4 ms·

> (All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the

> (All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.) I find it likely that the military assessed the risk that their alteration posed (the inclusion of a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city) against the danger posed by not understanding the spread of bacteria introduced to a city, and concluded that the research was a reasonable use of human subjects. Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did. The frightening thing about the government is not that they do these things without concern for the moral implications, but rather that the government as a system fosters a disconnect from the people they govern and a fanaticism towards duty that drives reasonable people to unreasonable ends. Very rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications: they simply believe they're doing good by them.

andreyf 11y ago
> the military assessed the risk [of including] a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city This does not seem as if it should have a very high risk... > Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did [...] they do these things without concern for the moral implications Which NSA activity do you mean? Bulk collection of phone metadata on US residents? If the legal folks said they have a way of defending it as long as certain internal checks are in place, I don't think there are many "moral implications" to collecting data as an agency devoted to signals intelligence does all over the world, aside from the moral implications of signals intelligence itself. > rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications Now you're really escalating. "The government doing atrocity" usually involves intentionally killing a lot of people, not spraying the equivalent of sugar water or collecting phone records.

andreyf 11y ago

> the military assessed the risk [of including] a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city This does not seem as if it should have a very high risk... > Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did [...] they do these things without concern for the moral implications Which NSA activity do you mean? Bulk collection of phone metadata on US residents? If the legal folks said they have a way of defending it as long as certain internal checks are in place, I don't think there are many "moral implications" to collecting data as an agency devoted to signals intelligence does all over the world, aside from the moral implications of signals intelligence itself. > rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications Now you're really escalating. "The government doing atrocity" usually involves intentionally killing a lot of people, not spraying the equivalent of sugar water or collecting phone records.