No more Dan Markingsons

[rug]

Apr172013
by PZ Myers

A few weeks ago I gave a talk in Seattle in which I pointed out that science is not sufficient to define moral behavior. A substantial part of that talk was a catalog of atrocities, such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. I said that in purely scientific terms, that was a good experiment; if the subjects had been mice, for instance, setting aside an untreated control group to study the progression of the disease would have been considered an essential part of smart experimental design. One could still argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…if one were willing to distance oneself from the humanity of the subjects.

Yes, one can always retreat to the excuse that these were cases of bad science, where the scientists violated the rules of their own profession. But where do the ethical guidelines come from? Not science.

I missed a trick, though. I talked mainly about old cases, when there’s a clear case of the conflict between ethics and science playing out right now, right at my home university: the case of Dan Markingson, the young man who was enrolled in an experimental pharmaceutical study and kept there, even as his mental illness worsened, and who eventually committed suicide.

There’s a new article by a bioethicist on this case.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/17/no-more-dan-markingsons/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29

His thesis is in his first sentence:

science is not sufficient to define moral behavior

Do you agree?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. Across Human History or the last 20 to next 20 years?

Atrocities were committed in the name of God.... (Charlemagnes 'river of blood' from killing pagans)... Savagery and brutality... (Viking raids and the Conquests)..... Health and Work Safety (child labor and sweatshops).......

Moral compass?

Seems to spin and not point one way.

IMHO.

[rug]

2. So is your answer yes or no?

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

7. I guess YES with the caveat...

I find moral to be more cultural and environmental with influences on personalities of individuals.

So in part Science isn't complete, but if all parameters of a situation COULD be measured...
then it may be better than we might think.

[rug]

8. Thanks for the answer.

I tend to agree with most of it.

[gcomeau]

3. Morals are subjective evaluations, not objectively discovered data.

And yes, that does answer the question...

[rug]

6. It does.

Of course it raises other questions.

[Jim__]

4. Yes, I agree.

But this needs to be a question about legality, which the remark about Dan's Law indicates it has become. This was an industry-funded study. Corporations have no moral principles. When you are a corporate officer, you are likely to be removed for placing moral/ethical considerations before profit. We, as a society, need to accept the responsibility for determining what is permissible. It is immoral to leave those decisions to corporations.

[rug]

5. I didn't notice that about the study. Good catch.