The Helsinki Declaration published in 1 and 1964 is regarded as the cornerstone of clinical research ethics. It stipulates: "Medical research can only be carried out if the subjects can benefit from the research results."
2. Due to the lack of effective supervision, there will be some problems in clinical trials. For example, some research groups will modify the research steps without authorization; The test data is even suspected of fraud; However, the informed consent signed by the subject and the research group can not protect the subject at the critical moment. Only a few members of the Ethics Committee can insist on continuous review, but the control of the research process is still "powerless".
3. A pharmacist revealed to the media that he asked the doctor if there were any side effects before the experiment, and the other party comforted him that he had "no sequelae and side effects" and could "cooperate with the experiment with confidence". Later, he found that his nose sometimes bled and he often sweated. A little exercise will make him out of breath. Only then did I know that the medicine I took had anticoagulant effect.
4. Some businessmen smell huge commercial benefits, and a food chain of subjects, intermediaries and experimental institutions has gradually formed. Some of these intermediaries are registered companies, and more are personal behaviors. Some "drug testers" are familiar with the heads of hospitals and research groups. They have stable subject resources and can quickly find topics of various research projects in a short time. Through "matchmaking", "drug testing intermediary" often charges a certain commission, which is generally 25%~30% of the remuneration of the subjects, and sometimes even as high as 40%.
5. Medical personnel are also special subjects. They have certain professional knowledge and can effectively control symptoms in clinical trials. Therefore, in the first-phase trial of new drugs, medical staff often join in. In the first stage of the experiment, the doctor tested the clinical response of the new drug in the human body by constantly changing the dose of the drug. This drug has a low safety factor and is harmful to the human body. "It is urgent to systematically protect the legitimate rights and interests of subjects," she said after a pause.
6. Debris interception
Two arguments for and two arguments against.
Two arguments in favor: ask the other side to demonstrate. In order to understand the toxicity of the virus, we take the human body as the experimental object, so should scientific research experiments that ignore human life be restricted?
Objection: Do opponents want to cite an example similar to Japan's 73 1 immoral human experiment? In fact, I want to tell my opponent that fascist behavior has long gone beyond the scope of science and his ethical boundaries. And these ethics have little restraint on him, so we can only use the law to limit it.
Two statements: the opponent's debater said that it had exceeded the limit. Does it imply that the boundary already exists? Then ask: in order to understand the totipotency of cells, should the experiment of injecting human nucleus into enucleated eggs of rabbits, which ignores human dignity, be banned?
The opposing party thinks that the opposing party is wrong on this point. What you are talking about is not science, but the application of science. At this point, you should make clear the essential difference between science and scientific application.
The other party just said that science is to understand the knowledge system, so I went on to ask: should anatomical experiments be banned for human structures and inhuman living bodies?
Refutation: Just now, our argument cited the example of Vesaliua. From a medical point of view, how did anatomy develop? Isn't it only through human anatomy that we know what the structure of the human body is like? If this kind of human anatomy was restricted at that time, how can we have a perfect anatomical theory today? (Time is up)
Opposing dichotomy chooses positive dichotomy.
Counterargument: Please make a counter argument. The logic of another debater just now tells us that science cannot effectively regulate its own development. So please tell me, does science itself have an error correction mechanism?
Pros and cons: Is the error correction mechanism mentioned by the opposing debater true or false? We don't deny that the judgment of authenticity belongs to the internal judgment standard of scientific development, but today we want to distinguish between good and evil. Does this good and evil need ethical boundaries to judge?
Counterargument: my friend told me that ethics plays a great role, so what about the error correction mechanism of ethics itself?
Two affirmative arguments: Why didn't the other debater say there was a problem?
Counterargument: The other debater speaks very well, so please try to compare the ethical error correction mechanism and the scientific error correction mechanism for us, which is more effective for science.
Argument 2: I want to answer another debater's question: If we ride a horse today, are we protecting the horse or hurting it? Both a man and a horse may make mistakes, but a man must control the horse better to lead him forward.
Counterargument: Then, can the other debater explain to me that there are many schools of thought, why can't they be unified up to now?
