Hacker News Reader

Comment by zby | Hacker News Reader

(edited)

This is such a clickbait. Everybody reading that title imagines that they tested spreading of some contagious disease (and put it in the same category as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36256831) - but what was tested was how the bacteria was moved by the air in the subway. They tried a common soil bacteria that they believed was harmless (and which wikipedia says "is thought to be a normal gut commensal in humans").

"""And while the people who conducted these experiments did so under the belief that the bacterial species they used were harmless, it has since been revealed that they can cause health problems."""

This is such a weasel language, everything can cause health problems (is water harmless? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication).

The bacteria used there was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_subtilis "This species is commonly found in the upper layers of the soil and B. subtilis is thought to be a normal gut commensal in humans."

We live surrounded by bacteria, an probably often by Bacillus subtilis - because it is a common bacteria found in soil.

View on HN

It's not clickbait. It's completely unacceptable to perform biological experiments on people without their consent. It doesn't matter if you think the bacteria is harmless, it's an extreme violation of human rights to test on a unknowing citizens.

But this wasn’t a biological experiment on the citizens, which is the issue. It was an experiment to test the spread of material in a subway system.

The article is claiming without support that this was pathogenic biological testing on people, which is not the case.

Let’s assume instead they used a harmless chemical tracer. Would that still count as a violation? What about releasing flour through ducts?

The issue with the article that makes it click bait is they are making a claim of “germ warfare”, insinuating that citizens were exposed to dangerous infectious agents which is simply untrue.

If the article approaches the subject honestly, and then question wether such action was ethical, even using a harmless substance, that would be one thing. But as it’s written, the article pushes misinformation, which is a shame, because it’s clearly an important subject.

>Let’s assume instead they used a harmless chemical tracer. Would that still count as a violation? What about releasing flour through ducts?

Would the IRB let me do those things to people without their informed consent?

I very much doubt it.

That’s not the issue at hand. The issue is an article claiming pathogenic material was tested on people.

An article talking about the ins and outs of IRB process approval would be much more informative, or going into detail about what is and is not ethical.

False or at best misleading statements of pathogenic biological tests on people bring us no nearer to actually talking intelligently about the issues or making better decisions.

How does the bacteria spread amongst the subway? HUMANS. They are the substrate.

“ They wrote that clouds engulfed people as trains pulled away, but that they "brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." No one was concerned.

Army scientists concluded that it took between four and 13 minutes for train passengers to be exposed to the bacteria.”

If they put the bacteria in the system with no human interaction I’m sure the study would be much less valuable.

No, it spreads via the air. Air transmission was the study, how far the bacteria traveled in air measurements.

Nothing was about human-to-human transmission. This wasn't about contagion at all.

I'm not defending the study in any way but at least let's get our facts right.

Air to who? JFC Come on. It’s not spreading through the air to surfaces.

I question, did you even read the article?

I mean, this study was done in 1966. The IRB was established in 1974.

I'm not saying we should celebrate this research, but ... we already learned the lesson about being careful with human experimentation? If there's a more recent study that circumvented the IRB or that the IRB okayed despite obvious problems, there's an interesting discussion to have there.

But I'm more in the camp above, that this pre-IRB study wasn't particularly egregious, at least by the scale of atrocities of early 20th century research.

The gov't doesn't have a great track record when it comes to treating the citizenry as unwilling participants in their Bond villain-esque nonsense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

You forgot the non-consensual plutonium injection experiments

The did experiments on US citizens, they spread a bacteria in the SF fog to see if it would be spread to the citizens in SF. They picked a bacteria they thought was harmless, but showed up brightly on a stain for microscope slides. Turns out some people are actually harmed by this bacteria, but again, bio-warfare testing on an uninformed US civilians. A war crime. They actually killed someone:

On October 11, 1950, eleven residents checked into Stanford Hospital in San Francisco with very rare, serious urinary tract infections. Although ten recovered, Edward J. Nevin, who had had recent prostate surgery, died three weeks later from a heart valve infection. The urinary tract outbreak was so unusual that the Stanford doctors wrote it up for a medical journal. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

I dislike the emphasis on the "US citizen" part. Would it have been any better if they had done it to us Canadian citizens instead? Or to any other nationality?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-secretly-tested-car...

I believe the point is that it’s being done on US soil, which infringes on the rights of US citizens.

Wasn't the test done on US citizens? If the test was done on Canadians, we would be talking about Canadian citizens and not US citizens.

Were the people wearing glasses? Did they have curly hair? It's not mentioned because it makes no difference. Calling out that they're US citizens or Canadian citizens implies that these people are somehow first-class people, and everyone else is riff raff − fair game for such experiments.

On the contrary. It was the WHO of the article. I think you just felt a self-important compulsion to point out that Canadians need constant attention.

