Big surprise....isn't the first time Joey ducks and runs when exposed and I'm sure it won't be the last.
An Unresolved Paradox in Science.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
- Status
Big surprise....isn't the first time Joey ducks and runs when exposed and I'm sure it won't be the last.
So, what was the ethical guideline they breached? Simply asserting that one group with a very specific outlook is proof of a breach isn't enough. Was it something in the Declaration of Helsinki? The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects?
I am not saying that there war any breaches, Tonington. In fact, if you read my post, I say specifically that I don’t think there were any breaches. But according to prolifers, there were.
So, that means a pharmaceutical will need to replicate the mad scientists results, at considerable cost. But who owns the patent? Who would spend hundreds, potentially into the billion+ of $'s to complete a study, without the patent? Would it be a government?
I am assuming that he gives the discovery to the world at large, free of charge. Anybody is free to manufacture it. Of course, before anybody can market it, they will have to go through proper channels, FDA approval etc. But there is no patent.
Your obsession with the prolife movement is again causing you difficulty. Pro-life protesters cannot stop people from conducting proper research trials. In the replication of the mad scientists results, there would be nothing unethical.
In USA prolifers can try to stop anything they want. Just as they have launched a crusade against abortion performing doctors (they killed one recently), they can launch a crusade against doctors who are performing the trials.
So duplicating that, sans the suffering is not unethical.
Indeed not. And I didn’t even say that using this discovery is unethical. All I am saying is that there are two sides to the issue and some may consider it unethical. There are tow sides to the issue.
Possibly. So what? If the hypothetical hypothetical scientist is compelled, then they probably lacked the ethical standing in the first place, and is likely to be on the fringes of the science community and already over the line. What I'm saying is, they don't need any more influence.
Quite possibly you are right. But the influence of Dr. Mad may push some of them over the line.
So, you're essentially saying the ends do justify the means.
Not at all. What I am saying is that my decision would be influence by ethics, combined with self interest.
Anyway, I am off to a b’bq. Bye.
I am not saying that there war any breaches, Tonington. In fact, if you read my post, I say specifically that I don’t think there were any breaches. But according to prolifers, there were.
So, that means a pharmaceutical will need to replicate the mad scientists results, at considerable cost. But who owns the patent? Who would spend hundreds, potentially into the billion+ of $'s to complete a study, without the patent? Would it be a government?
I am assuming that he gives the discovery to the world at large, free of charge. Anybody is free to manufacture it. Of course, before anybody can market it, they will have to go through proper channels, FDA approval etc. But there is no patent.
Your obsession with the prolife movement is again causing you difficulty. Pro-life protesters cannot stop people from conducting proper research trials. In the replication of the mad scientists results, there would be nothing unethical.
In USA prolifers can try to stop anything they want. Just as they have launched a crusade against abortion performing doctors (they killed one recently), they can launch a crusade against doctors who are performing the trials.
So duplicating that, sans the suffering is not unethical.
Indeed not. And I didn’t even say that using this discovery is unethical. All I am saying is that there are two sides to the issue and some may consider it unethical. There are tow sides to the issue.
Possibly. So what? If the hypothetical hypothetical scientist is compelled, then they probably lacked the ethical standing in the first place, and is likely to be on the fringes of the science community and already over the line. What I'm saying is, they don't need any more influence.
Quite possibly you are right. But the influence of Dr. Mad may push some of them over the line.
So, you're essentially saying the ends do justify the means.
Not at all. What I am saying is that my decision would be influence by ethics, combined with self interest.
Anyway, I am off to a b’bq. Bye.
Some methods for acquiring stem cells:
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Dead Embryos
(does not require abortion. There are miscarriages and accidents mothers have that kill babies);
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Biopsied Blastomeres
(creating an embryonic stem cell line by using a blastomere cell from an embryo).
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Biological Artifacts
Possibly; (1) genetically modify a somatic cell in culture, either reversibly or irreversibly inactivating a gene essential for normal trophoblast function/development (which is required for embryo implantation and development of the placenta); (2) use this genetically modified somatic cell as the source of a nucleus and genome for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) into a human oocyte. (3) allow this oocyte to proceed to develop into a blastocyst; and (4) attempt to generate a hESC line from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst.
Pluripotent Stem Cells by Reprogramming Somatic Cells
Possibly; (reprogramming human somatic cells, perhaps with the aid of special cytoplasmic factors obtained from oocytes (or from pluripotent embryonic stem cells), so as to "dedifferentiate" them back into pluripotent stem cells).
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Dead Embryos
(does not require abortion. There are miscarriages and accidents mothers have that kill babies);
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Biopsied Blastomeres
(creating an embryonic stem cell line by using a blastomere cell from an embryo).
