the top science experiments — including the one from which the book gets its name — that were conducted by otherwise sane humans who tragically or otherwise ignored the effect of their research on the subjects themselves. Nowadays, most institutions have a review board for research on human subjects which would flag most proposals that could lead to harm for the subjects, but not so in the past. 'Another 1960s experiment, in which ten soldiers on a training flight were told by the pilot that the aircraft was disabled, and about to ditch in the ocean. They were then required to fill in insurance forms before the crash -- ostensibly so the Army was not financially liable for any deaths or injuries. They were actually unwitting participants in an experiment: the plane was not crippled at all. It revealed that fear of imminent death indeed causes soldiers to make more mistakes than usual when filling in forms.'"
That most of our scientific advances were made with experiments that would now be classified as cruel. Particularly psychological, Zimbardo et al, Harlowe et al etc etc. Not suggesting that these are morally fine, but we should be careful about criticizing experiments that have contributed to our understanding. On a different note however, the experiments mentioned don't seem to have contributed an awful lot :P
i know not what weapons the next world war will be fought with, but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
/offtopic, I realize...
This is like saying that Rock sucks if you're listening to a high-school garage band tuning up.
Jazz is more than "soft" stuff that you probably associate it with. (like anything by Kenny G. which does, in fact, suck.)
Jazz has so many different genres inside of it. You should seriously look at some of the non-soft ones. Namely, Bebop and Free Jazz. Take a listen to Charlie Parker's "Ko Ko" from over 50 years ago. Insane chops on all the players. (Fast, hard... not soft.) Want something modern? Medeski, Martin and Wood albums are a start. (jam-based funky jazz)
Also, although you might consider it "soft" it should be considered "cool," - Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." That's the album I buy for folks who "hate jazz" and all have enjoyed that album and opened up to Jazz after that. (Plus, all women I've introduced that to now love the thing.)
But perhaps I'm wrong, and you'll just continue to stagnate with Korn, or DethKlok, or whatever...
Scientists are at least as amoral as the people/corporations/governments that fund them. None of this should be a surprise to anyone. If vivesection or giving subjects disease or electric shocks or whatever might be dreamed up is called for, the scientist will dutifully do it in the name of learning. Or money. Whichever.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's the richest country in the world because its citizens can and do take care of their basic needs themselves.
Said like someone with a lot of money or someone who still lives at home with the parents. I haven't had health care in years. Can't afford it. But hey, I work for a multi-national corporation, so I'm sure I've raised your stock income up a bit.
Libertarian ideals never seem to work out in the real world do they? Our current hybrid system of capitalism and socialism seems to work pretty good. I don't understand why so many people believe we are better off with no taxes and basically no government.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
You just follow orders in the Army, you don't worry about whether or not it makes sense. That's not your job. Silly civilians...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Also I don't see how the government is reducing my freedom by using some of my tax money to provide free health care.
If you're a real asshole you can look on it as an investment; healthy people work better, safe people may feel like they don't need a safety net and will spend more perhaps.
The argument that health care can't be provided because it would cost too much is also strange when you look at the amount of military spending, and how many countries do have successful health care systems.
It's the richest country in the world because its citizens can and do take care of their basic needs themselves. I'm in Australia where the government is involved in health care (you get refunds on necessary healthcare, and the amount you pay varies according to income), and we're not doing too bad. (ie we're not trillions of dollars in debt, though that may be about to change with Rudd poised to take over)
I don't get what you mean about citizens taking care of their basic needs themselves though. Citizens still pay for health care, but they do it via the government rather than an insurance agency.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
I'd argue that a government has the obligation to protect the liberty and the lives of its citizens. A national health service is one way to fulfill that obligation.
Wait, just above this are a string of comments about the US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, but THIS post is offtopic?
If the basic needs of its citizens were actually being taken care of, then I'd agree with you. But, in fact, they are not. The cost of health care is beyond the ability of too many citizens to take care of that themselves. The cost of some medical needs can exceed the lifetime take home pay of the median citizen.
The health care costs are up for a number of reasons:
This may well be the richest country in the world. But it achieves that for the rich few on the backs of the many.
I genuinely do believe we would be far far better off with universal health care (covering everything, including dentistry). I'm just seriously worried that our government is entirely incapable of managing such a task.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
That works right up until you are diagnosed with a potentially expensive medical condition. Not when you have treatment for it mind you but when you are diagnosed. Try getting affordable private health insurance with rheumatoid arthritis. Or having ever had a bout with clinical depression. Or even something like severe excema. Your individual insurance premium for any of those conditions can run into multiple thousands a month, something you very likely won't be able to afford on 32K a year.
None of these are lifestyle diseases, there is nothing you can do to avoid them except be lucky. If you're unlucky, and don't have employeer provided health insurance, you're pretty much screwed.
I'd argue that a government has the obligation to protect the liberty and the lives of its citizens. A national health service is one way to fulfill that obligation. You could argue that, but you would be wrong. The police do not keep people safe from crime, the police rarely get involved until after the crime has occurred. The police are part of the system to arrest and punish those who violate the public order. The difference is significant and important. Likewise, the fire department doesn't keep people safe from fire. The fire department arrives and puts out the fire (btw, where I live the fire company is a private organization, not a government department. that survives on donations and volunteers). In both cases, the justification of the existence of a government department is the maintenance of public order.
