- CONFERENCE FEEDBACK - Student Pugwash Grenoble? - by Mathieu Terrin-Perrin
- Just War Theory, Just a Theory by Adrien Graton - ENSIMAG
- Students Shocked by utilization of Nazi experimentation data by Thomas Fabre - PHELMA
- Summary and Review of Etienne Verges' Contribution by Gabriel Synnaeve - ENSIMAG
- Science and Ethics at MINATEC by Laure Frachet - ENSIMAG
- Impressions of the Conference - Etienne Verges and General Albanel - by Yves Grasland - ENSIMAG
- Comment on the Debate by Noa Shalev - MOSIG
- Debate summary and review by Sylvain Frey - MOSIG
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Student Reviews and Responses
Student Debate Review - "This house believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress."
by Sylvain Frey
I was having difficulties following what the speakers meant, in particular the second speaker for proposition, so my notes sometimes may seem a little senseless. The speakers had a lot of examples but their goals were not very clear. I think the reason is that the motion was not very well formulated.
Actually the fact that "ethics hold back science" is clearly true for both sides, the real goal was to discuss if it is good or not. For that, precise and topical examples were missed. I think discussing clearly about cloning, stem cells, nuclear power and sustainable energies would have been more interesting. Concerning the debate itself I was a little disappointed because of this "missing point".
Actually, I have found some interesting arguments that I would reformulate as follows: one must not confuse "scientific progress", which is an abstract notion, with "making science", which is a human activity. Scientists are humans, they don't make science just to make science but in order to have fun. After that, sometimes, they imagine they "make the national progress". So scientists can't make science without ethical considerations, like any other human activity. And a scientist who doesn't agree with the science he makes should stop it because it is senseless, for him and for the society.(I use the expression "making science" on purpose, it is really how I see scientific activity: manufacturing something.)
Motion: "This house believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress."
First speaker for proposition:
A definition of ethics could be: "moral consideration of people's right or wrong behaviour". The main representations of ethics are: religion, laws,... Scientific creation is similar to artistic creation, it needs freedom because freedom generates discoveries. That's why ethical considerations hold back scientific innovation. Of course there are exceptions, but "exceptions confirm the rule". For instance, the Manhattan project that gathered brilliant scientists to construct a nuclear bomb before the Nazis during WWII. Its director, Robert Oppenheimer, opposed to nuclear proliferation before the end of the war. Then he was one of the first victims of Maccarthism: ethics opposed to scientific research.
First speaker for opposition:
Ethics are "principles of conduct to determine what is good or bad", e.g. power. For example ethics invented sustainable energies, now environment is a "new science".Ethics change, evolve, and need science. For instance, in the past contraception was compared to abortion and forbidden. Today we know that science was right to evolve ethical considerations.
Second speaker for proposition:
The previous speaker was right: ethics change. But there is one thing that doesn't change: humans' aspiration for progress.Galileo had to change his ideas, he is an example of a scientist hindered by ethics.(...)
Second speaker for opposition:
Ethics can encourage science. Example: German scientist Von Braun, must construct rockets to reach the US. After the war he constructed rockets that sent animals, then people, into space.We must not forget that a lot of scientists were involved in war and had to protect their country. Thanks to their ethics, WWII was not a nuclear war.Conclusion with a citation of Von Braun: "Scientific efforts are useless without an ethical framework."
Debate:
First speaker: In the speeches ethics come first and guides science. In reality ethics is a framework and science allows to go out of it with new possibilities.
Second speaker: Ethics is a basis, humans can't live without it, it is possible to combine it with science.
Third speaker: Ethics is useless. For example during WWII the Nazis had no "classical" ethical framework and could conduct very interesting experiments on Jews that are useful today.
Fourth speaker: These experiments were made away from the scientific community, they can't be considered as scientific. The Nuremberg Trials condemned these experiments.
Fifth speaker: Von Braun was the father of V1 and V2, he was not so an ethicist...
Fourth speaker (again): Ethical questioning is creative. Examples: surgery, environmental sciences,...
Summator for opposition:
We demonstrated that ethics is not holding back science. Sustainable energies show that ethics helps science. Man is superior to science, and ethics is a motivation for scientists.Ethics make men, men make science. One must not confuse "pure scientific research" with what Bacon called "what makes the nation progress".
Summator for proposition:
Ethics are in a lot of fields. Some of these fields make money, some others rule people.Science helps us to understand our world and save lives. So let medicine go on. What are you afraid of? A vaccine for HIV? Paraplegic people walking? Blind people seeing? If you are against it, say it to kill people yourself.Vote: the motion was largely rejected.