Pluripotent Stem Cells from Biological Artifacts
Possibly; (1) genetically modify a somatic cell in culture, either reversibly or irreversibly inactivating a gene essential for normal trophoblast function/development (which is required for embryo implantation and development of the placenta); (2) use this genetically modified somatic cell as the source of a nucleus and genome for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) into a human oocyte. (3) allow this oocyte to proceed to develop into a blastocyst; and (4) attempt to generate a hESC line from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst.
Pluripotent Stem Cells by Reprogramming Somatic Cells
Possibly; (reprogramming human somatic cells, perhaps with the aid of special cytoplasmic factors obtained from oocytes (or from pluripotent embryonic stem cells), so as to "dedifferentiate" them back into pluripotent stem cells).
THIS is a scientific paradox
How to Build a Time Machine: Mother of All Paradoxes: Scientific American
The OP MIGHT be considered an ethical problem.
How to Build a Time Machine: Mother of All Paradoxes: Scientific American
The OP MIGHT be considered an ethical problem.
I have an easy solution, but it's extremely unethical: kill everyone and take the time concepts out of their heads and attach the amalgam to a bicycle. There would be enough thoughts about past occurrences to enable traveling back in time for quite a while.
well, I was asking you. So I guess you can't think of any drug which has breached ethical guidelines then. So, the logical next question is why would you think they would now change their tack?
If there is no patent, nobody will spend the money to get it approved. We're talking about hundreds to billions of dollars. Did you take my advice yet, and Google dichloroacetate? If you do, you will see what happens when there is a drug that seems to be capable of curing cancer, but will not be produced by pharmaceutical companies because the drug cannot be patented.
Or just read this, a post of mine from another thread on this very topic:
A real life case where a cancer drug has no patent owner.
They can. Doesn't mean they will, or that if they do they would be successful. Seems you're willing to only grant a one-sided reality in your hypothetical, and all ad-hoc...
Of course you did. You said you wouldn't use it and gave your reasons why. That is a tacit agreement with that side who would say it is unethical to do so.
And some pro-lifer folks might not actually protest the use of this hypothetical drug...
:roll: That is the ends justifying the means. Your self-interest is used to justify using the drug.
Have fun.
I guess maybe I'm bored today...so bored that I signed up for a 4000 level stats course that I don't even need to graduate. I know it's not a paradox. Well the hypothetical situation isn't.
This Thread, too, is now CLOSED until a Moderator has the time to
run through it.
Of the last fifteen (or so) reported Threads in the last few days, one of
them was about SPAM. If you see SPAM, report it, and that will leave
more time for Moderators to deal with the Childish & Repeaditive
Trolling that has been taking place here lately.
run through it.
Of the last fifteen (or so) reported Threads in the last few days, one of
them was about SPAM. If you see SPAM, report it, and that will leave
more time for Moderators to deal with the Childish & Repeaditive
Trolling that has been taking place here lately.
OK....the few Posts that I think needed to be removed, have been
removed. There are two other Moderators that will eventually review
this Thread. Once that has happened, the Thread will be re-opened.
I removed several Personal Attacks. The other Moderators may
remove more, or Trolling, or whatever they see fit.
removed. There are two other Moderators that will eventually review
this Thread. Once that has happened, the Thread will be re-opened.
I removed several Personal Attacks. The other Moderators may
remove more, or Trolling, or whatever they see fit.
This is ridiculous. It's like a bunch of children have to continually try and pick fights. And it always appears to be the same group of people in some fashion.
Well, here is a heads-up. The next little flame fest that either requires a thread being closed or posts being unapproved will result in a 24 hour Ban for EVERYONE involved.
There have been some misconceptions about "guilt" and "innocence" around here recently. Well, I am going to clear up that misconception. There has been trolling on BOTH sides of the flame-war. The amount of Reported Posts that have been sent the past few days is insane! Can't people get along without baiting other people or trying deliberately to piss someone off?
One last thing. If anyone has any questions or opinions about how the Mods are doing something, please send the Mod a PM rather than send it to their Wall. Not everyone needs to read the "dirty laundry" as it were. Thank you.
Well, here is a heads-up. The next little flame fest that either requires a thread being closed or posts being unapproved will result in a 24 hour Ban for EVERYONE involved.
There have been some misconceptions about "guilt" and "innocence" around here recently. Well, I am going to clear up that misconception. There has been trolling on BOTH sides of the flame-war. The amount of Reported Posts that have been sent the past few days is insane! Can't people get along without baiting other people or trying deliberately to piss someone off?
One last thing. If anyone has any questions or opinions about how the Mods are doing something, please send the Mod a PM rather than send it to their Wall. Not everyone needs to read the "dirty laundry" as it were. Thank you.
- Status