Slashdot Log In
Ten Strangely Cruel Science Experiments
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Nov 03, 2007 01:34 PM
from the cruel-but-hilarious dept.
from the cruel-but-hilarious dept.
aalobode writes "The Times of London has a current story based on the review of a book by Alex Boase, Elephants on Acid and Other Bizarre Experiments. There they list the top science experiments — including the one from which the book gets its name — that were conducted by otherwise sane humans who tragically or otherwise ignored the effect of their research on the subjects themselves. Nowadays, most institutions have a review board for research on human subjects which would flag most proposals that could lead to harm for the subjects, but not so in the past. 'Another 1960s experiment, in which ten soldiers on a training flight were told by the pilot that the aircraft was disabled, and about to ditch in the ocean. They were then required to fill in insurance forms before the crash -- ostensibly so the Army was not financially liable for any deaths or injuries. They were actually unwitting participants in an experiment: the plane was not crippled at all. It revealed that fear of imminent death indeed causes soldiers to make more mistakes than usual when filling in forms.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
They forgot two!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately the Geneva Convention made Slashdot fire JonKatz using the Junis fiasco as a reason.
50 years ago today (Score:5, Informative)
RIP Laika
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they list (Score:5, Funny)
The Tuskagee Syphilis Study didn't make the cut? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Tuskagee Syphilis Study didn't make the cut (Score:3, Interesting)
I was also reminded of another famous experiment, the Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org] where a group of test subjects were instructed to shock other test subjects. The entire setup was false - those said
We musn't forget.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We musn't forget.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, now I have to go back and critic my post...
Parent
Re:We musn't forget.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not clear at all that these are particularly brilliant scientific advances. Perhaps in the field of psychology the predilection for the use of experiments of questionable ethical basis in the past may bias your perception. The use of unnecessarily cruel experiments certainly isn't common in physics, chemistry, or b
Worthwhile contributions to human knowledge (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, mistakenly shitting one's pants instead of standard-operating-procedure use of latrine.
No takesies-backsies. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) I would assume I had already signed such a waiver when I first enlisted.
2) What was the Army going to do if they didn't? Suddenly save the plane to avoid any lawsuits?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that's my point. They didn't know it was an experiment. They were under the impression they really were in danger.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. Imagine you're one of the soldiers and you're in a plane and you're going to die. Suddenly the sergeant comes over and hands you a long form and a Bic. He says you need to fill
Not long ago.... (Score:5, Funny)
Until today researchers have found no clear answer as to why the population neglects the truth, that it actually has been fried,äh freed.
Only cruel that they don't do this one more often (Score:5, Funny)
20,000 lbs of metallic Sodium being dropped in a lake [google.com].
Oh yeah baby, you roll those barrels in there!
Tooth decay (Score:5, Interesting)
Sugar Experiments Of Mental Patients [medicalnewstoday.com].
In 1947-1949 a group of mental patients in Sweden were used as subjects in a full-scale experiment designed to bring about tooth decay. They were fed copious amounts of candy, and many of them had their teeth completely ruined. But, scientifically speaking, the experiment was a huge success.
cruel experiment in 2005-6: circumcision and AIDS (Score:4, Interesting)
It was concluded that you're about 50% more likely to catch HIV if you're uncircumcised. I'd say, especially in a society where circumcision is not standard (i.e. not Israel, USA, Philippines, etc.), if you've just had part of your cock lobbed off, you're very likely to change your sexual habits and people are less likely to have sex with you. If you're just given advice and then told to go away, you're more likely to carry on as usual.
Experimentation on the negro [usrf.org] is not exactly new, of course.
LSD is serious buisness (Score:5, Informative)
Unicode is serious business (Score:4, Informative)
I think someone needs to correct the units in the Wiki article.
Parent
How do you define cruel? (Score:3, Interesting)
They both found out after 30 years that they were part of an experiment.
I can understand that some twins are separated by accident, but how would you feel to know that you missing 30 years of growing up with your sibling because of some experiment?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/10/twins_separated_as_babies_beco_1.html [npr.org]
Some More Crazy Experiments (Score:3, Informative)
Thomas edison (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents [wikipedia.org]
Milgram Experiment, Open heart surgery (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the risks taken by the patients and surgeons who pioneered open heart surgery? A great recount of those gruesome days is provided by the book "King of Hearts", which details the career of Dr. C. Walton Lillehei?
Re:Milgram Experiment, Open heart surgery (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also established the notion that military atrocities are more often more the responsibility of the leadership than those doing the deed. Look at the Abu Ghraib torture incidents if you need any examples.
So, yes. I'd argue that the Milgram experiment was a very important bit of science. Nobody was actually directly harmed from the experiment (92% of the participants said they were glad to have taken part in it in a survey), and it provided very valuable results (that specifically could be applied to the betterment of society).
If you want an example of a similar psychological that was actually cruel, read up on the Stanford Prison Experiment [wikipedia.org], in which participants were directly victimized.