Two arguments: what we are talking about today is to have ethical boundaries. The other debater is undoubtedly saying that it should not exist because it is relative. At this turning point, the laws of different countries are still different. Is there no need for law to exist?
Counterargument: Counterargument Friends have a basic point that is wrong, that is, the most core and basic things are ethically inconsistent. How can we believe what an ethicist says is what we should believe?
Two statements: Of course, there is nothing wrong, because people's understanding is constantly deepening, so ethical issues are also shallow and deep, and human understanding is constantly developing. (Time is up)
Three arguments for and three arguments against.
Three arguments in favor: ask the other side to argue three. Excuse me: What are our criteria for judging whether a scientific research should be carried out?
Three arguments are against the side: we judge that this standard is multifaceted. However, today's ethical standards of opposing debaters cannot be unified at all.
Three arguments: So is it acceptable for us to take any measures to cause any consequences, as long as it is based on the other party's arguments and is conducive to seeking truth from facts?
The three arguments are opposite to each other: the topic we are discussing today is scientific development, which is to understand scientific laws, increase knowledge and develop by hook or by crook. Actually, we can accept it.
Three arguments: the defense friend of the other side said that any means and any way are acceptable. Then I want to ask, do we still want this to harm the dignity of human life and the scientific development of harmony and unity between man and nature
Three opposing arguments: don't put my hat on the other side. We just said in the debate that if we want to conduct an autopsy, how can we tell him the right to know ... (Time is up).
Three arguments against one side and two arguments against one side.
Oppose three arguments: bother to oppose two arguments and continue to study the problem. The problem of human cloning. As the Chairman said just now, every ethicist has different opinions. Which one should I trust
Argument: Many governments do not encourage or even prohibit research on human cloning. Why? Is it based on ethical considerations?
Three arguments against it: well, what kind of people should draw a clear ethical line? Do ethicists who are proficient in science draw this line or scientists who are proficient in ethics draw this line?
Two arguments: we say that no one can escape the responsibility of drawing ethical boundaries, and the main scientist of scientific research has the right because he has his own knowledge as ethical boundaries, which provides a certain basis. Should people outside science, that is, all of us here today, enjoy the gospel of science and participate in its formulation? Why should we hand over the responsibility of the whole society to some people?
The three arguments are opposite to each other: I want to ask my opponent: every country, every region, every nation and different places have different moral standards. Which one should we choose as the best standard?
Two arguments: I have already answered this question, and the other debater undoubtedly said that ethics is relative. Should a relative thing not exist? I have given examples of the law.
Objection: If there is no uniform standard, how to draw this line?
Argument: We say that it is our original intention to set ethical boundaries for the better development of science, and it is also our original intention to set ethical boundaries for science to better serve mankind. Is it contradictory? (Time is up)
[Attack and debate]
Argument: For the development of science, we can do anatomical experiments or even vivisection experiments. Everyone present, can you accept it emotionally? The ethical boundary of the example put forward by the opposing side has normative function, and science itself has error correction function. So how does science correct itself? It is authenticity. What does the ethical boundary correct? Is good or evil. In the human activities of scientific development, after all, there are good and evil, which need to be regulated by ethical boundaries? What are the criteria for scientific experiments? Another debater pointed out that the core views in ethics are not unified now, so do you want ethics not to exist So what is the basic conscience of scientists? Where is the scientific ethics? What is the professional ethics of scientists? Another debater asked us what kind of people drew moral boundaries. After all, there is a judgment of good and evil when people live in the world, and there is a distinction between good and evil. Everyone has ethical boundaries. Science is everywhere in our life today, and everyone is exposed to it. It can be said that all of us are promoting the development of science. Shouldn't we define good and evil for the development of science, and say whether it should or not? Therefore, ethical boundaries are the responsibility of the whole society. Why shouldn't the responsibility of human civilization exist to promote scientific development?
