[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So, only because we hold an opinion on morals (including abortion) we’re simpletons. Very bigoted of you. [/quote]
Reality check: you’re not the only people with opinions on morals.[/quote]
So, you only those that disagree with you are simpletons?[/quote]
No, just those who believe that there morals are mandated by a supreme chocolate teapot.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]BreStruction wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Design the study to measure something other than the desired effect, then “discover” this awesome and unanticipated side effect.
Like Viagra.
[/quote]
I work next to a lab who developed sildenafil 
and it was truly an unanticipated side effect.
Most big pharma companies dont do human studies in ‘developed’ countries. They go to the “third world” to do the studies that are largely successful or have no negative impact. However, the moral problem I have with this is that the drugs are never launched in that country because it doesnt have the infrastructure to afford/distribute.
So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]
Really? Which Lab? Sildenafil was not an unanticpated side effect. The original “erection hypothesis” was postulated in research on the PDE5 enyzme system. Sildenafil was developed as a result of this.[/quote]
this isnt entirely true. pfizer was looking for an antihypertensive and antianginal drug when it discovered sildenafil. I believe they then made the connection to erectile dysfunction because of its pde5 inhibition
EDIT: if youre really interested in all the details
http://www.clinsci.org/cs/099/0255/0990255.pdf
Test the drugs on pedophiles.
[quote]BreStruction wrote:
So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]
Ive never really understood how ethics can justify testing on animals (who can never consent) but not test on humans (who are capable of consent).
Im far from a tree hugging PETA lover. But it’s inconsistent to believe that testing on animals IS ethical but testing on humans is not UNTIL animal tests are completed.
I believe it’s necessary to test on animals, but it’s definitely not ethical if there are humans willing to consent.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]BreStruction wrote:
So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]
Ive never really understood how ethics can justify testing on animals (who can never consent) but not test on humans (who are capable of consent).
Im far from a tree hugging PETA lover. But it’s inconsistent to believe that testing on animals IS ethical but testing on humans is not UNTIL animal tests are completed.
I believe it’s necessary to test on animals, but it’s definitely not ethical if there are humans willing to consent. [/quote]
But the issue arises that WHY would they consent to ground level testing? Early clinical trials (Phase I) that use healthy volunteers usually pay them, so I imagine you would do the same were you to do pre-clinicals on people, would you only get the destitute poor? Is that ethical?
Testing on animals is a necessary evil, and a necessary step before you test something on people. When they’re doing animal studies they’re just seeing IF and HOW it works, they’re not terribly concerned about safety (dosing). People wouldn’t stand for human subjects getting killed/permanently damaged in drug/device trials in early stages and important devices and drugs might never hit the market.
The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment.
[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]BreStruction wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Design the study to measure something other than the desired effect, then “discover” this awesome and unanticipated side effect.
Like Viagra.
[/quote]
I work next to a lab who developed sildenafil and it was truly an unanticipated side effect.
Most big pharma companies dont do human studies in ‘developed’ countries. They go to the “third world” to do the studies that are largely successful or have no negative impact. However, the moral problem I have with this is that the drugs are never launched in that country because it doesnt have the infrastructure to afford/distribute.
So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]
Really? Which Lab? Sildenafil was not an unanticpated side effect. The original “erection hypothesis” was postulated in research on the PDE5 enyzme system. Sildenafil was developed as a result of this.[/quote]
this isnt entirely true. pfizer was looking for an antihypertensive and antianginal drug when it discovered sildenafil. I believe they then made the connection to erectile dysfunction because of its pde5 inhibition
EDIT: if youre really interested in all the details
http://www.clinsci.org/cs/099/0255/0990255.pdf[/quote]
PDE5 inhibitors were originally tested at high altitude for the treatment of pulmonary edema. pfizer and the labs at my institute collabed on this drug.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]BreStruction wrote:
So ethically, as a scientist, I say it’s okay to do human studies (only with the subject’s consent) if the drug, for example, has passed the animal phases (obviously). [/quote]
Ive never really understood how ethics can justify testing on animals (who can never consent) but not test on humans (who are capable of consent).