Parent
Jack Barnes (Score:4, Interesting)
Monkey Head Transplants (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdJGlYOL0r4 [youtube.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant [wikipedia.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1263758.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.freetimes.com/stories/14/46/whites-anatomy [freetimes.com]
In other news, Dr. White was my neurosurgeon once a long time ago. I suspect that's where my extra head came from, but you can never really know.
Aperture Science? (Score:4, Funny)
My experiment (Score:5, Funny)
I built a news site for software developers and other geeks, which every 12 seconds flashes a message saying "Blow-up dolls are fun!" The goal is to see if I can substantially increase the sales of blow-up dolls world wide through subliminal advertising.
So far it's been quite a success. The cruel part is that dependency on blow-up dolls seems to dramatically decrease the subject's aptitude when dealing with the (living) opposite sex, but hey, all science exacts a price.
Ignore that.
Stanford Prison Experiment (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a few volunteers pay them $15 a day and split them up into Prisoners and Guards. These are just normal people off the street. The experiment had to be canceled early because of the psychological trauma that the Prisoners were experiencing. And we're not talking 30 days of 60 days in, the experiment was canceled in 6 days.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
The Monster Study at the Univ. of Iowa (Score:3, Interesting)
The study's main researcher, Wendell Johnson, has a campus building named after him (the Wendell Johnson Speech & Hearing Center [uiowa.edu]). Apparently the Univ. of Iowa still doesn't see anything wrong with conducting research on non-consenting children...
Everybody probably grew up in an experiment. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.
2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.
3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.
4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.
5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.
6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
I don't know about everybody else, but I was certainly aware that the system was totally broken in an evil kind of way while I was struggling through the middle of it. I just barely managed to crawl across the graduation finish line, having made enemies with several of the staff. I was young, and I could have done much better had I another go at it, but the whole thing seemed monumentally evil at the time. When I came across Ingli'e work, it made a lot more sense.
But the absolutely most mind-blowing points are covered in this video. [youtube.com]
-FL
You're missing out. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is like saying that Rock sucks if you're listening to a high-school garage band tuning up.
Jazz is more than "soft" stuff that you probably associate it with. (like anything by Kenny G. which does, in fact, suck.)
Jazz has so many different genres inside of it. You should seriously look at some of the non-soft ones. Namely, Bebop and Free Jazz. Take a listen to Charlie Parker's "Ko Ko" from over 50 years ago. Insane chops on all the players. (Fast, hard... not soft.) Want something modern? Medeski, Martin and Wood albums are a start. (jam-based funky jazz)
Also, although you might consider it "soft" it should be considered "cool," - Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue." That's the album I buy for folks who "hate jazz" and all have enjoyed that album and opened up to Jazz after that. (Plus, all women I've introduced that to now love the thing.)
But perhaps I'm wrong, and you'll just continue to stagnate with Korn, or DethKlok, or whatever...
Parent
Re:Bad conclusion? (Score:4, Funny)
I would think that the soldiers made the mistakes willingly to avoid to let the "army not financially liable for any deaths or injuries.". Why the would like to save the Army (instead of their families) if they think tell are going to die?
Maybe because they are brainwashed?
From what little army personnel I've known, they've all been pretty brainwashed in the-Army-is-always-right manner.
My friend, who is almost as near-sighted as I am, was placed in sharpshooters.
He told the recruiting officer it must have been a mistake, only to hear the answer: "The Army makes no mistakes."
He then showed him his eye prescription, only to hear: "That must have been a mistake."
Parent
Re:Bad conclusion? (Score:4, Informative)
To Croatian army, it does matter.
We nearsighted ones are considered incapable of serving in the military, which is just as well as far as I'm concerned.
Though from 2008 on, the army is going pro anyway, so I no longer care at all.
Anyway, I agree with you as far as marksmanship goes; I wasn't too bad myself when I tried.
Oh, forgot one more thing: my friend was assigned to sharpshooters because of his psych profile: he's just psychotic enough to be able to kill someone from far away and not care, which is apparently how our sharpshooters are selected.
Parent
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as opposed to the republican health care program in which the richest country in the world can't take care of its citizens' basic needs.
It's the richest country in the world because its citizens can and do take care of their basic needs themselves. What you don't seem to understand is that the taking care of its citizens is not one of the government's jobs. The government has at most three jobs: providing for the common defense, maintaining order, and regulating commerce. That last one is arguable, but I generally believe that some minimal amount of that is necessary (such as outlawing false advertising, regulating how food products are ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also I don't see how the government is reducing my freedom by using some of my tax money to provide free health care.
If you're a real asshole you can look on it as an investment; healthy people work better, safe people may feel like they don't need a safety net and will spend more perhaps.
The argument that health care can't be provided
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the first things that she privatized was the ward cleaning services. In particular, Mrs. Thatcher was outraged that cleaners were using three different sets of disinfectants as well as spending what seemed to be half their time cleaning door handles. But there were sound scientific reasons for doing all of this. NHS scientists had determined that three levels of disinfectant were required. A high concentration disinfectant was used for cleaning floors where bandages, blood and outdoor shoes would bring in contamination. A middle concentration disinfectant for cleaning frequently contacted surface (door handles, panels etc.. ) and a low concentration disinfectant for clean walls and ceilings. As cleaners were part of the ward team, they got to know which areas needed the most attention
To stop this "waste", the government decided to privatize the cleaning services so that they would be specified only by a contract and not through team-work. Consequently we have all the problems we have now with infection.