Sylvain Frey is a masters student at MOSIG/ENSIMAG
Personal impressions
Actually the fact that "ethics hold back science" is clearly true for both sides, the real goal was to discuss if it is good or not. For that, precise and topical examples were missed. I think discussing clearly about cloning, stem cells, nuclear power and sustainable energies would have been more interesting. Concerning the debate itself I was a little disappointed because of this "missing point".
Actually, I have found some interesting arguments that I would reformulate as follows: one must not confuse "scientific progress", which is an abstract notion, with "making science", which is a human activity. Scientists are humans, they don't make science just to make science but in order to have fun. After that, sometimes, they imagine they "make the national progress". So scientists can't make science without ethical considerations, like any other human activity. And a scientist who doesn't agree with the science he makes should stop it because it is senseless, for him and for the society.(I use the expression "making science" on purpose, it is really how I see scientific activity: manufacturing something.)
Debate Summary
Motion: "This house believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress."
First speaker for proposition:
A definition of ethics could be: "moral consideration of people's right or wrong behaviour". The main representations of ethics are: religion, laws,... Scientific creation is similar to artistic creation, it needs freedom because freedom generates discoveries. That's why ethical considerations hold back scientific innovation. Of course there are exceptions, but "exceptions confirm the rule". For instance, the Manhattan project that gathered brilliant scientists to construct a nuclear bomb before the Nazis during WWII. Its director, Robert Oppenheimer, opposed to nuclear proliferation before the end of the war. Then he was one of the first victims of Maccarthism: ethics opposed to scientific research.
First speaker for opposition:
Ethics are "principles of conduct to determine what is good or bad", e.g. power. For example ethics invented sustainable energies, now environment is a "new science".Ethics change, evolve, and need science. For instance, in the past contraception was compared to abortion and forbidden. Today we know that science was right to evolve ethical considerations.
Second speaker for proposition:
The previous speaker was right: ethics change. But there is one thing that doesn't change: humans' aspiration for progress.Galileo had to change his ideas, he is an example of a scientist hindered by ethics.(...)
Second speaker for opposition:
Ethics can encourage science. Example: German scientist Von Braun, must construct rockets to reach the US. After the war he constructed rockets that sent animals, then people, into space.We must not forget that a lot of scientists were involved in war and had to protect their country. Thanks to their ethics, WWII was not a nuclear war.Conclusion with a citation of Von Braun: "Scientific efforts are useless without an ethical framework."
Debate:
First speaker: In the speeches ethics come first and guides science. In reality ethics is a framework and science allows to go out of it with new possibilities.
Second speaker: Ethics is a basis, humans can't live without it, it is possible to combine it with science.
Third speaker: Ethics is useless. For example during WWII the Nazis had no "classical" ethical framework and could conduct very interesting experiments on Jews that are useful today.
Fourth speaker: These experiments were made away from the scientific community, they can't be considered as scientific. The Nuremberg Trials condemned these experiments.
Fifth speaker: Von Braun was the father of V1 and V2, he was not so an ethicist...
Fourth speaker (again): Ethical questioning is creative. Examples: surgery, environmental sciences,...
Summator for opposition:
We demonstrated that ethics is not holding back science. Sustainable energies show that ethics helps science. Man is superior to science, and ethics is a motivation for scientists.Ethics make men, men make science. One must not confuse "pure scientific research" with what Bacon called "what makes the nation progress".
Summator for proposition:
Ethics are in a lot of fields. Some of these fields make money, some others rule people.Science helps us to understand our world and save lives. So let medicine go on. What are you afraid of? A vaccine for HIV? Paraplegic people walking? Blind people seeing? If you are against it, say it to kill people yourself.Vote: the motion was largely rejected.
Sylvain Frey is a masters student at MOSIG/ENSIMAG
OPENING UP SPACES OF “GOOD FAITH”
About half a century ago, two incisive questions were raised, one by John von Neumann: Can we survive technology? (1955), and the other by Hannah Arendt, asking: Under which conditions is a non-totalitarian world possible? (1958). Here are their respective answers.
According to von Neumann: “For progress there is no cure. Any attempt to find automatically safe channels for the present explosive variety of progress must lead to frustration. The only safety possible is relative, and it lies in an intelligent exercise of day-to-day judgment.”
