Comment on PSA
daannii@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoAlso , 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.
girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks 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.
daannii@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.