The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

Post by andreyf » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 3:04 PM UTC

hobarrera wrote: post #133

67726e wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the vitriol, and I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue, but this quickly gets into a philosophical debate. This is something akin to the "railroad switch" question. Do you pull the level and divert a railroad car killing one person, but saving five or do you let the runaway care run its course and kill the 5. If the impetus for the experiment was to test some potential attack vector as the grandpa…

> This is something akin to the "railroad switch" question. Do you pull the level and divert a railroad car killing one person, but saving five or do you let the runaway care run its course and kill the 5. In the railway scenario, you know you'll save 5. In this case, they were just experimenting to see if a certain attack was possible. Avoiding the experiment would not have resulted in any deaths.

Avoiding the experiment would make an attack more effective and hence more likely to take place. It's not identical to the simple philosophical construction, but it's not wholly unlike it, either.

Post by andreyf » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 3:52 PM UTC

dmlorenzetti wrote: post #79

andreyf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was a violation of the Nuremberg code How so? The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test, where it doesn't sound to me like an objective definition of the word supports that framing in the least. A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed and on which data is being gathered. In this case, it is the bacteria, and the data that was gathered was their movement through the c…

The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test... A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people. Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Ener…

...must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research

I think applying the directive for human subjects research does not imply the humans involved are "human subjects" in the way nuremberg uses the term, because those rules don't appear say anything about being notified or opting out [1].

Correct my history if I'm mistaken, but I think Nuremberg was a result of direct experimentation on humans. It is using the still common definition of "experimental subject", which is the entity which is being studied, i.e. the properties of which are being measured.

I don't think it's practical to say the DoE or DHS cannot study air movement through a city without getting every occupant's approval. And how would that reasoning apply to a new radar dish design at an airport?

1. https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-seri...

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950