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.'"
Alex Goatse? Talk about a horrid experiment.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
But with what?
Nothing to worry. Just testing the typical reaction of geeks, nerds and similar species.
Please stop making assumptions using "math" and other disciplines. Also, you must take some LSD yourself before designing your experiment, then you will see 3000 is indeed the correct factor.
"Give them vague advice on safe sex, then tell them to go out and have sex..."
Researchers telling participants to have sex in the middle of an epidemic? That is quite a ridiculous assertion, but I'm sure that it was meant to be hyperbole.
Can you tell me how this experiment is in any way harmful to the participants? Remember that over a third of the population is infected with AIDS in many places. Instead of the whole group of participants being infected with AIDS at the normal rate, some of participants were infected at a reduced rate. As in, some of them who would have gotten AIDS and died, but won't because they were circumcised. The men consented and lives were saved (theirs and others who the would have infected). How is it unethical?
When you circumcise a male you remove the only 'sensitive' tissue on the penis. Without the foreskin there isn't really an easy path for the virus to get into the bloodstream. The virus is not a physically strong one, it just mutates like crazy.
I'm confused as to why you (and the person who replied above me) are so scathing about this research. They took people who would not have been circumcised and did it to some but not to others (so maybe making some better off than others but there was a Pareto improvement in utility). According to the article you quoted;
"All participants were extensively counseled in HIV prevention and risk reduction techniques."
I've not heard anything which has made me think that this is untrue, nor can I see why they would want to do anything other than this (as it also allows them to have a look at how effective education is at the same time). IIRC they actually reported the results early because they considered the findings to be so strong that it would be unethical not to report them early. I would think that the people who carried out the study probably met the very strict ethical requirements of research (hell, even I had to consider the ethical implications of political theory... medical research would be twice as strict).
I mean, it might be true that this research genuinely did abuse the people in it, but I have seen nothing which suggests that it was, and without you providing credible sources against this, then I see what you say as a needless attack on what seems like good quality research which could save thousands (or millions) of lives
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Duh, because they say so on TV. What's wrong with you ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.