this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
748 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

13388 readers
2437 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 43 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Ethics are supposed to throttle human activity. That's their fucking job. That guy is a goddamn sociopath.

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 5 points 2 hours ago

I thought this guy was the one doing the human throttling

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 38 points 3 hours ago (10 children)

Is nobody concerned that illegal experiments on babies only gets you 3 years?

Maybe they were Uyghurs so it was classified as "property damage" in Chinese law.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 22 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Be careful, you might get banned from lemmy dot ml for hatespeech against dictatorships.

[–] Probius@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Why did you self censor by saying "dot"?

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I wrote that on my phone's touch keyboard, and I didn't want to use \. to escape the dot character to avoid autohotlinking.

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone who opposes dictatorships is a Nazi or a liberal, who are also Nazis.

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Nazis, by definition, do not oppose dictatorships. Not sure where you got that idea, but it certainly wasn't a level-headed assessment of history.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 2 points 30 minutes ago

The guy you're responding to is a liberal doing a piss poor parody of a ML.

You can't do a good parody if you get angry before the punchline, or don't understand the thing you're parodying in the first place.

[–] LeninsOvaries@lemmy.cafe -1 points 1 hour ago

I read it in Das Kapital, by Joseph Stalin. Don't you liberal anarkiddies read theory?

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Jiankui_affair

Laws were changed after this incident:

In 2020, the National People's Congress of China passed Civil Code and an amendment to Criminal Law that prohibit human gene editing and cloning with no exceptions

So, in case you actually meant that weird ignorant remark you made about Uyghurs, the answer is no and no.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 1 points 43 minutes ago

Lemmitors downvoting you because actually learning about the case conflicts with their "cHiNa BaD" circlejerk.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] nicknonya@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

wait he's not a fucking parody account?? i thought he was like. larping as an umbrella corp researcher

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Nah, I'm pretty sure that's the dude that used crispr on some babies years ago in an attempt to make them immune to HIV or something.

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 2 points 46 minutes ago

I was very surprised to hear that China arrested him for it in the first place

[–] shekau@lemmy.today -3 points 1 hour ago
[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 115 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

If a person's criticism is of "ethics" in general, that individual should not be allowed in a position of authority or trust. If you have a specific constraint for which you can make a case that it goes too far and hinders responsible science and growth (and would have repeatable, reliable results), then state the specific point clearly and the arguments in your favor.

[–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 3 points 56 minutes ago

Best I can do is generalization

[–] neatobuilds@lemmy.today 42 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

So if we put these extra pair of legs on babies then they can stand in more extreme angles making them better at construction at a time when there is a housing shortage

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 7 points 2 hours ago

For acceptance in the US we will also add more hands so the baby can hold an AR 15 while doing construction work.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 18 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I am convinced, I vote to allow it.

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I am in agreement, but a point of contention: only ONE extra pair of legs? Or is this negotiable?

[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 hours ago

Spiderbaby, spiderbaby, does whatever a spider can, spiderbaby, spiderbaby, it's mother refused to nurse it!

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 19 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And we already have a safety valve for when conventional ethics is standing in the way of vital research: the researchers test on themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-experimentation_in_medicine

If it's that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?

It's not terribly common because most useful research is perfectly ethical, but we have a good number of cases of researchers deciding that there's no way for someone to ethically volunteer for what they need to do, so they do it to themselves. Sometimes they die. Sometimes they make very valuable discoveries. Sometimes both.

So the next time someone wantz to strap someone to a rocket engine and fire it into a wall, all they have to do is go first and be part of the testing pool.

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 hours ago

If it's that vital, surely you would do it to yourself?

You can't really do the kind of experiments being done genetically modifying growing infants on yourself, I imagine. Not that that should be an excuse, of course.

[–] hikuro93@lemmy.ca 57 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

Ironic thing, we already tried this approach multiple times before, specially on war times. And each time humanity concluded that some knowledge has too high a price and we're better off not finding out some things.

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, especially with a heavy blood cost, isn't the way to progress as a species.

And I should know, as a person greatly defined by curiosity about everything and more limited emotional capacity than other people due to mental limitations.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 34 minutes ago

Also people like him tend to be shit at getting useful data.

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If you're talking about unit 731 and the nazis then there was very little, if anything, scientifically valuable there.

They had terrible research methodology that rendered what data they gathered mostly useless, and even if it wasn't, most of the information could have been surmised by other methods. Some of the things they did served no conceivable practical or scientific purpose whatsoever.

It was pretty much just sadism with a thin veneer of justification to buy them the small amount of legitimacy they needed to operate within their fascist governments.

[–] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 1 points 54 minutes ago

From what I read, a tiny bit of radiation and frostbite research was useful. Huge cost, of course, but minimally useful.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 13 points 4 hours ago

Also the motivation of such research is usually not purely scientific, if at all, so the data gathered is often useless.

load more comments
view more: next ›