That isn’t what I said, I’m being specific about who these experiments were done on. I resent the implication that I think any other people based on where they were born or where they live are less in any way. I strongly disagree with that.

I didn't mean anything nationalist by that phrasing.

Well first you’re talking about a different situation than the article.

In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacteria caused the death you are referring to.

> The lower court ruled against them primarily because the bacteria used in the test was unproven to be responsible for Nevin's death. The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments

Again, blankets statements rather than facts don’t help discuss the issue. Nuance is best.

I for one think they should not have done any of these tests, and that they crossed clear ethical boundaries. But I’m not going to create misinformation, “beg the question”, appeal to emotion, or point to false cause to convince someone that it’s a wrong and immoral thing to do.

These types of arguments are why we had so much confusion, and lack of educated discussion around Covid and vaccines, the pros and cons of nuclear power, etc etc.

I'm responding directly to the parent comment, but I'd argue that spreading this same bacteria by smashing lightbulbs in a subway full of people, and spreading it in a fog in SF, a city full of people, then seeing if those people had the bacteria in their bodies is essentially the same type of situation as the article. What do you see as differences?

So the US government didn't prove in a court of law that the US government killed someone with the US government's illegal experiment, that it didn't even admit was happening? This is the standard of proof here? If so, I'm going to guess the other atrocities the US has committed and not taking full and complete responsibility for can't be discussed either? When the system in power refuses to accept blame for it's actions, we just have to take its word or it's misinformation? Come on. Let's think about some other cases the highest court in the land got obviously wrong and then consider your argument.

- Dread Scott v Sanford. held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. [0]

- Buck v. Bell, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]

- Korematsu v. United States, decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. [2]

- Plessy v. Ferguson, which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal" [3]

(Oh, and since I don't want to only talk about civil rights cases, since that might not carry much weight for you, how about property rights:) - Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [4]

I could go on but I don't feel like going through all these horrible cases. How will we ever square this perfect arbiter of truth, the Supreme Court's multiple fuckups with our examination of truth? I'd recommend using your eyeballs and sound judgement. How am I creating misinformation by quoting wikipedia and then linking to it so anyone can read the source material? To compare this with COVID misinformation is egregious.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I think you misunderstand my issue or the argument here.

You are arguing what? That spreading bacteria, even one that was believed to be benign, is a violation of personal rights? Well I agree with you 100%, and if that’s surprising, then the point has been missed.

The issue I have is an article that serves only the purpose of inflaming without informing. We can all claim moral outrage, and then point “look.. horrible things.. horrible people”. What purpose does that serve? It has become the standard of communication on social media. How does it serve this discussion to point out all the way the US government and the courts have failed us? Your list is tiny compared to the true scope. Ask any Native American.

Does that prove in this case a person was killed by the actions of spreading bacteria by light bulbs? Clearly it cannot. So then what’s the goal of the argument? Slippery slope fallacy? Appeals to emotion?

Instead give me an article with substance and facts, and nuanced discussion. Why were those choices made in the past. Did those people believe they were doing good, and not doing harm? What lead to that occurring? How to we prevent it from occurring again? How do we educate ourselves so we don’t make equally well intentioned but harmful decisions.

If an article claims a bacteria is pathogenic, and harmed people by its use, then I require it prove it to me. Otherwise it’s conjecture. If so, treat it as such, and say “let’s all look into this further”. If an article won’t, then it’s immediately suspect, and its conclusions can’t be trusted.

Moral outrage is no path towards truth, fairness, and equality. Those things require more from us. More from our discussions. Arguments appealing to emotion (even ones that are well researched linking to wikipedia) don’t help. The comparison to Covid discussion is apt, since many people linked to Wikipedia or other sources, citing all sorts of things, in order to bolster their logically incomplete, or entirely emotional arguments.

Imagine instead an article that said “possible benign bacteria used to study germ contamination”. Then went on to discuss the facts, facts such as opportunistic infections, or even questions about the case you brought up and wether that was a fair trial and if not, what evidence supports it not being (other than “US court bad corrupt”) and then, it asked my questions above.

The problem is that media today needs ad money to operate, and “pathogenic bacteria released on citizens” gets a LOT more clicks. And then the moral outrage that follows make everyone feel good, but doesn’t make the world a better more educated place.

If we don’t do better in our journalism, and in our discussions, then your list above is doomed to get longer and longer as time goes on.

For those interested in how to have better discussions, and write better articles, check out the following:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I’m arguing that willfully experimenting on people with bio weapons without their consent is illegal and immoral. It’s a war crime per the Geneva Convention. I don’t even know what a violation of “personal rights” means. Is that a legal term?

You tried to “well actually” the acts this article is talking about, spreading bacteria to people via crushing lightbulbs in the subway. Well actually they didn’t infect people with this, they just crushed lightbulbs full of it in a crowded subway without getting anyone explosed’s consent.