Debate on the opposite side: In fact, the main point of today's debate between the two sides is that we believe that science has the ability of self-regulation and restraint, while the positive side thinks that ethics is needed, so we are willing to introduce a new concept, that is, the error correction mechanism of science and ethics itself. The biggest difference between science and other disciplines is that it has a powerful error correction mechanism. It is because of the scientific method that we discovered the harm of DDT. It is because of scientific methods that we discovered the existence of ozone hole. And ethics? Ethics obviously has no such error correction mechanism. As long as it is wrong, it will be wrong again and again. It was not until 500 years later that ethics told us that it was wrong to burn Bruno at that time. And what's the use of this? In fact, if we look around the history carefully and compare it, we will find that the error correction mechanism of science itself is to maximize its benefits and minimize its risks. The existence of hospitals shows legal risks; Hitler's coming to power shows the risks of modern democratic politics; The history of foot-binding shows the risks of traditional customs in China. What about moral hazard? The list goes on and on. Mr. Qian Zhongshu once had a wonderful exposition on this. He told us that if God wants to punish mankind, sometimes there will be famine, sometimes there will be plague or war, and sometimes ethicists will be born. Therefore, we believe that: first, science itself has a powerful error correction mechanism, which can completely guarantee its correct development. Second, ethics itself has no such error correction mechanism. It can't even guarantee its own problems, so it can't standardize science and further restrict the correct development of science.
[Free debate]
Four arguments: Only scientific and ethical error correction mechanisms can ensure the healthy development of science. What is the ultimate goal of scientific development?
Four arguments against it: the ultimate goal of scientific and technological development is to explore the truth and the unknown. I would like to ask my opponent: Some people say that every scientific and technological revolution will bring about ethical and moral variation. How to understand this view?
Three arguments: Because ethics are constantly changing, don't we want ethics? Do we still need ethics in this human society? The ultimate goal of scientific development lies not only in seeking truth, but also in seeking goodness. How does another debater seek truth in the development of science?
The other side's argument: the other side thinks that the development of science depends on the spirit of science seeking truth, and the other side has always stressed that ethics needs goodness. How do you practice this kindness in different countries and nations?
Second debate: the opposing debater puts forward the scientific spirit. I don't know if your scientific spirit is put forward at the ethical level. No one talks about science. Can science develop without people? Without people, can science exist and not exist?
The other side's argument: My opponent told me that as long as someone participates, there will be ethics, and as long as there is ethics, there will be ethical boundaries. So does everything in the world have ethical boundaries as long as people participate?
Argument: But while pursuing the truth, scientific development is a human activity, and more importantly, scientists should uphold the sincere rational spirit. Isn't this an ethical boundary?
Argument of the opposing side: the opposing side is still talking about ethical boundaries with us, but it ignores a realization problem. In the Middle Ages, the Crusaders believed that eradicating pagans was the greatest fairness to God. Can you still use this standard to tell us this sentence today?
Four arguments: an ethical boundary was inappropriate at that time, does it mean that we should not have ethical boundaries? Three obedience and four virtues are not suitable for modern society. Does this mean that we humans don't need morality?
Counterargument: Excuse me, my opponent, can you tell me that there is a unified standard for any good? But any ethics has classes and stages. How to understand this problem?
Three arguments: Should there be conflicts? We often say that different people have different opinions. Is it because of different opinions that we should be heartless and hard to be confused?
Three arguments disagree: the other debater says that different people have different opinions, which means that your line is different from his. The eight of us have eight lines, and the audience has many lines. Please tell me which line is standard?
Two arguments: It is precisely because the eight of us hold two views that we have to argue. Shouldn't we argue according to the other party's theory?
Argument of the opposing side: the opposing side ignores a very important point, that is, the difference between boundaries and norms. What is the essential difference between boundaries and norms?
There is a debate for sure: which norm exists alone without boundaries?
Counterargument: Counterargument, boundaries cannot be divorced from rules, and norms are equal to boundaries and norms?
Three arguments: boundary and norm are not a concept, but there is no boundary without norm, and there is no boundary without norm.
The other side's argument: the other side still evades our questions. What is the essential difference between norms and boundaries?
Four Debates: We have made it clear in the debate and the free debate just now that the boundary is a problem of division. The other party also admits that the division of nature itself has a normative role, so is it normative to promote good and suppress evil?
Opposing debate: In other words, the opposing debater told us that we don't know what science will look like in 20 years, but we still have to draw a line for it today, right?
