I've been thinking about this phenomenon recently, of kooky-sounding stuff that may be or is true, particularly in regards to the resolutions being passed in Florida county Republican Executive Committees calling the injections 'biological weapons' and calling for their seizure and destruction. Right now, I'm not persuaded that this is t…
I've been thinking about this phenomenon recently, of kooky-sounding stuff that may be or is true, particularly in regards to the resolutions being passed in Florida county Republican Executive Committees calling the injections 'biological weapons' and calling for their seizure and destruction. Right now, I'm not persuaded that this is the best tactic, as it sounds too kooky, so I don't think it's persuasive to enough average people, though I think that given how they were developed, not tested, and then fielded without informed consent, they shouldn't be put into any more humans. I just think that the argument needn't be on the basis of 'biological weapon,' but rather no science, no ethics, and no informed consent. What do you think?
I agree--using term 'bio weapons' would just allow an easy go-around. No science (well, how do you define 'science'?), no ethics (same), no informed consent--that leaves less wiggle-room, I think
On the ethics question, we could use the standards of the mandatory course in the ethics of humans subjects research which all of us who lead such studies have to take, all thrown in the wastebasket for the injections. For science, there's a millennia-long history of how it's defined and conducted, and it would be trivially easy to point out how the methods used for the injections didn't satisfy modern standards; many have already done so.
I've been thinking about this phenomenon recently, of kooky-sounding stuff that may be or is true, particularly in regards to the resolutions being passed in Florida county Republican Executive Committees calling the injections 'biological weapons' and calling for their seizure and destruction. Right now, I'm not persuaded that this is the best tactic, as it sounds too kooky, so I don't think it's persuasive to enough average people, though I think that given how they were developed, not tested, and then fielded without informed consent, they shouldn't be put into any more humans. I just think that the argument needn't be on the basis of 'biological weapon,' but rather no science, no ethics, and no informed consent. What do you think?
I agree--using term 'bio weapons' would just allow an easy go-around. No science (well, how do you define 'science'?), no ethics (same), no informed consent--that leaves less wiggle-room, I think
On the ethics question, we could use the standards of the mandatory course in the ethics of humans subjects research which all of us who lead such studies have to take, all thrown in the wastebasket for the injections. For science, there's a millennia-long history of how it's defined and conducted, and it would be trivially easy to point out how the methods used for the injections didn't satisfy modern standards; many have already done so.