According to Arendt, against recurrent totalitarian temptations, the hope lies in the possibility of opening political spaces, public spaces allowing for resistance and reconstruction.
Occurring three decades later, the fall of the Berlin wall and of the Soviet Union may have generated an illusion that the totalitarian page was turned, but the relief was brief. Nowadays the massive hegemony of the dominant power in all domains (military, economic, scientific, technical, media) induces a convergence of the two questions and increases their relevance.
Before these joint technical and political threats, von Neumann’s answer (reliance on expert steering) appears too technocratic and Arendt’s too much dependent on the hazards of politician arenas. Admittedly, previous answers retain partial pertinence, yet they now prove insufficient overall. Thus, taking lessons from experience, an emphasis is put upon the possibility of opening spaces up of “good faith.”
Good faith is an expression belonging to judicial terminology, but also to common language where its multiple meanings are useful for our present purpose: candour, honesty, authenticity, etc. Science is established on a basis of trust. And it may be reckoned that the deep foundation for the successes of the scientific enterprise lies in ‘a right to error in good faith’, within colleges of peers.
As for the yearning to become stakeholder in ‘spaces of trust’, I believe it widely shared, even if the notion may seem utopian. To my knowledge, the most eloquent evocation of this yearning is to be found in a speech of Paul Valéry (1934):
"All that we see however leads to conceive by contrast the idea of a resistance to confusion, to haste, to versatility, to facility, to passions real and simulated. One thinks of an island where would be kept the best of human culture. Without effective power, solely through its existence and what would spread into the public […], this centre of observation, of compound reflection and foresight would exert an action indefinable, but constant. A kind of eminent conscience would watch over the city."
How could such a lofty dream inspire realistic and robust practices? Now the ethical movement in the sciences (whose three main streams are: science and war, future of the planet, bioethics) provides example of a process of vast magnitude, and with a view to the long term. In a precursor article Science and Human Rights, published by UNESCO (1972), René Cassin foresaw the advent of ethics committees in science.
Twenty years later, the concept of ‘ethics spaces’ (more open in all respects) appeared. The functioning of these institutions is often criticised from without and from within. Nevertheless, the experience thus acquired helps to define the minimal conditions necessary for access to a higher level: establish a space of good faith.
At the level of European academies, the *ALLEA’s science & ethics committee discovered that three principles were sufficient to provide a common basis for deliberation and action: good faith (admit the existence of problems as they stand), good will (attempt to solve those problems as well as possible) and fair play (between disciplines, regions, cultures, genders and generations).
Last year, I was co-opted to chair the steering committee for a citizens’ conference on nanotechnologies, organized by the Ile de France region of EUROSCIENCE. The project is to empower a panel of lay citizens with reliable knowledge during an initial preparation stage, so that in a final public debate they become able to engage a panel of experts and leaders without being cowed by authority (‘blinded by science’). In brief, the challenge is to help lay citizens to withstand higher-ups in knowledge and power. A citizens’ conference is thus a complex exercise in participatory democracy which involves several categories of actors. Nevertheless, it turned out that the same three principles proved themselves in the event, the full success of the process depending on a steadfast determination to open spaces of good faith within the steering committee, and between experts and citizens.
Gérard Toulouse
Physicist at Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris), founding member of Euroscience
Former Chair (2001-2006) of the Standing Committee on Science & Ethics of ALLEA
European Academies)
* All European Academies: http://www.allea.org/
(Taken from “The Euroscientist no. 1” - Shortened version of a text first published in Recueil Dalloz, Paris, 5 July 2007)
According to von Neumann: “For progress there is no cure. Any attempt to find automatically safe channels for the present explosive variety of progress must lead to frustration. The only safety possible is relative, and it lies in an intelligent exercise of day-to-day judgment.”
According to Arendt, against recurrent totalitarian temptations, the hope lies in the possibility of opening political spaces, public spaces allowing for resistance and reconstruction.
Occurring three decades later, the fall of the Berlin wall and of the Soviet Union may have generated an illusion that the totalitarian page was turned, but the relief was brief. Nowadays the massive hegemony of the dominant power in all domains (military, economic, scientific, technical, media) induces a convergence of the two questions and increases their relevance.
Before these joint technical and political threats, von Neumann’s answer (reliance on expert steering) appears too technocratic and Arendt’s too much dependent on the hazards of politician arenas. Admittedly, previous answers retain partial pertinence, yet they now prove insufficient overall. Thus, taking lessons from experience, an emphasis is put upon the possibility of opening spaces up of “good faith.”