Positive argument: today's science has today's ethical boundaries, and science 20 years later has ethical boundaries 20 years later. Just as we had laws 500 years ago, we still have laws today.
Argument against the other side: the other side has been using legal metaphor to regulate ethics, but the actual law is bound by the known world, and the biggest feature of scientific research is the unknown. May I ask another debater, how do you define where you can explore and where you can't explore the unknown through a boundary?
Four arguments: there is a mistake in distinguishing between opponents and friends. Today, scientific research is indeed in an unknown field, but ethical boundaries define human behavior. Should there be a limit to human behavior?
Argument of the opposing side: Doesn't the opposing side know that these moral principles are all summed up from past experience? Science is exploring the unknown. How to explore the unknown by summing up experience?
Two arguments: this unknown is the unknown of truth and falsehood, not the unknown of good and evil. Don't other debaters know the difference between good and evil? Ask the other debater: Why does our country adopt a prohibition attitude towards the research of human cloning at this stage?
Objection to the other side's argument: the other side argued very well that ethics is only about good and evil, while science itself is an understanding of the laws of nature, and there is no distinction between good and evil. Its only criterion is to seek truth. The other side's four arguments tell me that the essential difference between norms and boundaries is that they are all about the division of one thing. Is this the essential difference between the two, or * * *?
Positive argument: the essential difference, of course. Science is indeed seeking truth, but the scientific development we are discussing today cannot be separated from human activities. Is there no distinction between good and evil in the process of human exploration?
On the other hand, my opponent, the essence of science is to know the laws of nature. You tell me whether to distinguish good from evil. Excuse me, which is good and which belongs to the category of evil in the discovery of natural laws?
There are four arguments: if there is no ethical boundary, any scientific research may slide into the abyss of evil. Today, we talk about scientific development. Besides discussing what to develop, we should also discuss how to develop and why to develop. Why did the other side avoid talking about the last two questions?
Objection: Another debater still tells us that there is no good or evil in science itself, but our scientific application will slide into the abyss of evil, that is, we only need ethical boundaries to distinguish good from evil in scientific application, right?
Two arguments: ask the other debater another question: in today's medical research field, is the research on frostbite prevention experiments a part of scientific development?
On the other side of the argument: my opponent, I also ask you a question: there is no conclusion about the exploration of outer space. How do your ethics define the ethical norms between life on earth and life in outer space?
Positive debate: Please answer our second debate first.
Objection to the other side's argument: my friend, this kind of freezing is of course a part of medical development, but it belongs to the experimental stage of medical science. Let me ask this question again.
Argument: Isn't this experimental process the process of scientific development? How can science develop without experiments? In this experiment, do ethical issues need to be regulated by ethical boundaries?
Opposing view: Opponents believe that a drug has actually been produced when studying frostbite. What medicine is this? Science is used for application, and the drugs produced are used for treatment. Go on, please answer the questions raised in our debate.
Quadrant debate: we need to study the defense of friends by the other side. It is a scientific research activity that human beings can't cheat. Then the other party misinterpreted our meaning. Let me tell each other that this is a photo of a human frostbite experiment. It's MINUS 26 degrees 24 hours, a pair of live feet!
Refute the other side's argument: Unfortunately, the other side has evaded our question three times. In fact, our example is to tell you that the biggest feature of science lies in its unknowns, and your ethics is class and staged, which can't regulate the development of our science. Please ask another debater to answer this question again.
Three arguments: true or false may be unknown, but the judgment of good and evil will always be the unchangeable ethical starlight known to mankind. In the face of such thought-provoking photos, are the other four debaters still saying that without the constraints of ethical boundaries, scientific development will not slide into the abyss of evil?
Argument of the opposing side: The opposing side confuses the concepts of truth, goodness and beauty today, and thinks that seeking truth in science and seeking goodness in ethics is a standard, so why not change the truth, goodness and beauty we are talking about today into goodness and goodness?
Two arguments: don't confuse the opposing side. What I want to ask is: Do scientists have their own professional ethics? Without ethics, will fraud happen? Why did Dawson put the skulls of humans and chimpanzees together to build people for 40 years?