Neither protecting liberty or lives is part of the job of government. I will repeat, the job of government is: provide for the common defense (military), maintain order, regulate commerce (this last might actually be part of the previous).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Personally, I would rather have that tax money so that I can give it to charities that do a much better job of helping those in need then the government. I believe that helping people in need is something that should be done voluntarily. I agree that it is the job of the strong to take care of the weak, but it is not the job of the strong to take from the less strong to give to the very weak (which seems to be what you propose.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's fun to state your opinions as unqualified facts.
Your suggestions may be something approximating the bare minimum of services a government can provide, but merely because any government that didn't would have a tough time staying in power either because of invasions or revolt.
The role of the government is to do whatever its citizens have given it power to do and surrendered their individual rights and responsibilities for. Where those bounds are, varies widely.
Your argument rings false. I mean, you say that these services (police- and firedepartment) aren't doing any prevention (which is wrong, the police- and firedepartments are up to their knees in prevention) and therefore don't compare with the medical industry (which is again wrong, since a lot of medical work only comes up when the bad thing has already happened). So which is it ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The Canadian medical system works very well, relatively speaking, with two main problems, both related to funding. The first is the discovery twenty or thirty years ago that deficit financing of governments simply doesn't work, and having hit that wall, all levels of government had to cut back budgets severely, including those for health care (as well as make a few other boneheaded decisions leading to a shortage of doctors and nurses). The second is the tug-of-war between socialist and capitalist ideologies using the medical care system as a proxy for the battle.
Generally, the conservative governments tend to underfund the medical system so that they can point to the problems they've caused and say that privatisation will fix it. Or they avoid fixing the problems in the medical system for fear of being accused of moving towards private health care. The socialists just avoid fixing problems because ideologically that would imply it's not perfect the way it is.
But governments that let the problems get too bad get voted out, or they finally fix things to avoid losing the next election - the most conservative province has one of the better government funding records, and one of the longest serving governments. So overall, the Canadian health care system is very good, but with some ugly problems.
That being said, rich people get what they want where they can, including American health care. But that is not typical for the average Canadian.
Oddly enough this is starting to happen elsewhere in Europe. Not because nobody learned from that fiasco. Rather because they learned that there was lots of money to be made.
Which is why on some continental southern neighbours of the UK people are rather attached to the concept of public service because for all of its deficiencies there are a number of areas where it works much better than the private sector.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
No - that is a confidence trick and has worked because people actually feel they are doing good by paying more. Consider the recent vaccine against the virus that is a cause of cervical cancer. It's development was entirely funded by the Australian Taxpayer and yet people in the USA are paying more for it than anyone else on earth. In a lot of cases these products are just marked up to what the market can bear and people in the USA are used to paying more.
Personally I think the effect of corruption via the lobby system is the major impediment in US politics to getting anything done for the good of the country but others know a lot more.
Health care is certainly not a right. I want an XJ8 but I can't afford it so I have a Jetta. If you can't afford all the health care that you want then you will have to settle for less. It is just like everything else that you have to buy.
Here is another shocker. Most of the health care that you pay for provides no evidence based benefit whatsoever. When you go in for your sore throat and your doctor does a strep test which is negative, and then decide to treat you with an antibiotic anyway, there was $40 down the drain. I could have given you 10 days worth of placebo and it would have had the same benefit to you at almost no cost. Here's the kicker, it would have been much safer for you as well. You are going to in expecting something that can cause allergic reactions and contribute to antibiotic resistance with absolutely no change for any benefit to you.
The reason you need so much health care is because it has been sold to you. Just like all the other crap in your life that you have to have because it is sold to you. So when you are buying things you don't need don't complain about not being able to afford them.
Then once the artificial demand for unnecessary medical services is lessened, the price will go down because of oversupply. At that point people who really need the care will be better able to afford it.
Don't go to the doctor unless you need to. Expect to pay for the things you want. Understand you can't have everything you want or need.
The Milgram experiment wasn't cruel at all, and provided a horrifying view into the human psyche. It was also helpful to understand the behavior of people living under oppressive regimes (eg. the holocaust).
It's also established the notion that military atrocities are more often more the responsibility of the leadership than those doing the deed. Look at the Abu Ghraib torture incidents if you need any examples.
So, yes. I'd argue that the Milgram experiment was a very important bit of science. Nobody was actually directly harmed from the experiment (92% of the participants said they were glad to have taken part in it in a survey), and it provided very valuable results (that specifically could be applied to the betterment of society).
If you want an example of a similar psychological that was actually cruel, read up on the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which participants were directly victimized.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Although many of the items on the list are indeed cruel and necessary, there are some that aren't really...
Take the guy who tried to infect himself with Yellow Fever in every way imaginable to prove that it wasn't contagious. He was so sure of his hypothesis, that he was willing to risk his own life to prove it.
As long as he's inflicting it upon himself, there's nothing terribly cruel about it
And of course, doing so did provide an important contribution to the development of modern medicine.