Im far from a tree hugging PETA lover. But it’s inconsistent to believe that testing on animals IS ethical but testing on humans is not UNTIL animal tests are completed.
I believe it’s necessary to test on animals, but it’s definitely not ethical if there are humans willing to consent. [/quote]
But the issue arises that WHY would they consent to ground level testing? Early clinical trials (Phase I) that use healthy volunteers usually pay them, so I imagine you would do the same were you to do pre-clinicals on people, would you only get the destitute poor? Is that ethical?
Testing on animals is a necessary evil, and a necessary step before you test something on people. When they’re doing animal studies they’re just seeing IF and HOW it works, they’re not terribly concerned about safety (dosing). People wouldn’t stand for human subjects getting killed/permanently damaged in drug/device trials in early stages and important devices and drugs might never hit the market.
The key is simply to do your best to treat the animals humanely while undergoing the treatment. [/quote]
I dont know of any reputable organization that would bypass phase 1 animal tests and go directily to humans. It takes on average 14 years to develop a drug from discovery to proof of concept to animals to humans. 90% fail before they ever reach animals.
[quote]Totenkopf wrote:
a) Fake the consents and carry out the experiment, breaking the law and disregarding ethics, but arriving at a correct conclusion and contributing greatly to science.[/quote]
If it’s any kind of study that would give subjects drugs, treatments, etc. that are harmful you would probably need external funding for that because your outcome measures would most likely be pretty pricey (in either direct or indirect costs) and it’s doubtful that you would have a slush fund large enough to bank roll something like that.
So the contract set up between the funding party and the researcher, through the intermediary (university, etc) would make you submit things like IRBs and draft informed consent forms. You can create some ambiguity of what you are studying but probably not all (our IRBs have “Deception” boxes you can check to get close to this type of research).
Depending on how crazy-ass of an experiment it is, something would seem fishy and you probably would get called on it during the peer-review process and then get banned from said journal. If this is ground breaking you’re going to be trying to get an impact factor of like 30 (Science, Nature, JAMA, etc) and once you get blackballed here then good luck doing anything impressive in the future.
And if you cut corners with this preliminary step your whole methodology will automatically be called into question because with stats you can make numbers say a wide array of things depending on how long you torture them.
But let’s say that you did pull this off and got it published or out into the public’s view somehow and became famous for your work, chances are you have colleagues that would catch wind or maybe at a uni your division head would. You’re stuck now because if you take credit there’s a great chance you’ll lose your job, lose collaborators and maybe worse. Or you could just submit as part of “Anonymous” and say you did the study for teh lulz and never get any direct credit.
This is already entirely too long but I think the moral is that someone will find out and it’s just not worth it in today’s economy to throw away a position that could afford you this type of chance to truely make a difference in science and the world for something that a little creativity will probably yield a solution to anyway.
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Isn’t it a much more important (than consent) question, what harm will come to the “subjects”? Not that one can judge what’s “real” harm and what’s “negligible” harm… I mean, some experiments could be (almost) completely harmless.
Say someone wants to experiment with dumping ascorbic acid in the water supply to see what happens when everyone gets 1000 mg /day. That’s one experiment.
And another one, like the vole/parenting/ethology experiment mentioned above.
Now another experiment which implies giving pregnant women a potential abortifacient…
And another looking to see how perfectly healthy people could cope with a sudden amputation or blindness…
But it comes down to theology. If you believe human life is sacred, and harming someone (ok, a slap on the face might not count; at least if it’s not intended to break his neck etc.) is strictly forbidden, than it’s wrong. Truly, why would you give a rat’s ass on what some people think is right or wrong? What makes their opinion hold any value?[/quote]
Uh…because we convicted the Nazi’s. You don’t need theology to prove right and wrong, Natural Law has been proven to be correct for awhile.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So, only because we hold an opinion on morals (including abortion) we’re simpletons. Very bigoted of you. [/quote]
Reality check: you’re not the only people with opinions on morals.[/quote]
So, you only those that disagree with you are simpletons?[/quote]
No, just those who believe that there morals are mandated by a supreme chocolate teapot.[/quote]
Didn’t know there was a supreme chocolate teapot.
[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Test the drugs on pedophiles.[/quote]
Uh, the means can’t be justified by the end.
@BC:
If you know that by killing someone you can save three lives, what does natural law say in this case?
[quote]Waylander wrote:
it’s human CENTIPEDE dude…and that fucker’s my neighbor! J/K
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Test the drugs on pedophiles.[/quote]
Uh, the means can’t be justified by the end.[/quote]
Correct, because doing something like this would set BAD PRECEDENT, which is what should always be considered. In other words, don’t think of this as something to be done once, think: “Am I ok with ALWAYS doing it this way from here on out?”
If the answer is no, don’t do it.
BONEZ has a great point about consent which someone in my class last year brought up (we did similar thought experiments).
For now, animal testing leading to Phase 3 trials is the only option.
I guess declaring IPO so you can actually fund Phase 3 trials is the only option as well. Oh, wait.
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
@BC:
If you know that by killing someone you can save three lives, what does natural law say in this case?
[/quote]
I’m not brother Chris, but I think it can be argue both ways. That’s the beauty of ethics in many cases it just depends on what theory you argue with.
Kant would say you can’t kill one to save three, but the utilitarian would kill the one and save the three for example. As far as I know murdering anyone would be against nature law similar to the Kantian stance.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Test the drugs on pedophiles.[/quote]
Uh, the means can’t be justified by the end.[/quote]
Correct, because doing something like this would set BAD PRECEDENT, which is what should always be considered. In other words, don’t think of this as something to be done once, think: “Am I ok with ALWAYS doing it this way from here on out?”
If the answer is no, don’t do it.
BONEZ has a great point about consent which someone in my class last year brought up (we did similar thought experiments).
For now, animal testing leading to Phase 3 trials is the only option.
I guess declaring IPO so you can actually fund Phase 3 trials is the only option as well. Oh, wait.[/quote]
Why can’t the means justify the ends? I’m curious why you or BC believe this is 100% always the case.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why can’t the means justify the ends? I’m curious why you or BC believe this is 100% always the case. [/quote]
Do you understand the meaning of “precedent” ?
I don’t mean that as a jab at you and I’m not just asking for the textbook definition.
What does it mean to set a bad precedent? What could possibly happen? Can you “flesh out” what would happen with a bad ethical precedent?
(As a corollary to this discussion, I’ll go ahead and say that, if it’s “right” one time, it must be “right” 100% of the time. So, either it’s right or it’s not–ever.)
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why can’t the means justify the ends? I’m curious why you or BC believe this is 100% always the case. [/quote]
Do you understand the meaning of “precedent” ?
I don’t mean that as a jab at you and I’m not just asking for the textbook definition.
What does it mean to set a bad precedent? What could possibly happen? Can you “flesh out” what would happen with a bad ethical precedent?
(As a corollary to this discussion, I’ll go ahead and say that, if it’s “right” one time, it must be “right” 100% of the time. So, either it’s right or it’s not–ever.)[/quote]
So for example if a man approaches you with a gun in hand and says, “where is (insert friends name here)”.
Now he doesn’t say why he wants to know where you friend is, but you’ve got a pretty good idea it’s not good. You of course just saw your friend 5 minutes ago and know he’s at such and such place.
Do you lie for your friend or tell the truth regardless of the possible consequences?
If a lie is always wrong correct at least according to Kant. It doesn’t fit Kant’s universal law theory. So you would be setting a bad precedent if you lie right?
Or is it in the best interest of your friend to lie? If you lie once because it is right is it right to lie 100% of the time?
Anytime you say 100% of the time you are bound to have some problems.
I agree bad precedent it well bad, but the world isn’t black and white / all or none.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Design the study to measure something other than the desired effect, then “discover” this awesome and unanticipated side effect.
Like Viagra.
[/quote]
Yep. People do this shit all the time.
It’s often how scientists write proposals and grants; they know the result is going to contain something they don’t mention. Instead, they stick to what’s basically known and tweek it just a little. This seems less like “going out on a limb”. Then they discover something completely “unexpected”.
However, it does take a certain type of person to do the work on animal models. Many scientists change their careers to whatever seems most ethical to them.