Counter argument: In fact, there is another concept of counter argument that is wrong. What distinguishes a scientist from others is that he understands the development law of objective things. This is a fact, this is a factual judgment, and the ethical value mentioned by the other debater is only a value judgment, and the two cannot be confused.
A positive statement: Can scientists get rid of their conscience and professional ethics when they know the objective facts?
Argument against the other side: the other side is still using universality to demonstrate our scientists, and the process of scientists exploring science is only a factual judgment. I would like to ask the other debater: How do you use a subjective value judgment to limit our objective fact judgment?
Four arguments in the positive direction: morality recognized by all other debaters is universal. Why not admit that scientific development should have ethical boundaries?
Oppose the other side's argument: my friend, we only recognize universality, so we say we need ethical norms, but it is precisely because science is unknown that ethics cannot give it boundaries. Please answer our question again: What's the difference?
Three arguments: the difference lies in the unknown truth, and good and evil are eternal. I would like to ask another debater: in the face of so many possibilities, can you still say that scientific development should not have ethical boundaries?
The other side's point of view: The other side thinks that science is unknown. How do you judge whether an unknown thing is good or evil?
Two arguments: Borg is a talented chemist. Why did he later become a developer of sarin gas under Nazi rule in Germany?
Counterparty: After all, opponents are still telling us that ethics is known and science is unknown. We should use the known experience to limit the unknown, shouldn't we?
[Audience replies]
Audience 1: You just admitted in the debate that ethics is needed to make boundaries and norms in the process of scientific application, so do the positive questions also need ethical boundaries and norms in scientific experiments?
Four opposing arguments: first of all, we must distinguish one concept, that is, the concept of boundary and participation. Boundary means that in the process of scientific research, certain spaces and certain fields cannot be involved. The norm is how to ensure that this kind of research can develop in a direction beneficial to human beings, and another point is that ethics is relatively small because of its own ability to improve. Therefore, even if it participates in scientific norms, such norms are still minimal.
Counterparty: Actually, experiments are part of scientific research, and we distinguish between science and application. But in science, including experimental observation, reasoning, hypothesis and other methods, do not belong to the category of application, but belong to the category of science. Science needs truth, as long as it is in the direction of seeking truth, then all experiments are within the scope of science and only need to be regulated by science itself and ethics rather than boundaries. It is necessary to consider the pursuit of goodness in application. Any scientific application needs goodness, because it may have good or bad influence. This is the essential difference between scientific development and scientific application.
Audience 2: I want to ask: Your so-called scientific development should have a boundary, that is, once you reach this boundary, you should not go any further. Can we base human ethical security on human ignorance?
Four arguments: Today we say that scientific development should have ethical boundaries. His role is not only in the field of scientific research, but also in scientific research means and purposes, so today we are discussing scientific development not only about what to develop, but also how and why to develop it. For research methods, the restriction based on ethical concepts is precisely to protect the better development of science. For a scientist, he should uphold the basic professional ethics and take unshirkable responsibility for the future happiness of mankind.
Audience 3: I want to ask, does science itself have the ability to correct mistakes and distinguish good from evil?
The opponent thinks that the so-called science refers to the process of understanding the laws of nature, and the only law to be followed in this process is seeking truth. Does this objective law exist objectively, yes or no? As for the pursuit of goodness is a question of scientific application, how should you apply it, how to benefit mankind or bring disaster to mankind? Therefore, seeking truth and doing good is the essential difference between science and its application.
Audience 4: I want to ask you for sure: In short, nuclear technology can be used to build atomic bombs after we have mastered it, but it can also be used to build nuclear power plants. If the development of science is restricted by ethics, don't we want atomic bombs and nuclear power plants at the same time?
Three debates: What is the function of ethical boundaries? Is to distinguish between good and evil, suppress good and eliminate evil. How can we use our nuclear technology in nuclear power plants instead of atomic bombs? This depends on ethical boundaries to play a role. If a nuclear power plant is good, it is natural to promote good, and if an atomic bomb is bad, it is natural to suppress evil. If there is no ethical boundary, I am afraid we can accept the development, means and consequences mentioned by other debaters. Will this usher in the nuclear winter behind nuclear technology? Another debater once told us that our scientific development is unknown, but the ethical boundaries are known, and the unknown should not be limited by the known. But another debater stole a concept. What we know is good and evil, but what we don't know is the truth and the price. Maybe we don't know how much energy we can master in the future, but we should know now that the huge energy we have can never be used for evil purposes.
