So, this has actually been one of those things often claimed, you may have heard of it or maybe even thought it yourself (I certainly had the thought as an edgy teen). Stuff like “For all the horrors, they probably did make some progress with experiments in concentration camps” or similar things.
Now, beside the point of it being unacceptable to do so ethically - the stuff done there was also quite useless. I currently can’t do the work of searching for and gathering all the sources again, but to my memory: the cruelty and dismissal of humanity made the “results” of those “studies” mostly useless garbage, saying nothing at all worthwhile for science, and being clearly tainted ideologically.
Because, while you may think that in some “ideal” world, you could have neutral research on unwilling humans, the reality has always been, that the conditions needed to get humans to do such experiments on other humans, necessitate the kind of ideological distortions, that mostly make the results useless in the end. There’s simply not enough psychopaths that are also willing to do proper, frustrating, hard-work-necessitating, non-self-aggrandising research - and to get non-psychopaths to do it, you need an ideology that ultimately removes their neutrality and the neutrality of the research.
The only things I remember being deemed “useful” and “properly” done from a scientific perspective in the recovered “studies” were things like “lethality of grenades by proximity to the explosion” - something that is questionable to begin with in value and that can also be determined with sensors of different kinds - as well as “effects of massive hypothermia and frostbites” - which as far as I remember basically just confirmed what has been estimated from case studies in a broader way, as well as animal studies (the latter, admittedly, have their own legitimate controversy).
Did Twitter in retweets not display the added context at the bottom which says this particular doctor illegally expirimented on infants and served prison time?
Yeah, but he did it to make the child resistant to illness. That’s a worthy cause.
The whole point of ethics is that violating it makes it inherently unworthy. There were other safe and known methods for these children and my understanding is there is no guarantee that what he did would be effective.
He did it to make a name for himself. He’s not some rogue doctor illegally manufacturing and distributing insulin to diabetics who can’t afford it, he’s a self important narcissist who thought he could do what he wanted and that he was above the law.
I genuinely cannot tell how old this person is. Could be anywhere from 25-65.
He looks 40-45. Being Asian doesn’t make you immortal (although I’m jealous of their skin).
Edit: according to wikipedia he’s 40-41, so I was right on the money :P
being Asian doesn’t make you immortal
Lame
Xianxia lied to me?
Could be that Dr. He has a picture of Dr Mengele sitting at his table…
why don’t you back it up with a source
for some reason no one saw my last video comment, hopefully this one actually works
deleted by creator
our scientific understanding of exactly how many punches the mean baby can withstand is being held back by ethics
What a shame you fuckers aren’t allowed to kill off humanity with yet another experiment gone bad.
Do you want vault-tec? Cuz this is how you get vault-tec.
Right? That dude even has an uncanny resemblance to the potato headed NPCs in FO3 and FONV!
I think this is a parody account, I think I saw some other wild comment and there it showed the account was branded as parody
No, that post is real and the guy is a sentenced criminal.
It seems I confused the real person with the parody account
I see, the posts are similar enough, so you are forgiven :D
I cracked up when I realized this wasn’t from the meme account
b-but it has a blue checkmark!
The bureaucracy of a typical ethics review is insane and it neither helps design ethical experiments or set boundaries, it’s just paperwork concerned with font type. there’s more truth to this than we’d like, which is not ok.
Highly disagree. Are you in the states? Our guidelines are actually pretty sensible and the process is pretty inclusive. What kind of research do you do. I know some research that doesn’t “need” review still has to go through the process, but I’d rather the net be cast wide.
Unfortunately it’s necessary, or you get people running experiments on children. We just can’t seem to rely on people to do the right thing, or perhaps they lose sight of it. Tunnel vision is real.
Well it’s true
Innovation, perhaps; progress…that’s something else.
Do what must be done. Do not hesistate, show no mercy.
a man chooses…a slave OBEYYYYYSSSSS
Ethics does not. A case against archaic morality can be made, but not Ethics.