Then I presented a similar action, where they didn’t just spread the bacteria in a subway and measure the air, which I suppose someone could argue wasn’t trying to infect people with this bacteria if you’re a literal minded child… no, they spread it in fog and MEASURED THE PEOPLE. The point was to infect people. This negates your point about the govt not trying to infect people in the busy subway and just measure the air, because it’s clear they tried to infect people in SF and then measure that infection. People being infected was the point.

So, now your next point is well actually, many years after the man was killed by a remarkable and rare UTI cluster in SF directly after the bacteria was released to the SF population, and this man and a few others contracted this rare illness but this man died from an infection right afterwards, actually the SUPREME COURT of the United States said that the family of this man didn’t prove that he was killed by this experiment. Years after the fact. Years after he was dead and gone, and it was next to impossible to link his death with this disease beyond. Reasonable doubt because of the government’s negligence in performing this experiment without gaining people’s consent. How would his doctors have known to look for this or try to treat it right?

But, now you’ve fallen back to a position where the tenor of the argument isn’t how you want to discuss things, and you’re linking some dumb ass article about formatting arguments in a manner that doesn’t make you seem quite as wrong.

but sure. It’s clickbait. Everyone is wrong except you. Calling out your nonsense is not conducive to good discussion. Never mind the fact that you compared some pretty no nonsense comments I made about actions the government took and admits to now to Covid, vaccine, and nuclear misinformation. Not sure how you think that isn’t a logical fallacy and conducive to “better discussion”. But go off. You’re on a roll

You’re still arguing against me on a position I agree with. It’s very possible that the man died of these actions. Also I stated the actions were unethical. So why are you upset?

However, neither you or I have proof of that, which is the point. Because without it, without facts, people won’t learn and make better decisions. One side can always conjecture about things, as there’s no proof. Just like there was no proof provided in the article (even though we can make assumptions, that doesn’t make it fact, and is a dangerous road to follow even if we feel morally justified in doing so).

The point which you are avoiding is that the article does a very poor job making your case (as does your arguments here). As I agree with the premise that these things were unethical and dangerous, I take offense with an article that does a disservice to the topic for the purpose of clicks. I also take offense to your string of arguments, using morality posturing, and citing cases that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, trying to point out where the US court has fouled up, to prove that MUST have done so here, which does not follow. (This is a slippery slope and composition/division fallacy, ie.. because the court screwed up in your specific cases, it MUST be guilty in the other)

> You tried to “well actually” the acts this article is talking about

> you’re linking some dumb ass article about formatting arguments in a manner that doesn’t make you seem quite as wrong

My comment has always been about the quality of the article. And the link is not an article about formatting arguments, so I have to assume you didn’t actually read or check the link.

It’s a link outlining logical fallacies and biases, to help with better critical thinking skills, both in writing, and in evaluating content that we read / listen to / debate, etc.

Here’s a Wikipedia link instead, since you posted a number of Wikipedia links.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I urge you to read through them, and note where your arguments and thinking are at fault. I do on a regular basis, and it’s helpful. The link I posted links to posters and card that can aid in remembering them.

Also worth reading, a discussion on the dangers of moral posturing in debate as discussed by Socrates.

https://qz.com/1599699/socrates-shows-why-moral-posturing-on...

And virtual signaling as discussed by Aristotle:

https://fee.org/articles/virtue-signaling-isnt-virtuous-and-...

  “Human societies require people who disagree to cooperate and trust each other. They must also allow for disagreement and productive discussion of competing views. Yet, virtue signaling undermines all of this.”

(not mentioning Socrates and Aristotle to prove something or lend weight, only to show these concerns on how we discuss moral and ethical topics go back a very long time)

I’d like to add a link to the following book that does handle issues like these in a thought provoking, informed and intelligent manner.

The Icepick Surgeon: Murder, Fraud, Sabotage, Piracy, and Other Dastardly Deeds Perpetrated in the Name of Science https://a.co/d/3uUtnnE

> But this wasn’t a biological experiment on the citizens, which is the issue. It was an experiment to test the spread of material in a subway system.

This is like saying I was just practicing throwing punches at thin air, it just happened to be inside a crowded elevator.

Absolutely can't stand "well technically" disingenuous HN comments like this.

Check out the Human Plutonium Injection Experiments

It is interesting to think about where the line should be drawn though.

Raising the humidity level 5% to see if it reduces coughing?

Reducing harmful ozone in the air to see if it reduces breathing issues?

Bringing a puppy on the subway to see if riders smile more?

Presumably these are all OK without getting consent of everyone on the subway. Or are these violations of human rights as well?

I mean I suppose it all comes down to whether there are any expected harms? Or no?

