Comments on: Research ethics

By: Nabil

Nabil — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:43:08 +0000

Another part of what makes this seem unusual to contemporary eyes is the idea that kids roamed about outside, in groups, looking for things like abandoned refrigerators to play with. Nowadays there’s Xbox.

By: Righteous Bubba

Righteous Bubba — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:03:06 +0000

I’m not sure what the value of inoculation was supposed to be, but it was done.

Same idea as vaccination.

This is actually interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:38:11 +0000

Right, if an anti-vaccination quack cites common sense, then common sense must always be nonsense.

Here, the first claustrophobia+childhood link I googled:

http://www.epigee.org/mental_health/claustrophobia.html
Causes of Claustrophobia
Claustrophobia can develop from either a traumatic childhood experience (such as being trapped in a small space during a childhood game), or from another unpleasant experience later on in life involving confined spaces (such as being stuck in an elevator).

Is this really so complicated? Right is left, up is down, black is white? Should you, perhaps, contra-common-sense lock your children in refrigerators to inoculate them against claustrophobia?

Come on, buddy, you’re just being silly.

By: derek

derek — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:27:31 +0000

ajay, Jenner’s discovery of vaccination, infection with cow pox, was in fact an alternative to the then-current practice of inoculation, dleiberate infection with smallpox in order to avoid smallpox. I’m not sure what the value of inoculation was supposed to be, but it was done.

By: Lex

Lex — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:19:01 +0000

“In the real world one of the least common of commodities is sense.”

Oh, dearie me, and doesn’t the blogosphere reinforce that point every day!

By: pv

pv — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:42:07 +0000

abb1 wrote on 09.08.08 at 6:08 am:

@34, yes, common sense, and also facts about the disorder, commonly known. What is your problem, exactly?

Good question.
Victim culture? Unsubstantiated claims? Possibilities presented as certainties? Extrapolating from no information?
It may well be that some children might have suffered some long term effects of unspecified severity. Maybe, maybe not. That’s what makes this kind of study unethical. It’s still a difficult area and hardly black and white in terms of cost/benefit. But to state the quantity and severity of the effect with certainty is unsupportable. To state the possibility is sufficient and supportable.
If you ask any anti-vaccination quack for their raison d’être they’ll most likely cite, among other unsupportable utterances, common sense. If you are sporting and learning to ski it’s only natural, therefore common sense, to lean into the hill.
In the real world one of the least common of commodities is sense.

By: SusanC

SusanC — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:46:44 +0000

From Jenner’s Case XVII:

“… I selected a healthy boy, about eight years old, for the purpose of inoculation for the Cow Pox. … In order to ascertain whether the boy, after feeling so slight an affection of the system from the Cow-pox virus, was secure from the contagion of the Small-pox, he was inoculated the 1st of July following with variolous matter, immediately taken from a pustule. ”

But yes, the cow pox did indeed provide protection against smallpox infection.

By: ajay

ajay — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:03:58 +0000

Oh, and thanks to stefan, dsquared, J Thomas and others for explaining about old-style fridges.

By: ajay

ajay — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:02:22 +0000

I think I’d rather be shut in a refrigerator than experimentally infected with smallpox.

Jenner infected people with cowpox, having noticed that people who had had cowpox – such as milkmaids and other dairy farm workers – tended not to get smallpox. If he had infected people with smallpox, then they would have got smallpox.

By: SusanC

SusanC — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:20:50 +0000

Edward Jenner’s experiments on smallpox vaccination (also involving some child subjects) were even better. I think I’d rather be shut in a refrigerator than experimentally infected with smallpox. And yet, there is little doubt that the devleopment of smallpox vaccine saved lives.

By: Steve Jones

Steve Jones — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:39:08 +0000

No doubt this sort of research would not be allowed now. However, it’s very possible that this saved lives, if only because it allows designers to take into account children’s behviour under these circumstances. Some might argue that it is easy enough for designers to produce “safe” systems, but it is all to easy to make assumptions about either adult or child behaviour.
So unethical as this might appear to be, it could have saved lives.

By: abb1

abb1 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:08:00 +0000

@34, yes, common sense, and also facts about the disorder, commonly known. What is your problem, exactly?

By: Meryl Altman

Meryl Altman — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:09:01 +0000

What’s really disturbing to me is that a quarter of the children made no effort to escape – and half of the five-year olds had learned that when you were in trouble and frightened, the appropriate response was to keep quiet. Presumably the better-educated parents were more successful at inculcating these behaviors.

If the experiment could be replicated today, maybe we’d learn something about the social history of parenting – 1950s conformism vs. the Ritalin generation? Fortunately it can’t be. (I figure those posters who seem nostalgic for a time before ethics-in-research rules protected vulnerable populations are kidding?)

By: Henry (the unreal one)

Henry (the unreal one) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:47:16 +0000

A follow-up study of 96 test subjects, 8 months after the tests, by interviews with the mothers showed very little obvious residual effect. Reversion to infantile behavior was not found. A number of children still talked about the tests, some with pleasure, a few with resentment. Mothers were not aware of more than ephemeral emotional upset in any of the children.

Reasons for the low level of anxiety engendered by the tests may lie in the precautions taken and in factors inherent in the situation; the parents were not involved in the incident, which enabled them to be calm and casual with the children.

Puts it more into context for the ‘think of the children’ crowd.

By: pv

pv — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:12:27 +0000

abb1 09.05.08 at 5:54 pm, wrote:

and a small group (11%) required some help to become calm

Yup, these are probably guaranteed a severe case of claustrophobia till the end of their lives.

All of them?
Whad’ya mean?
Well, how do you know?
We just do! Common sense, innit!