Something that Yarster mentioned over in GA got me to thinking. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=33505
I realize that we are all pretty much against a government conducting dangerous experiments on its own citizens with out their knowledge, but what if the experiments are completely benign?
Take for example the 1966 experiment conducted where the government released a harmless variant of anthrax in in New York subway stations to see how effectively the currents created by the trains would distribute it among the population.
The question boils down to whether or not a government has a right to do whatever they want with you so long as it doesn’t physically harm you and you don’t find out about it?
Personally I find this a rather disturbing thought. Even if it is for my own good, I think I’d like to be asked first.
They do it all the time. Ever hear of the FDA? Clinical trials? What are these if not just experiments conducted on the general population? And some of them aren’t particularly benign, even.
The real difference is that in clinical trials, participants are informed as to the risks beforehand and agree anyway. I think what you’re getting at is whether or not the government can morally conduct experiments on people without informed consent. The answer to that, IMHO, is a resounding no. Whether it happens or not, I leave up to the conspiracy theorists.
threemae - Here. There are a number of others, but considering this is from the US Army War College Quarterly
Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3
I’d say it’s the most reliable source I have at the moment.
I know the VA medical system occasionally gets hammered for performing experiments on patients without their knowledge. IIRC, (I know I heard this on NPR sometime in 98) one patient had withheld his consent to participate in an experiement; the doctor did it anyway.
In theory, patients are required to give consent if there is a chance they may be used in an experiment. An oversight body called the Institutional Review Board also exists to make sure trials are safe (within reason), and that all parties are informed as to what goes on. Granted, the process sometimes fails, as some participants may not be completely suitable for an experiment but are used anyway, as in the case of that kid in Philly who died because his blood chemistry wasn’t within acceptable limits. (This was a gene therapy experiment; the kid’s ammonia level was too high but the experiment proceeded in spite of that.)
FWIW, Spy magazine also ran a piece about five years or so ago on people who participate in clinical drug trials. I may never take another pill as long as I live.
They did something similiar in San Francisco during the 50’s. They released a benign substance from a ship to determine how it would be distributed through the city. The results were one dead man and handfull of people who got seriously ill.
Wish I had some sort of link for you to visit. I only know about this because the History Channel had a show on about government experiements on US citizens.
I don’t see any mention that the bacteria released was a harmless form of Anthrax. In any case, it seems that it was more a test of the subway system, then the effects of the bacteria on people. In other words, they could have used dust, except that they probably wanted to use bacteria to stay as close to the situation in question.
I don’t really see this as experimentation on the population, and probably a worthy exercise to prepare for such an attempt by a terrorist group.
**Kyberneticist **:
Bacillus subtilis variant Niger is listed as the agent used in a number of sources. Bacillus anthracis which is Anthrax was not used, but rather a bening bacterica that is a variation of the deadly form.
And as I allready mentioned, it was not a test of the agent, but rather a test to see how easily a dangerous form of the agent could be distrubted. (likely both to devlop defense plans against such an attack and to develop an attack plan to use on other countries.)
My question, however, isn’t asking if it’s OK for a country to test dangerous things on its citizens w/o their approval.
My question is, ** “Is it WRONG for a goverment to * use * its people in tests without their consent or knowledge even if the doesn’t harm its people?” **
I take it from your answer you are saying it’s perfectly fine if the goverment uses you in an experiment so long as it doesn’t directly hurt you.
Personaly I think it’s entierly wrong for a goverment to conduct said experiments using it’s population. For one, it comprimises ** MY ** ethical choices.
I am completly against using biological warfare against another nation. If my goverment had gained information by using me as a unknowing test subject on how easily they could infect another nation and then they acutlay used that information against a nation, I would be completly diswrought, and utterly pissed having become an unwilling participant (no matter how small) in an atrocity!
I am completly against being someone’s data without my knoweldge or consent even if it is in my “best interest.”
That changes everything. I had no idea the bacteria in question had any effect on people. Essentially, what I was saying was that a harmless bacteria (one that would have no more effect then dust) wouldn’t have been experimenting on the civilians, it would have been experimenting on the metro system. Granted, their reason for doing it seems to have been less to defend our country, then to threaten others…
If the bacteria had any effect on people (and the implication in that quote is that some may have become ill) then yes, I would find the test highly unethical.
The idea of a government conducting tests, harmfull or not, on unwilling citizens is definetely dangerous. If the government conducts only harmless tests, what’s to keep them from conducting harmfull ones? Their word? They are already conducting secret tests, it is but a small step to change them.
What I heard is (and i think this is pretty well documented. This is the stuff the govenment actually admits)there was a similar test of the distibution patterns of a “benign” bacteria over San Francisco. And it was benign. Except for a couple of people in the hospital who already had lowered immunity and died because of it.
The problem is hubris. The government pretends it really knows what’s in the best interests of the people.
Anybody remember the benign fallout from those nuclear tests?
How come nobody’s mentioned MKUltra and the LSD experiments yet? Or that insane pyschiatrist in Canada the CIA funded?
grin I love it how I’m now being protrayed as ultimate defender of the status quo. You should delve into my posting history sometime, Lib. You might be surprised.
Anyway, the answer is yes. Unequivocally, yes, it’s wrong.
Hey, betenoir…forgive my confusion: what do MKUltra and the LSD experiments have to do with one another?
As an example of one of the most egregious instances of the government acting upon its people without consent, I’ll submit COINTELPRO. Scary stuff.
Gad, if you haven’t read it yet I suggest White Out by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St.Clair, it’s right up your liberal alley. You can find it one their website http://www.counterpunch.org
The book goes into great detail on the CIA tests of the 60’s. It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.
My grandmother was in a government test (without her knowlegde) They got excellant pay to paint telephones. What they were not told was that the paint had radiation in it. She died a very painful death from cancer not too much later. This happened in either the late 50’s or early 60’s I know she was gone by 63 when my brother was born. By the time she realized that the paint was making her ill it was too late. It took us to a couple years ago to get the government to admit the experiment And just recently did they finally conceded that she was in the study. It just makes me cringe to think of what else the government is trying to pull over our heads.