I guess it's more controversial if you put it the other way: "does dropping the humidity level increase coughing" etc

No. Include someone in an experiment and it is unethical not to ask them. That’s the line.

In my opinion actually big tech that has been pushing these boundaries a lot.

A lot of new services are really experiments on society. Tracking, Adtech, A/B testing. Move fast and break things, but don't forget that at the scale these companies operate, one of the things to break is our entire society. Especially social media bubbles have caused a lot of polarization IMO.

I feel the social responsibility in these companies is severely lacking. And because they're getting away with everything, the Overton window shifts in that direction.

So all A/B testing is unethical? Like figuring out if people navigate your desktop site better depending on whether it uses a menu bar or hamburger menu?

Why is a product change ethical if it's done not as part of an experiment, but it becomes unethical if it's part of an experiment? If the end user has the exact same experience in both cases?

This is nitpicking on a high level. Impressive.

> So all A/B testing is unethical?

Without consent, yes.

> the end user has the exact same experience in both cases?

They do not, and as a customer it should be up to them whether they are given a different experience.

Presuming you have thought your argument through and can defend it justly: You better not fucking change my desired PM 2.5 or <insert other environmental factor>.

Be careful.

I'm not sure why you are leaving out the fact that they also used Serratia marcescens, which is considered pathogenic[1].

As for the other bacteria, what they used was not the "common soil bacteria" Bacillus subtilis, but Bacillus atrophaeus[2] which was known as Bacillus globigii at the time. I think this is the only clear factual mistake I can find in the article.

The article also claimed that Bacillus globigii is now considered a pathogen, but I can't find much information about it outside of the referenced book. I'll leave it to someone else to weigh in on this one.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens#Pathogenic...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_atrophaeus

There were congressional hearings, so it's hard to call it clickbait.

Nice catch about Bacillus atrophaeus!

Can you quote something from the article about Serratia marcescens? I cannot find it in the article.

I think the more click-baitey aspect of the article title is that they didn't specify that this occurred 60–80 years ago; it's phrased as if this test recently happened. The US defense agencies today sure aren't perfect, but they certainly aren't this reckless anymore. The fear during the first few decades of the Cold War instigated a lot of poor moral decisions by the US Government that can't just be extrapolated to the organization today.

You're going to an awful lot of effort to defend a massive governmental organisation which conducted tests on unsuspecting people.

1) is it okay to splash tap water on people as an “experiment”?

2-1) if 1) is not okay, how it becomes okay with bacteria, OR,

2-2) if 1) is okay, what?

1) Yes.

2-2) It's ok to infect people with Covid so it's clearly ok to hit em with water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_challenge_study

You're either endorsing literal battery/assault or perhaps overlooking some context.

Challenge studies involve consenting individuals and the actual events in the article don't.

I presume GP's example of splashing water would be on unsuspecting, non-consenting people going about their daily business, as was the case with the Subway in the article.

Then the question should've been "is it ok to perform experiments on uninformed participants" or "would it have been ok if they splashed water instead".

The doesn't try to explicitly link their question to the article and instead its prose is a hypothetical.

Instead, the guy ask if its ok to splash water. I can't think of any reason why splashing water would be the line at which its no longer ok to have an experiment. I certainly can see uninformedness being a reason not to have an experiment but that's a different question and so it would get a different answer.

You should deploy critical thinking skills. Splashing water on someone is in fact assault (or more accurately battery).

But that's besides the point, which isn't very hard to understand. The point is that just because a substance or act doesn't seem harmful _to you_, doesn't mean it doesn't violate someone's rights.

Yeah.. that's not something they should have done.

> and which wikipedia says "is thought to be a normal gut commensal in humans"

So is E. coli.

Agree. Article contains misinformation and should be flagged. In fact the bacteria in question is often and readily consumed. Not to mention the fact that we are awash in bacteria all the time.

The source stating that the bacteria are considered pathogens, is selling his book. The link to the National Academy of Sciences is also broken.

Also most bacteria can be opportunistic pathogens, depending on the situation, even the ones in our gut.

So while the ethics can be deemed questionable, the article presents the situation as if harm was certainly done, when in the most likely case not a single person was adversely effected.

The common cold is also readily consumed and almost harmless, doesn’t mean you get to spray it in schools for the banta

I agree. But what does that have to do with an article that presents unjustified assertions? The issue is that if you call something pathogenic, and make the case that people were harmed, then the article should support that which it doesn’t. Hence it’s click bait.

Let’s say I want people to take the Covid vaccine. Should I write articles with appeals to emotion, quotes from people writing books, and circumstantial evidence?

Or let’s say I want to point out that Covid vaccines carry risks. Should I write articles with appeals to emotion, quotes from people writing books, and circumstantial evidence?

Bad articles and bad science are not okay just because we agree with the assessment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com