We have computer-generated, false-color movies of brain activity but do we have any clue at what are we looking?
We can tell activity from non-activity but, do we have a clue as to how and why the activity?
If we were to admit the limits to our medical knowledge, perhaps we can clarify the treatment of, for example, high-blood pressure that, according to some, will produce a dependency that could kill, if interrupted.
Why is it that people with Diabetes and Alzhaimer’s are often found to have low suger?
Could it be that drugs, that counters the brain commands to the heart pump action, for example, ruins the normal brain control of the heart?
My doctor was very clear “If you start taking this drug, you can never stop!”

There seems (to me, at least) currently to be a broad presumption among both scientists and laymen, that there is no need of any “giver” of higher ethic in science, or outside science, than a societal consensus that some things are not acceptable. After all, if a majority of us think something is not cricket about burning down a school or a hospital, we will not do it. And, just in case a lunatic fringe population of us humans doesn’t grasp that, and abide by it, we have a legal system in place to punish, or reabilitate them, so that some will not just go out and do it again.

How interesting it is (to me, at least) that some inside and outside science academics and applied science professions deem that horrid metaphysical thing called “religion” to be a horrid enemy of scientific progress. Though a majority of scientists DO indulge in one kind of religion or another, the impression given by some (vis a vis C. Dawkins) is that any religious convictions are antithetical to empirical clarity.

If science extends the power to cope, or destroy the vestiges of community coping (as manifest in a school or a hospital), so too does it extend the power to “get away” with cheating.

If there is not any higher law giver, and science and social compacts (conscious or otherwise) are the ultimate tests of what is acceptable in science and society, this raises what might be called they “WHY NOT” problem.

Think of it this way (please). The reasoning behind presuming that a human will perform in “acceptable” ways is that he will want to out of fear of retribution by the community if he gets caught. But if science extends the capacity to use forensics, it ALSO, provides knowledge wherewith a violation of the social existential compact might be evaded by one’s knowing how to leave no forensic path to discovery of the culprit.

In street language, this reads, “Cannot knowledge of forensics to CATCH a researcher in cooking the research stats for personal gain, be applied ALSO to cooking the stats so as not to leave a trace one has done so?

But, then, let us brush off the table any fear of getting caught cooking the stats or lying about what one has observed in a rigorous scientific study. Let us turn, instead, to the
notion that evolution has prepared humans to WANT to so live that we opt for behavior that is conducive to the common good, and opt out of behavior that is contrary to the common good. Has not “good science” gone into demonstrating that the FIRST order of human psychological coping mechanisms are “programed” to save number one, and number one’s closest genetic kin first of all, and one’s tribe secondarily, and humanity tertiarily, or something to that effect? That IS what social psychologists have determined, is it not?

If so, then we have as much as said, on the one hand, that scientists “can be” objective in wishing, in their recording of research stats, in such a way as both to do no harm and to be truthful out of desire of being so, UNLESS, there is some coping beed (survival benefit, if you prefer) for doing otherwise.

Do we not see this then: That what science has come nearest to “proving” (if, indeed, it can prove much of anything) is that if science must rely upon the hierarchy of human coping mechanisms, and there is no higher ethical authority or law giver to answer to, then fudging one’s research stats has only one thing to hold it back, the fear of getting caught. In case I have not made it clear yet, if the researcher has much to gain by producing results that verify a pharmeceutical product will work, it can be worth much to his employer and, hence, can be quite advantageous to himself/herself, whereas, if it does not “work” as hoped, it is worthless, WHY NOT fudge a little.

Shall we object that this would not be “good science.” Who says? There is no higher “good.” One’s livlihood might be at stake. People who die are just gone and existentially as they would be if they never had never been. What’s this metaphysical concept of “good,” anyway. What seems good is only a matter of coping better, FIRSTLY as an individual, SECONDLY as a member of one’s genetic closest genetic likes (family) and somewhere farther down the line the rest of humanity. Biologists and social psychologists and some specialists in science have “established” this, have they not.

How interesting it is, also, (to me, at least) that in every case that has been tried in a court of (human) law, the burden of proof has been upon those who assert that god is. It may never happen, but would it not be a beautiful irony if the shoe were to be put on the other foot, and some atheist biologists were constrained to prove God is NOT!

One atheist writer I admire (for his eloquence and logic, although I do not grant all the ASSUMPTIONS he deems to be self-evident) has offered a sizeable monetary reward for anyone who can prove (empirically) that God exists. What if the countrary offer were made to HIM, offering him double his offer in exchange for proof by him, or anyone else, that God is NOT.

If there is wisdom in these words, think about them. If there is not, so what. Think and do ANYTHING that is “good” in your opinion. Cook your stats in your research and focus only on how to hide your cheating. Be the evolved human you were “meant” to be.

Why not, (:>)

Your friend (and a believer),
Jeanious

The “gradualism” where we think small steps are safe, before the full doses is tried, is not a viable option when the threshold on what is safe is not established.
We all saw Michael Fox plead for his survival but, the only way to establish a safe limit is by experiment and if the patient dies or impaired for life, then we will know a level that is dangerous.
But, how about if some effects take six months or longer? Must we all say “Give a shot. Go for broke!” except the patient?
Yes, I know, after some die, we will know more. Was that the reason for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment? How about the Nazi medical experiments? How about the lobotomy give to the daughter of Ambassador Kennedy, in early 1900?
Lobotomy is still legal in some states in the Union and some nations. It was invented and used in the US first, do we have some Ethical responsibility to admit our mistake and try to stop it? Or, do we say “The Genie is out of the bottle, ops!”