Why not put the Stanford Prison Experiment on the list instead.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Actually, that's exactly what The U.S. Constitution (or any, for that matter)is for--for specifically outlining what the job of of the government is. Federal constitutions describe federal governments; state constitutions define state governments--and so on. The last thing that the government should be doing is everything the people tell it to do. People can, do, and will give away their own freedoms for what, in the end, amounts to nothing. That nothing takes many forms, usually safety from terrorists, and, as in this case, safety from (death by) illness. Worse yet, people can, do, and will give away other people's freedoms for the same reasons! Don't believe me? Remember the Japanese internments of the 1940s, or Nazi Germany, or sex-offender laws that ruin people's lives for the stupid, mostly harmless things that they did when they were fifteen.
And when the money is created from thin air, because of rampant inflation, or demanded from the citizens at an ever-increasing rate, again due to inflation, to pay for it all, how is this any different than not providing those services? Instead of some people having quality health care while others don't, no one will have it. Will you be happy to pay so much in taxes that someone else, who may not have your work ethic, freeloads off the government while your quality of life takes a swim in the crapper? Let's see what you say when that possibility comes up, as it most certainly will if this country (the United States) continues its current course.
No, it's not okay for people to be forced to live on the streets, starving to death, being treated as criminals for daring to be alive. Yes, it is the human thing to do to help those in need, for the strong to assist the weak. Should it be forced by law? No. Freedom does include the right to be an ass to the rest of society, so long as you don't actively seek to destroy it. Just as is the rule with free speech, only permitting "popular" freedoms does not count as preserving freedom at all.
You say it is cruel to ignore those who have lesser means to get by, to throw them under the bus for your own gain. That is true. Do realize, though, that it is just as cruel to force someone to take care of another person without an implied or explicit agreement to do so (such as would be made in the case of parenthood). Legally, I have no responsibility for anyone other than myself, any children I help create, or anyone for whom I take legal guardianship of. Morally, I should help those in need, but the government has no place legislating based on all but the most basic moralities (such as the prohibition of murder). And yes, it is as morally wrong to force someone to degrade his own life to support the life of someone else, agreed-to commitments aside, as it is to leave a homeless man to die.
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
the article says one of the reasons for Ireland's economic growth is "decades of investment in domestic higher education". There go your libertarian ideals.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Who cares? I care if my EMT knows first aid, not if he's read Dickens.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Maybe it's not a right where you live. Move elsewhere if you want that right or influence your government through the standard means to get it where you live now. For example the Finnish constitution states in chapter 2, section 19 ("The right to social security"): "The public authorities shall guarantee for everyone, as provided in more detail by an Act, adequate social, health and medical services and promote the health of the population."
The sad part in what I have seen of countries like U.S. with their money-first policies is not that they just stare at the money, it's that they fail to realize that there's more money to be made by keeping your citizens healthy. Ill and dying people can't work so they need wellfare money from the state (or, in the best/worst case, they just die), people who are healthy and motivated go to work, and pay the state their income taxes. I know that in the U.S. there's also that silly "the federal government won't do federal healthcare because we don't do federal healthcare" thing, but that's, in my opinion, bullshit. Taking care of your sick and poor makes sense from both humanitarian and monetary viewpoint.
My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
Good thing something like this could never happen in the US, say in Tuskegee.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I don't think Americans pay more for medicine because they feel good about it. A few pay more because they are filthy rich and it has no effect on their finances. Many more "pay" for it through employer health plans, some of which have group bargaining power to get lower prices. Some more PAY for it and can't afford to eat. The rest don't pay for it because they don't have the money and don't qualify for the confusing maze of programs that help fund medicines for the very poor.
"What the market can bear" really means that some will always be forced to do without because there are enough that can barely manage to pay. If everyone had exactly equal finances, then a "what the market can bear" principle would be fair to all. When you're talking about luxuries like having the latest dual quad-core computer, people can at least live without, and these days they live with the 400 MHz P-II "hand me downs". Some people live in mansions but others have to do without and live in a small trailer. But at least they have a roof over their heads. Medicines essential to someone with a particular illness are either available or not; there's no "non-luxury" version that has the same healt care properties.
Yes, the corruption of law making through the lobby system is a major cause of the high medicine and health care costs in the USA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Just the thought of living in a country with privatized healthcare is abhorrent to me, amongst others because it creates little incentive for anyone to actually look at the big picture and put in place proper preventative programs.
In the UK, for example, not doing enough to prevent health problems directly costs the NHS money in more care. As a result they put in a huge amount of effort in programs to help people stop smoking, for example, because it comes out of THEIR budget when people later get cancer or other health problems as a result of smoking.
Having that money, and having a chance to buy a car or a house, are highly dependent on those people living in a community. So it's not far-fetched at all to expect members to benefit the community that will, as an entity, take care of itself. Even the worse parts, because it makes sense to keep the aid recipients away from crime and in a condition that might allow them to still get a job later on.
Prince John or the sheriff wouldn't be rich unless there were many many peasants around too. That's where the riches come from. It's not self-evident it really should be *their money*. That's the point of Robin Hood, I think.