Ask HN: Should a scientist be highly moral and give an oath to serve for good

I've been just shocked about accusations of 77 y.o. Marvin Minsky in sex with an underage girl and having "deep ties" with Epstein and participating in AI conferences at the finencier's private island. Now I can imagine an after-party very well.

And the whole John Brockman's Edge scientific community which is probably benefited from Epstein's activity terrifies with thoughts "who else".

I could imagine also myself being a scientist at age 30 and willing to hang out with a millionaire-billionaire. But I'm expecting that with age my priorities would shift from being famous and rich to being less ambitious, more careful and being a caretaker or at least an advisor to teenagers.

A scene of 77 y.o. Minsky, whose lectures I've been watching and whose ideas I tried to adapt and understand, forcefully fucking a teenage girl:

* scaries me: would I do the same being in his shoes?

* raises questions about intentions behind Minsky's intelluctual work: should I listen to his (and others', who did amoral acts) ideas, believe him when it's not very pleasant to even look at videos with him now?

* forces me to think about the need for a scientist, an engineer, a programmer, a journalist, a finencier or any professional to give an oath like doctors do to do no harm to other living beeing, a human, animal, plant for fun, for pleasure, money, satisfaction.

I see how technologies are advancing but I hardly can observe like the humanity is able to progress and not to degrade morally, spiritualy or how you call it.

Should I follow disgraced scientists? How I can avoid to be ashamed in the same manner?

Dont fall for the money.

thanks for the reference

> Do we now just throw away the knowledge that was gained?

Simply? Yes. Most of it was scientifically poor research, of no value, anyway. Only the Luftwaffe hypothermia experiments had any value.

Following the doctor's trial at the Nuremburg Military Tribunals the Nuremburg Code[1] established a minimum set of ethics for human experimentation. It's subsequently shaped many international and national laws and treaties.

Whilst some of that research has been used and cited, there's been many times when referencing it was explicitly ruled out[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Mod...

The scientifically invalid point was in addition to the straight no. :)

To expand: I still think it should not be used or even acknowledged. You're on untenably thin ice, ethically speaking. "people were forcibly experimented on or killed, but we got some great data" doesn't pass the most basic ethical sniff test.

The results should be case for the prosecution, not for citation. Citation should have you hauled before an ethics panel. Find a way to conduct the research that's achieved safely with willing consent, find an alternative methodology, or find an alternative career.

It gets greyer if you go back far enough into history that we hadn't established those ethical and human rights standards. You can't really hold standards and laws against someone in a time they didn't yet exist. Given world history, that probably means pre-Nazi and eugenics eras.