Comment by cryoshon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryoshon | Hacker News Reader

A setback for science, but a large ethical step forward.

I am a bit unsettled by the idea that even non-invasive and neutral research will stop; this means that some of the work I did on SIV vaccine efficacy (for the purposes of learning in service of making an HIV vaccine) a few years ago might not get the ethical approval to be performed today even though we were using macaques instead of chimps.

I anticipate a chilling effect on primate studies in general after this policy change as the review boards attune to the new current of cash flow from the NIH. Monkey trials have always been exorbitantly expensive, and non-chimp studies will probably see cost rises in addition to reduced funding. In our trials, the monkeys were given harmless vaccinations, and had blood draws every once in a while, then retired to a sanctuary at the end of the study... not remotely unethical, but probably not consistent with the highest standards of animal rights that are coming into vogue.

A lot of these monkeys are very well cared for-- not loved, but definitely attended to. There are federal IACUC regulations on how many toys they are allowed to have, and how to rotate their selection of toys such that they only have access to their favorite toy/food/drink some of the time so that they don't get hedonic desensitization. These monkeys even have privacy rights regarding their medical info in some niche cases.

I would argue that your premise that science and ethics are mutually exclusive (they must be if you can say good/bad for science but good/bad for ethics) is completely, utterly false.

science := 1) the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; 2) a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

ethics := 1) moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior; 2) the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles

To take an either or approach to endeavors which touch on both science and ethics is to immediately set out with a means to ends vs ends to means approach depending on where one's priorities lie.

I'd argue that ethics is pervasive and pertinent across every and all human endeavors, including ethics, and that the task is to work the scientific process in an ethical manner. Not to put the two at odds.

Ethics as generally portrayed costs lives and increases misery in part by preventing useful studies from being done, but also though overhead from review boards.

Pretending there is no conflict is simply sticking your head into the ground.

The real question is if this cost is worth paying and that's both more important and harder to defend.

You've grossly mischaracterized my argument. I'm not sure you understood my argument. Normally I'd not reply or reply rather dryly, but given that you've taken to implying that I'm "sticking my head into the ground" and avoiding the "more important and harder to defend" question, decision, and so I'll take a moment here to answer your points individually.

I argued that they are not mutually exclusive and therefore must be balanced, which requires a decision, which is very much not sticking one's head in the ground. It is explicitly taking responsibility for any actions or decisions made from having weighed the, at times conflicting, issues / interests involved.

"Ethics as generally portrayed costs lives and increases misery in part by preventing useful studies from being done, but also though overhead from review boards."

This is an overly general statement (I'm not sure by what evidence you feel comfortable or on what basis you claim the authority to make such a claim on how ethics is generally portrayed) and not sure how you've calculate the overhead costs versus the overhead benefits (in situations where review boards prevent misery).

As to your reply, it makes a poor attempt at a "straw man" strategy, but even then lacks any evidence to support your counter-argument. You then proceed to the strategy of an "ad hominem argument", nakedly, and come across petty doing so, given the weight of the issue and the lack of seriousness with which you've treated the discussion up to that point. Finally, you've basically clumsily reworded a portion of the argument I put forth, betraying the fact that you either didn't understand my argument or are purposely trying to misconstrue my argument, while not engaging with the rest of what I put forth.

The chimpanzees are living creatures. Humans are living creature. This is an important and sober issue for many, many people. Please don't interject petty personal attacks into the conversation.

Ethics can't increase the rate of scientific advancement. (Feel free to disagree but your going to need a lot of evidence.)

It can and has slowed things down when review boards rejected some research on ethical grounds. Q.E.D.

Technically I only need two example studies. But fetal tissue research does not cause direct suffering or death and has benefits. It also involves significant review processes even when approved.

Good talk.

Eh, my premise isn't that science and ethics are always are mutually exclusive. Like I said, you can do a perfectly ethical primate study and get great data, it's just that philosophically there are many people opposed to the very concept of an animal study because it will infringe upon the animal's "right" to self determination so they'll fight against these ethical studies too.

Without these regulations, the animals get abused... it's not sufficient to trust scientists to be ethical.

My bad. I said mutually exclusive. I meant and should have said independent.

Which I would have meant to mean, since ethics pervades all human endeavors, and science is a human endeavor, they are not completely independent.

So yeah, that's what I was trying to mean, but clearly said something else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com