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...
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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