Albert Tatlock Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 From the beeb: Six US citizens who, as children, were used in an experiment that tried to induce stuttering have been awarded nearly $1m (£500,000) in compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 It sometimes amazes me what harm 'scientists' are willing to inflict on their fellow human beings in the interests of 'research'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 That is awful - the poor little children Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 If this had happened in the last few years I'd be more concerned. I'm not saying it's not a horrible thing, but I think science has come a long way since 1939. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 It sometimes amazes me what harm 'scientists' are willing to inflict on their fellow human beings in the interests of 'research'. Some terrible things have been done by scientists to other people in experiments, although usually they've been understandably reluctant about using humans in research that will directly cause them harm, but in this case it has to be pointed out that those who carried out the tests weren't scientists: they were psychologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Psychologists if they are worth their salt should follow scientific method and should apply the same standard of ethics as other scientists. Otherwise the might as well be sociologists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted August 18, 2007 Share Posted August 18, 2007 Psychologists if they are worth their salt should follow scientific method and should apply the same standard of ethics as other scientists. Otherwise the might as well be sociologists! They're probably closer to sociologists than they are science, given that psychology regularly fails to meet the criteria of falsifiability that has been taken to, in part at least, define a science. That's not to say that they shouldn't adhere to a rigorous standard of ethics - if anything psychologists should be even more keenly aware of the importance of ethical practice since the lack of objectivity, falsifiability, or a clear concept of proof in their discipline means that it's all the harder to defend a controversial experiment (since the strength of its hypothesis and potential benefits are thereby that much harder to establish than in the case of testing, say, a new surgical procedure or therapy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.