Good faith is an expression belonging to judicial terminology, but also to common language where its multiple meanings are useful for our present purpose: candour, honesty, authenticity, etc. Science is established on a basis of trust. And it may be reckoned that the deep foundation for the successes of the scientific enterprise lies in ‘a right to error in good faith’, within colleges of peers.
As for the yearning to become stakeholder in ‘spaces of trust’, I believe it widely shared, even if the notion may seem utopian. To my knowledge, the most eloquent evocation of this yearning is to be found in a speech of Paul Valéry (1934):
"All that we see however leads to conceive by contrast the idea of a resistance to confusion, to haste, to versatility, to facility, to passions real and simulated. One thinks of an island where would be kept the best of human culture. Without effective power, solely through its existence and what would spread into the public […], this centre of observation, of compound reflection and foresight would exert an action indefinable, but constant. A kind of eminent conscience would watch over the city."
How could such a lofty dream inspire realistic and robust practices? Now the ethical movement in the sciences (whose three main streams are: science and war, future of the planet, bioethics) provides example of a process of vast magnitude, and with a view to the long term. In a precursor article Science and Human Rights, published by UNESCO (1972), René Cassin foresaw the advent of ethics committees in science.
Twenty years later, the concept of ‘ethics spaces’ (more open in all respects) appeared. The functioning of these institutions is often criticised from without and from within. Nevertheless, the experience thus acquired helps to define the minimal conditions necessary for access to a higher level: establish a space of good faith.
At the level of European academies, the *ALLEA’s science & ethics committee discovered that three principles were sufficient to provide a common basis for deliberation and action: good faith (admit the existence of problems as they stand), good will (attempt to solve those problems as well as possible) and fair play (between disciplines, regions, cultures, genders and generations).
Last year, I was co-opted to chair the steering committee for a citizens’ conference on nanotechnologies, organized by the Ile de France region of EUROSCIENCE. The project is to empower a panel of lay citizens with reliable knowledge during an initial preparation stage, so that in a final public debate they become able to engage a panel of experts and leaders without being cowed by authority (‘blinded by science’). In brief, the challenge is to help lay citizens to withstand higher-ups in knowledge and power. A citizens’ conference is thus a complex exercise in participatory democracy which involves several categories of actors. Nevertheless, it turned out that the same three principles proved themselves in the event, the full success of the process depending on a steadfast determination to open spaces of good faith within the steering committee, and between experts and citizens.
Gérard Toulouse
Physicist at Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris), founding member of Euroscience
Former Chair (2001-2006) of the Standing Committee on Science & Ethics of ALLEA
European Academies)
* All European Academies: http://www.allea.org/
(Taken from “The Euroscientist no. 1” - Shortened version of a text first published in Recueil Dalloz, Paris, 5 July 2007)
Comment on the Debate - November 2008
Hello,
I'm writing considering the conference last week about ethics.I came to the conference and I warched the debate on the subject :"This House believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress".
I didn't take notes because I had a hard time listening and writing at the same time. Frankly speaking, during most of the debate I found it difficult to understand the English because of the French accent I'm not so used to. Nonetheless, I did my best to listen and to understand as much as I could.
As other students said in class, I also found the debate a bit "artificial" in the sense that the speakers didn't really refer to what the others were saying.I understand that if a debate is something that one is not used to do, it could be difficult to do it spontaneously.
Best regards,
Noa
I'm writing considering the conference last week about ethics.I came to the conference and I warched the debate on the subject :"This House believes that ethical considerations hold back scientific and technological progress".
I didn't take notes because I had a hard time listening and writing at the same time. Frankly speaking, during most of the debate I found it difficult to understand the English because of the French accent I'm not so used to. Nonetheless, I did my best to listen and to understand as much as I could.
As other students said in class, I also found the debate a bit "artificial" in the sense that the speakers didn't really refer to what the others were saying.I understand that if a debate is something that one is not used to do, it could be difficult to do it spontaneously.
Best regards,
Noa
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Just War Theory, Just a Theory
by Adrien Graton
Can a war be ethically acceptable? This question was at the center of the conference on ethics in war last Thursday at Minatech, in Grenoble.
Former French Air Force General, Baudouin Albanel, presented the Just War Theory to an audience of English teachers and students. For nearly 40 minutes, Mr Albanel tried to explain to us the different concepts and principles hidden behind the mysterious name of "Just War Theory". A pattern of rules and schemes, that, if applied, can result in an ethical war.
