If a person’s criticism is of “ethics” in general, that individual should not be allowed in a position of authority or trust. If you have a specific constraint for which you can make a case that it goes too far and hinders responsible science and growth (and would have repeatable, reliable results), then state the specific point clearly and the arguments in your favor.
So if we put these extra pair of legs on babies then they can stand in more extreme angles making them better at construction at a time when there is a housing shortage
If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?
It’s not terribly common because most useful research is perfectly ethical, but we have a good number of cases of researchers deciding that there’s no way for someone to ethically volunteer for what they need to do, so they do it to themselves. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they make very valuable discoveries. Sometimes both.
So the next time someone wantz to strap someone to a rocket engine and fire it into a wall, all they have to do is go first and be part of the testing pool.
If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?
You can’t really do the kind of experiments being done genetically modifying growing infants on yourself, I imagine. Not that that should be an excuse, of course.
This argument applies just as well to libertarians who oppose “regulation.” There are some truly insane libertarians who want all regulation gone, but a lot of people who say they are opposed to “regulation” really mean that they want to add more barriers to adding regulation, and repeal some known-to-be-problematic regulations. I’m sure that when this person says “ethics” is holding back scientific progress, he means the latter. To assert he just means getting rid of “ethics” entirely is absurd. There is only so much detail you can put in a tweet.
I mean, he was imprisoned for genetic experimentation on babies without informing the parents or basically anyone else. So… I don’t think he means that in a specific way. He wants to do whatever he feels like without oversight.
If a person’s criticism is of “ethics” in general, that individual should not be allowed in a position of authority or trust. If you have a specific constraint for which you can make a case that it goes too far and hinders responsible science and growth (and would have repeatable, reliable results), then state the specific point clearly and the arguments in your favor.
So if we put these extra pair of legs on babies then they can stand in more extreme angles making them better at construction at a time when there is a housing shortage
I am convinced, I vote to allow it.
I am in agreement, but a point of contention: only ONE extra pair of legs? Or is this negotiable?
Spiderbaby, spiderbaby, does whatever a spider can, spiderbaby, spiderbaby, it’s mother refused to nurse it!
Splice with spider genes? I’ll allow that, too.
On a completely unrelated note I just bought a new Porche and condo.
If we’re going along with all you liberal scientists, it seems only fair that the child should be extra circumcised to keep things fair?
Biblically accurate infant.
For acceptance in the US we will also add more hands so the baby can hold an AR 15 while doing construction work.
And we already have a safety valve for when conventional ethics is standing in the way of vital research: the researchers test on themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine
If it’s that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?
It’s not terribly common because most useful research is perfectly ethical, but we have a good number of cases of researchers deciding that there’s no way for someone to ethically volunteer for what they need to do, so they do it to themselves. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they make very valuable discoveries. Sometimes both.
So the next time someone wantz to strap someone to a rocket engine and fire it into a wall, all they have to do is go first and be part of the testing pool.
You can’t really do the kind of experiments being done genetically modifying growing infants on yourself, I imagine. Not that that should be an excuse, of course.
Best I can do is generalization
This argument applies just as well to libertarians who oppose “regulation.” There are some truly insane libertarians who want all regulation gone, but a lot of people who say they are opposed to “regulation” really mean that they want to add more barriers to adding regulation, and repeal some known-to-be-problematic regulations. I’m sure that when this person says “ethics” is holding back scientific progress, he means the latter. To assert he just means getting rid of “ethics” entirely is absurd. There is only so much detail you can put in a tweet.
I mean, he was imprisoned for genetic experimentation on babies without informing the parents or basically anyone else. So… I don’t think he means that in a specific way. He wants to do whatever he feels like without oversight.