The Crime of Curiosity • Hacker News Board

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#221

Post by ramblenode » Sun, Sep 19, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

jpeloquin wrote: post #206

ramblenode wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Promoting experimental (biohacked) treatments and guiding people through administering them is not compatible with the currently accepted ethical framework for protection of human subjects, _especially_ if it's done with intent of generating scientific knowledge. > Extension of current approaches to human subjects research to accommodate a public DIY biology / biohacking community may be possible but seems tricky t…

> If you are independent and including others in your research, you are only bound by general medical ethics. The National Research Act and the Belmont report were created in opposition to this attitude. Henry Beecher led the fight (in the 1960s, preceeding the NRA and Belmont report) to make including others in your research be subject to research ethics, not just medical ethics, and to enforce this with regulation.…

> A different approach is therefore warranted

What is the different approach?

1. Autonomy (informed consent), 2. beneficence, 3. non-maleficence ("do no harm"), 4. justice (distribution of treatment where it is limited) are the principles that bind doctors who are operating on patients. What principles would you expect an independent researcher to uphold beyond what a doctor currently upholds? All other factors considered, as long as these principles are upheld, a doctor is free to try a new surgery for the purpose of exploring its effectiveness, i.e. engage in research. This is not new; private doctors have been testing procedures of varying risk without an IRB since the time of these commissions. Any researcher who violates these principles--where there is a harm to a research subject--is almost certainly liable under criminal fraud and torts laws. It is not a "free-for-all", as you characterize it.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#222

Post by lolc » Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 8:03 AM UTC

dvdkon wrote: post #179

lolc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mails that make it to your spambox are a pithy few compared to the mass of dropped mail. You'd be very unhappy with your spambox if the filters weren't so judgmental.

I haven't actually set up my mail server to move mail flagged as spam to a separate folder, and I've gotten roughly 4 spam emails in the year or so I've had this address. My mail server also doesn't drop anything unless it fails DMARC. I've had to deal with Microsoft outright dropping everything from a domain (not on this server), so I do know it happens, I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

That may be because your address hasn't made it to the spammers yet. My address has been public for a while and not filtering meant deleting a few mails per hour. Even a Gmail-address I'm not using gets a good amount of spam, probably because other people have tried using it to sign up for accounts.

> I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

Well yes in some special cases dropping mails is not necessary. My mistake to assume your case is one of the common cases.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#223

Post by exporectomy » Wed, Sep 22, 2021, 12:20 AM UTC

satisfice wrote: post #219

exporectomy wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it limits the freedom of those "irresponsible" people. We could ban every activity that has the slightest chance of harm but then none of us could do anything. No computer tinkering allowed - might create a virus! No chemistry allowed - might create drugs! No dogs allowed - they might bite someone.

It’s very easy to argue with you, because your main tactic is hyperbole. Let’s see, I can do that trick, too. How about this: Oh you think any limits to freedom are intolerable? Then let’s go back to post-Roman Europe. No enforceable law at all! No such thing as civic responsibility! I can see why you do that. It takes so little mental effort to participate in a discussion and still seem to say something. I think we…

Then don't make ridiculous statements like "But why not do everything we can, as a society, to protect ourselves from irresponsible people?" Of course you know the answer to that question is "because those protections cause problems themselves". It adds nothing to anybody's understanding and is a dirty trick to fool people without making any effort.