[Conclusion]
Four opposing arguments: Thank you, Chairman, and hello! After the debate just now, we know that another debater has a pure heart for science, but he made several fundamental mistakes: First, he confused science with application. Science is a process of seeking truth and belongs to the field of cognition. Application is to solve what to do and how to do it. It is the field of practice and the pursuit of goodness. Opponents point out many examples, but it must be clear that these are only caused by many factors outside the laboratory in the process of technology application, not the fault of science itself.
Second, define boundaries and norms equally. The boundary is an insurmountable forbidden area, but science is a cognitive process. We can't say that there are some places in the cognitive field that can't be discovered. If we really want to impose a boundary on scientific understanding, it will inevitably hinder human understanding of the objective world.
Third, the function of the application is exaggerated. In the final analysis, the development of science is the development of human knowledge, and the improvement of human knowledge can be achieved through experiments, observations, assumptions and reasoning. Application is only one of the links, and many basic theoretical disciplines can develop without application.
Let's see why theory can't be the boundary of scientific development. To solve scientific problems, we must constantly improve ourselves. That's because science has a very powerful error correction system, while ethics itself has very little error correction ability. Bruno was burned to death for 500 years before he realized that this was wrong. What's more, there are specialties in the industry. If ethicists are allowed to define the correct direction of scientific development, then I think, as history has shown, no real technology is perfected through ethical intervention. On the contrary, scientific development will inevitably lead to changes in the adaptability of production relations and the emergence of new ethical relations. History tells us that it is precisely because of Copernicus' persistence, Vesaliua's bravery or Darwin's persistence that their emerging productive forces and science broke the old and backward ethical system. Another debater thinks that we should take the ethical principles of human beings as the boundary, and the most basic principle of ethics is to be kind, but this basic principle and core problem has not been solved in the existing human beings, because ethics has stages, classes and lags behind. Science is exploring the unknown, so ethics can never be used as the boundary of scientific development. The other party said that ethics is relative, but we didn't deny the existence of ethics, only that it can't be the boundary of scientific development.
Four arguments: Thank you, Chairman! Can and can't be the same concept? Today, the other party replaced a proper judgment with a real judgment. The other party said that scientific development is the study of unknown fields, but today we are going to discuss not only what to develop, but also how to develop and why to develop. Can science really develop without human factors, research methods and research purposes? The other party said that application does not belong to scientific development, but isn't the application of scientific theory a process of demonstrating the social value of science? For example, besides physical development, does the all-round development of human beings include mental maturity, understanding of society and contribution to society?
Today, the other party just said that scientific development is value neutral, but did they say that the process of understanding scientific development must also be value neutral? For example, money is value-neutral in the ethical sense, but is the process of making money necessarily good and evil? So, shouldn't people who have no conscience be strongly encouraged to make money? Perhaps it can be said that scientific development should not have ethical boundaries, in order to highlight the value neutrality of scientific development and provide a relaxed environment for scientific development. However, once the ethical boundaries are lost, the research methods can ignore good and evil, and the research purposes can be chosen at will, then it will naturally become the object of greed and plunder, the society will become the place of racial optimization, and human beings will become the product of cloning technology. How to protect our ecological environment? How does human society develop? How is human dignity embodied? Perhaps it can be said that the development of science should not have ethical boundaries, but we want to emphasize the logic of science itself and ignore the social value of science. But when you separate science from technology and scientific research from scientific application, where does the social value of science come from? Scientists who study the human genome project are not only aware of the ethical problems that scientific research may bring, but also aware of the practical urgency to solve this problem. Some people think that the development of science should not have ethical boundaries. Originally, it was hoped that science would bear more fruits, but once the ethical boundaries were lost, the achievements of scientific research might one day be wiped out with human civilization in the explosion of nuclear bombs. Therefore, we firmly believe that scientific development should have ethical boundaries. We cannot let science develop into a runaway wild horse. What guides the development of science is the bright ethical starlight ahead.