The "Just War Theory" is not a new concept. It has been thought about and developed ever since wars have existed. During the Roman Antiquity, Aristotle and Cicero had already designed its basis, basis completed by some catholic philosophers in the coming centuries.
The principles can be decomposed into two major parts: Jus ad bellum, which is a set of criteria that have to be respected before going to war, and Jus in bello which is a pattern of rules that determines how combatants should act during war. The Just War theory relies largely on The Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, and makes sure that every person involved in a war is ethically considered and treated.
With all the ethically controversial conflicts that the world has known over the past decades, in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Ruanda, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it seems correct in every conflict that we must try to preserve as many lives as possible. Unfortunately this theory seems to have its limits.
Here is a tricky part, in a war, weapons are used, weapons made for killing, not to preserve life. But the "Just War Theory" has it all figured out; soldiers have to use very accurate weapons, so that the collateral damage can be controlled.
Also, the end of a conflict should be the most important part of it. It settles the basis for the relationship to come between the belligerents, the future for several countries. According to the JWT, the resolution of the conflicts must be satisfying for both the winning and the losing side, so there will not be any resentment. But this is war we are talking about, the losing side has lost, there will be scars, there will be resentment.
In front of a skeptical audience, the conference ended with a Q&A session. We learnt at this time that Mr. Albanel believed in the JWT. However, and that there has not yet been any ethically conducted conflict; what a shocker.
Adrien Graton is a third year student at ENSIMAG.
Can a war be ethically acceptable? This question was at the center of the conference on ethics in war last Thursday at Minatech, in Grenoble.
Former French Air Force General, Baudouin Albanel, presented the Just War Theory to an audience of English teachers and students. For nearly 40 minutes, Mr Albanel tried to explain to us the different concepts and principles hidden behind the mysterious name of "Just War Theory". A pattern of rules and schemes, that, if applied, can result in an ethical war.
The "Just War Theory" is not a new concept. It has been thought about and developed ever since wars have existed. During the Roman Antiquity, Aristotle and Cicero had already designed its basis, basis completed by some catholic philosophers in the coming centuries.
The principles can be decomposed into two major parts: Jus ad bellum, which is a set of criteria that have to be respected before going to war, and Jus in bello which is a pattern of rules that determines how combatants should act during war. The Just War theory relies largely on The Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, and makes sure that every person involved in a war is ethically considered and treated.
With all the ethically controversial conflicts that the world has known over the past decades, in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Ruanda, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it seems correct in every conflict that we must try to preserve as many lives as possible. Unfortunately this theory seems to have its limits.
Here is a tricky part, in a war, weapons are used, weapons made for killing, not to preserve life. But the "Just War Theory" has it all figured out; soldiers have to use very accurate weapons, so that the collateral damage can be controlled.
Also, the end of a conflict should be the most important part of it. It settles the basis for the relationship to come between the belligerents, the future for several countries. According to the JWT, the resolution of the conflicts must be satisfying for both the winning and the losing side, so there will not be any resentment. But this is war we are talking about, the losing side has lost, there will be scars, there will be resentment.
In front of a skeptical audience, the conference ended with a Q&A session. We learnt at this time that Mr. Albanel believed in the JWT. However, and that there has not yet been any ethically conducted conflict; what a shocker.
Adrien Graton is a third year student at ENSIMAG.
Students shocked by utilization of Nazi experimentation data
by Thomas Fabre
During a debate about science and ethics at Minatec (Grenoble, France) on Thursday November 13th, a member of the floor claimed that the utilization of Nazi experimentation results on Jews has saved many lives and permitted the science to progress. A large part of the audience was shocked. That’s why Gerard Toulouse, specialist in ethical questions at the ENS Paris, answered him: “It is only a part of the truth.”
According to the student of PHELMA, leading French school of science and technology, some physicists and doctors have used the data of the resistance of the human body to freezing in order to save injured people and to protect better the expeditions in very cold places.
Says Benjamin, second year in PHELMA and member of the floor: "This affirmation surprised me. I didn’t know that scientists were allowed to work with such data. It is totally unethical."
Like him, some students were really shocked. As a result, the attention of the audience increased suddenly. At this time Gerard Toulouse asked the permission to speak. The whole floor was listening to him.
