Comment

Comment on PSA

girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.

The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sus@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.

These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.

source
- girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  I think your first point contradicts your second.
  
  I’m sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.
  
  source
daannii@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.

Basically it’s that the general public doesn’t understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.

It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.

That and companies don’t want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it’s because people don’t understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.

source
- girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn’t say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it’s difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.
  
  source
  - daannii@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
    
    Some argue that even the research that’s not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
    
    That’s how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
    
    It’s not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
    
    You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don’t actually produce or make anything.
    
    I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
    
    So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone’s scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And I’m theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
    
    I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I’ll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
    
    But. People have read some studies on this. And think “I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head”.
    
    And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
    
    It’s insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don’t understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
    
    There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
    
    It’s things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
    
    source
daannii@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn’t support.

There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.

Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.

But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).

Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it’s to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.

It’s trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.

Social research is confusing to people who don’t do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.

But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.

They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren’t doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn’t include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it’s not valid.

It’s basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.

The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.

Also, it’s more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.

source