[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MIT/Quaker
> Informed consent or not, when there is no damage-there is no damage-period!
The above should not be used to condone an act. The fact that there
was no damage happens to be the result. That is not always a given.
In this, it could have been any type of research, not necessarily
nuclear related. Suppose we were being fed tainted meat, just to see
what effect there would be. Suppose we were not informed, and, there
was no discernible damage done. Does that make it OK? Does it mean
that the researchers should be commended for not injuring us? I think
not.
In the MIT case, the research was done at a school for mentally
retarded children. In the 40's and 50's the rules concerning informed
consent were not up to the levels we see today. That I can accept. I
also agree completely with those that question why radiation research
is scrutinized on this issue more than other types of research. It's
the beast. We can't change that.
With all this said, what I continue to find unsatisfactory is the
response that no damage was done, every time an incident such as this
happens. I understand the risks, and understand that there was no
damage, and this STILL annoys me to hear these conclusions ... that
there was no damage. What do you think the general public thinks?
They see scenarios played over and over again, and the only comments
they see are "well, there was no damage." It's time we address the
issues and stay away from interpretations. Remember, for every one of
us who says there is NO damage, there will be another group of just
as qualified scientists stating the exact opposite.. that damage was
evident ... We all come out looking foolish!
------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306
Fax: (714) 668-3149
sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
sperle@icnpharm.com
Personal Homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
ICN Dosimetry Website:
http://www.dosimetry.com
"The object of opening the mind, as of opening
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
- G. K. Chesterton -
- References:
- MIT/Quaker
- From: Harold.Reynolds@rfets.gov (Harold Reynolds)