“I can’t let you that without explanation.” he said. In fact, just after the war (in 1947 exactly), the “Doctor’s trial” took place in Nuremberg (Germany). During this trial, the Nazi doctors who experimented on humans were judged. But after this judgment, the tribunal decided to publish a 10 points statement controlling the research on humans. According to Mr. Toulouse, research on unconsenting patients and the use of such data were strictly forbidden. But the Nuremberg Code did not concern the Nazi data, because they were anterior to the statement. There were some meetings of scientists and doctors, and some of them refused to use this data. But others did not.
This explanation convinced the most part of the audience. After the conference, Benjamin claimed that Mr. Toulouse seemed to know this historical period very well, but he would do some research on this interesting topic.
On the other hand, the discussion wasn’t over. Some students had more questions, but no time to ask them. The whole audience wanted to know more about these experiments.
In the concentration camps, 70,000 men, women and children were killed because of dangerous experiments and more than 150,000 were injured and disabled for the rest of their lives. Like Karl Brandt, chief of the Health Department in Auschwitz, much doctor experimentation had nothing to do with medicine. But others did. That’s why the WMA (World Medicine Association) allowed the use of such data “in the name of the greater good”.
In 1964 this organization published the declaration of Helsinki. This statement is a revision of the Nuremberg Code and is today very important in the world of medicine. The voluntary consent is not needed, but only if the patient is not able to give it, or if the doctor finds a proxy consent. This declaration is also an ethical guide for the research on the human body. According to Mr. Kahn, another French scientist specialising in ethical questions, science has to be led by ethical rules. But within these limits, he has to be free. Free of using unethical data?
Thomas Fabre is a second student at PHELMA, Grenoble, France.
During a debate about science and ethics at Minatec (Grenoble, France) on Thursday November 13th, a member of the floor claimed that the utilization of Nazi experimentation results on Jews has saved many lives and permitted the science to progress. A large part of the audience was shocked. That’s why Gerard Toulouse, specialist in ethical questions at the ENS Paris, answered him: “It is only a part of the truth.”
According to the student of PHELMA, leading French school of science and technology, some physicists and doctors have used the data of the resistance of the human body to freezing in order to save injured people and to protect better the expeditions in very cold places.
Says Benjamin, second year in PHELMA and member of the floor: "This affirmation surprised me. I didn’t know that scientists were allowed to work with such data. It is totally unethical."
Like him, some students were really shocked. As a result, the attention of the audience increased suddenly. At this time Gerard Toulouse asked the permission to speak. The whole floor was listening to him.
“I can’t let you that without explanation.” he said. In fact, just after the war (in 1947 exactly), the “Doctor’s trial” took place in Nuremberg (Germany). During this trial, the Nazi doctors who experimented on humans were judged. But after this judgment, the tribunal decided to publish a 10 points statement controlling the research on humans. According to Mr. Toulouse, research on unconsenting patients and the use of such data were strictly forbidden. But the Nuremberg Code did not concern the Nazi data, because they were anterior to the statement. There were some meetings of scientists and doctors, and some of them refused to use this data. But others did not.
This explanation convinced the most part of the audience. After the conference, Benjamin claimed that Mr. Toulouse seemed to know this historical period very well, but he would do some research on this interesting topic.
On the other hand, the discussion wasn’t over. Some students had more questions, but no time to ask them. The whole audience wanted to know more about these experiments.
In the concentration camps, 70,000 men, women and children were killed because of dangerous experiments and more than 150,000 were injured and disabled for the rest of their lives. Like Karl Brandt, chief of the Health Department in Auschwitz, much doctor experimentation had nothing to do with medicine. But others did. That’s why the WMA (World Medicine Association) allowed the use of such data “in the name of the greater good”.
In 1964 this organization published the declaration of Helsinki. This statement is a revision of the Nuremberg Code and is today very important in the world of medicine. The voluntary consent is not needed, but only if the patient is not able to give it, or if the doctor finds a proxy consent. This declaration is also an ethical guide for the research on the human body. According to Mr. Kahn, another French scientist specialising in ethical questions, science has to be led by ethical rules. But within these limits, he has to be free. Free of using unethical data?
Thomas Fabre is a second student at PHELMA, Grenoble, France.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Message to students
I hope that as many as possible of you will contribute to this blog!
Write down your reactions to the conference programme or tell us what you hope to learn from the conference or simply note your general comments about studying science and ethics or ....
Natasha
English Teacher, 3rd Year
Phelma/ENSEEG
Write down your reactions to the conference programme or tell us what you hope to learn from the conference or simply note your general comments about studying science and ethics or ....
Natasha
English Teacher, 3rd Year
Phelma/ENSEEG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