For this reaon alone, many experienced nurses who have retired will not consider going back into the profession.
Parent
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why on some continental southern neighbours of the UK people are rather attached to the concept of public service because for all of its deficiencies there are a number of areas where it works much better than the private sector.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you don't seem to understand is that the taking care of its citizens is not one of the government's jobs. The government has at most three jobs: providing for the common defense, maintaining order, and regulating commerce.
One could argue that common defense, maintaining order and regulating commerce all fall under the umbrella of "taking care of its citizens". Governments provide police officers to keep their citizens safe from crime, fire departments to keep them safe from fires, armies to keep them safe from foreign powers - so why not a department to keep them safe from disease?
I'd argue that a government has the obligation to protect the liberty and the lives of its citizens. A national health service is one way to fulf
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd argue that a government has the obligation to protect the liberty and the lives of its citizens. A national health service is one way to fulfill that obligation.
You could argue that, but you would be wrong. The police do not keep people safe from crime, the police rarely get involved until after the crime has occurred. The police are part of the system to arrest and punish those who violate the public order. The difference is significant and important. Likewise, the fire department doesn't keep people safe from fire. The fire department arrives and puts out the fire (btw, where I live the fire company is a private organization, not a government department. that su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the basic needs of its citizens were actually being taken care of, then I'd agree with you. But, in fact, they are not. The cost of health care is beyond the ability of too many citizens to take care of that themselves. The cost of some medical needs can exceed the lifetime take home pay of the median citizen.
The health care costs are up for a number of reasons:
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Americans pay more for medicine because they feel good about it. A few pay more because they are filthy rich and it has no effect on their finances. Many more "pay" for it through employer health plans, some of which have group bargaining power to get lower prices. Some more PAY for it and can't afford to eat. The rest don't pay for it because they don't have the money and don't qualify for the confusing maze of programs that help fund medicines for the very poor.
"What the market can bear" really means that some will always be forced to do without because there are enough that can barely manage to pay. If everyone had exactly equal finances, then a "what the market can bear" principle would be fair to all. When you're talking about luxuries like having the latest dual quad-core computer, people can at least live without, and these days they live with the 400 MHz P-II "hand me downs". Some people live in mansions but others have to do without and live in a small trailer. But at least they have a roof over their heads. Medicines essential to someone with a particular illness are either available or not; there's no "non-luxury" version that has the same healt care properties.
Yes, the corruption of law making through the lobby system is a major cause of the high medicine and health care costs in the USA.
Parent
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of these are lifestyle diseases, there is nothing you can do to avoid them except be lucky. If you're unlucky, and don't have employeer provided health insurance, you're pretty much screwed.
Parent
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Fill out a Form? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that's exactly what The U.S. Constitution (or any, for that matter)is for--for specifically outlining what the job of of the government is. Federal constitutions describe federal governments; state constitutions define state governments--and so on. The last thing that the government should be doing is everything the people tell it to do. People can, do, and will give away their own freedoms for what, in the end, amounts to nothing. That nothing takes many forms, usually safety from terrorists, and, as in this case, safety from (death by) illness. Worse yet, people can, do, and will give away other people's freedoms for the same reasons! Don't believe me? Remember the Japanese internments of the 1940s, or Nazi Germany, or sex-offender laws that ruin people's lives for the stupid, mostly harmless things that they did when they were fifteen.
And when the money is created from thin air, because of rampant inflation, or demanded from the citizens at an ever-increasing rate, again due to inflation, to pay for it all, how is this any different than not providing those services? Instead of some people having quality health care while others don't, no one will have it. Will you be happy to pay so much in taxes that someone else, who may not have your work ethic, freeloads off the government while your quality of life takes a swim in the crapper? Let's see what you say when that possibility comes up, as it most certainly will if this country (the United States) continues its current course.
No, it's not okay for people to be forced to live on the streets, starving to death, being treated as criminals for daring to be alive. Yes, it is the human thing to do to help those in need, for the strong to assist the weak. Should it be forced by law? No. Freedom does include the right to be an ass to the rest of society, so long as you don't actively seek to destroy it. Just as is the rule with free speech, only permitting "popular" freedoms does not count as preserving freedom at all.
You say it is cruel to ignore those who have lesser means to get by, to throw them under the bus for your own gain. That is true. Do realize, though, that it is just as cruel to force someone to take care of another person without an implied or explicit agreement to do so (such as would be made in the case of parenthood). Legally, I have no responsibility for anyone other than myself, any children I help create, or anyone for whom I take legal guardianship of. Morally, I should help those in need, but the government has no place legislating based on all but the most basic moralities (such as the prohibition of murder). And yes, it is as morally wrong to force someone to degrade his own life to support the life of someone else, agreed-to commitments aside, as it is to leave a homeless man to die.
Parent
Re:Ten Strangely Cruel Science Experiments (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Ten Strangely Cruel Science Experiments (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent