• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Using humans for research

J

Journer

Banned
so, lets say there is a company who takes unwanted children or procures people in some manner. they then use those people for all kinds of experiments that are generally considered inhumane. for example, you could confine people to different constant environments and add in the variable to monitor the outcome. You could determine the true effects of second hand smoke, nuclear effects, etc. All of the tests are performed strictly for scientific research to further humanity (disease, etc.) and no testing would be done for purposes of war. Keep in mind though, these people are kept in the research facility their entire life and are experimented on until their usefulness has diminished.


Would the inevitable scientific breakthroughs that would lead to the end of certain diseases and other issues outweigh the costs of dehumanizing the people who are in the facility?

Discuss.
 
Originally posted by: Journer
so, lets say there is a company who takes unwanted children or procures people in some manner. they then use those people for all kinds of experiments that are generally considered inhumane. for example, you could confine people to different constant environments and add in the variable to monitor the outcome. You could determine the true effects of second hand smoke, nuclear effects, etc. All of the tests are performed strictly for scientific research to further humanity (disease, etc.) and no testing would be done for purposes of war. Keep in mind though, these people are kept in the research facility their entire life and are experimented on until their usefulness has diminished.


Would the inevitable scientific breakthroughs that would lead to the end of certain diseases and other issues outweigh the costs of dehumanizing the people who are in the facility?

Discuss.
Click to expand...


Yes, but not with children. I say take some of the murderers from deathrow and let the testing begin.
 
arkitech: why not unwanted children? and since when are murders less human? if they HAD to test on people, i'd rather it be someone who is unwanted and never experienced real life

fallout: hypothetical. do i really come off as a high schooler? lol :'(
 
Originally posted by: Journer
arkitech: why not unwanted children? and since when are murders less human? if they HAD to test on people, i'd rather it be someone who is unwanted and never experienced real life

fallout: hypothetical. do i really come off as a high schooler? lol :'(
Click to expand...

Huh, dude are you advocating killing children or are you talking about testing on fetuses? No that I support either one but I just want to get some clarification
 
I think they tried something like this once in Germany in the early 1940's.

There is no easy yes/no answer here. They kind of already do it anyway with the testing of some drugs--as long as it does nothing to the lab rat first.
 
sanorski: why?

naddicott: interesting

arkitech: i'm not advocating killing anyone. I'm saying that if experiments are going to be performed on humans, why not someone who has never had the experiences of human life? It is not to say they will always be children. You could raise them and test on them when they were older.

mxyzplk: agreed, clones would be great for disease testing and transplants. but lets leave religion out of this.


here is an example if you don't get what i'm saying:
you have some scientists that want to do some controller research on something, i dunno, lets say the effects of chemical A on a person over a period of 5 years. Now, you can do that now, but in a controlled environment, there are far less variables to worry about and the outcome would be closer to exact. So, the firm gets an already born, unwanted child. They are not mean to it, they don't starve it, but they do keep it away from all the variables (possibly other people, or societies, or some type of food, or force it to exercise more) etc. They do there tests and afterwards it possibly used for later tests that require a similar environment.
 
Originally posted by: Journer
...but lets leave religion out of this.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious... I don't believe in souls silly 🙂




edit: obviously the real reason clones would be ideal would be their identical genetic makeup. One less variable to account for. But you knew that, I can tell from your response.



double edit: As long as the test subjects are being treated ethically and every care is taken not to cause undue harm, I see no problem with testing on any animal, including homo sapiens sapiens.
 
Originally posted by: Journer
so, lets say there is a company who takes unwanted children or procures people in some manner. they then use those people for all kinds of experiments that are generally considered inhumane. for example, you could confine people to different constant environments and add in the variable to monitor the outcome. You could determine the true effects of second hand smoke, nuclear effects, etc. All of the tests are performed strictly for scientific research to further humanity (disease, etc.) and no testing would be done for purposes of war. Keep in mind though, these people are kept in the research facility their entire life and are experimented on until their usefulness has diminished.


Would the inevitable scientific breakthroughs that would lead to the end of certain diseases and other issues outweigh the costs of dehumanizing the people who are in the facility?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Much of what we know of hypothermia is the result of Germany experimenting on Jews + other groups during WW2.
 
Originally posted by: Journer
sanorski: why?

naddicott: interesting

arkitech: i'm not advocating killing anyone. I'm saying that if experiments are going to be performed on humans, why not someone who has never had the experiences of human life? It is not to say they will always be children. You could raise them and test on them when they were older.

mxyzplk: agreed, clones would be great for disease testing and transplants. but lets leave religion out of this.


here is an example if you don't get what i'm saying:
you have some scientists that want to do some controller research on something, i dunno, lets say the effects of chemical A on a person over a period of 5 years. Now, you can do that now, but in a controlled environment, there are far less variables to worry about and the outcome would be closer to exact. So, the firm gets an already born, unwanted child. They are not mean to it, they don't starve it, but they do keep it away from all the variables (possibly other people, or societies, or some type of food, or force it to exercise more) etc. They do there tests and afterwards it possibly used for later tests that require a similar environment.
Click to expand...


Definitely against that, just because a child is unwanted does'nt mean they should'nt have rights. I still say perform testing on violent crime offenders, I'd rather them suffer from an experiment gone wrong than some poor kid who's never had a chance in life.
 
Originally posted by: Arkitech
I'd rather [violent crime offenders] suffer from an experiment gone wrong...
Click to expand...

You realize of course that this makes you just as bad, if not worse than, the criminals you seek to dehumanize?

Why is it so hard for some to accept that people are people? Ya know, everyone, even the ones you don't like or agree with.. they're all people, just like you or me. Everybody has feelings and emotions and everyone has their shit, good and bad. I'm not encouraging everyone to be a hippy and saying lets replace pound-me-in-the-ass prison with hugs and flowers.. Of course there still needs to be punishment and justice and law and order must be maintained.

I'd just like it if we didn't have to go around dehumanizing those which we don't agree with in order to excuse imposing suffering on them.
 
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
double edit: As long as the test subjects are being treated ethically and every care is taken not to cause undue harm, I see no problem with testing on any animal, including homo sapiens sapiens.
Click to expand...

I'd say locking them away from birth for years or even until death and performing experiments with unknown drugs/chemicals/conditions is pretty fucking unethical. At the time of writing the poll is 50/50. I don't even know what to say to that. That's just horrible.
 
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
double edit: As long as the test subjects are being treated ethically and every care is taken not to cause undue harm, I see no problem with testing on any animal, including homo sapiens sapiens.
Click to expand...

I'd say locking them away from birth for years or even until death and performing experiments with unknown drugs/chemicals/conditions is pretty fucking unethical. At the time of writing the poll is 50/50. I don't even know what to say to that. That's just horrible.
Click to expand...


*shrug* but we already do it with chimps. What's the difference? humans and chimps are both animals, very closely related ones at that. If it's okay for one, I feel like it should be okay for the other.. I mean there are limits obviously.. I don't think it would be okay to intentionally cause harm to either a chimp or a person for something with no obvious scientific benefit.

I guess I'm just having a problem forming a distinction between humans and other animals.. I feel like all are deserving of the same level of ethical treatment, but I don't want to give up testing on animals so I have to agree that testing on humans should be allowed as well. Anything less would be cognitive dissonance IMO.
 
There is already a process for using humans in research and its pretty well established, especially in companies that work in pharma, med device, etc etc and on research universities. Firstly - in the situation you need to descibe will almost never happen. You don't RESEARCH on humans. You can later TEST on humans provided there is enough justifacation. Any research is done on animals (and the types of animals needed have to be justified as well, you can't pull out a dog for whatever reason) who are treated with care and amazingly well.

Here is an overview of how clinical trials work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial), and here is a group that constantly monitors these projects regardless of their effects on people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board (I had to sign some documents for a person's research which was focused on language. It doesn't have to be medical to need to be monitored)

If you actually want to focus on humans to research....no. Humans are on a different level than animals in this regard. Do not take it as some kind of "superiority" complex or a machismo mental idea that we can dominate animals. It is not that at all. Animals do need the respect and care that any living life form needs, but it means that I eat animal meat and not human meat...and if I have have a valid justification to preform early stage research on a life form, I will not choose a human. But in the case that ANY research, clinical trial or testing needs to be done on a life form, then valid justification needs to be provided before testing begins.
 
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
This would be a perfect use of cloned humans. After all, clones don't have souls right?
Click to expand...

You don't need clones, just re create the organ or organ system of interest and test on that. The biggest boon of tissue engineering will be to follow the pathology of a lot of diseases with direct observation from tissues that are isolated. No need to cut up a person and see what happens to their liver : create one that is complex enough for the situation and directly observe disease progression.

In many ways tissue engineering has the potential to substantially reduce the justifiable reasons for testing on animals...
 
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: Arkitech
I'd rather [violent crime offenders] suffer from an experiment gone wrong...
Click to expand...

You realize of course that this makes you just as bad, if not worse than, the criminals you seek to dehumanize?

Not really, in order for a society to remain safe there has to be a system of laws and order. When a person violates those laws and can no longer be trusted to be a part of society then he or she must be controlled so that other law abiding citizens can be protected from people who have no regard for society.

Why is it so hard for some to accept that people are people? Ya know, everyone, even the ones you don't like or agree with.. they're all people, just like you or me. Everybody has feelings and emotions and everyone has their shit, good and bad. I'm not encouraging everyone to be a hippy and saying lets replace pound-me-in-the-ass prison with hugs and flowers.. Of course there still needs to be punishment and justice and law and order must be maintained.

I agree every has their own thing to contend with, but when that thing interferes with the safety of others then they have to be removed or isolated. In the case of violent offenders and killers, it would make more sense to put these people to a productive use (experimentation) than just tossing them in the chair or on the table for lethal injection. And by experimentation I don't mean torture, but perhaps high risk experiments that the average person would not submit to.

I'd just like it if we didn't have to go around dehumanizing those which we don't agree with in order to excuse imposing suffering on them.

I'm not condoning dehumanizing people with different outlooks or petty criminals but rather people who have demonstrated that they are unfit to live in society (repeat rapists, killers, child molestors, etc..).
Click to expand...


 
The drug companies have been "experimenting" on kids with antidepressants a long time. They are shilling them out now to pre-schoolers with no real idea how it will harm their development.

Especially creepy are the new clinics opening up to cater to the gender insanity. In US and UK clinics are giving hormones to kids as young as 7 to keep them from developing their sex as born - so they can decide what to be latter on. This is like Nazi Dr. Mengele stuff.

"Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids"

"Boston?s Children?s Hospital bills itself as the hospital for children ? and now it?s also the hospital for children who want a sex change, a procedure some critics are calling ?barbaric.?

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids ? boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys ? and he?s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

Spack offers his younger patients counseling and drugs that delay the onset of puberty. The drugs stop the natural flood of hormones that would make it difficult to have a sex alteration later in life, allowing patients more time to decide whether they want to make the change."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html

Creeps!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top