About Scientific ‘Ethics’

‘Good’ and ‘Evil’. ‘Honest’ and ‘Dishonest’. ‘Kind’ and ‘Unkind’. ‘Accurate and inaccurate’. All those examples are examples of ‘ethics’. Many decades ago, a well-known ‘scientist’ of the time, was ‘called out’ because he had deliberately ignored evidence that his theory might be wrong. I forget the facts, which is rather sad. I think it was something to do with electricity. That does not matter, although I wish that I could remember who it was and what were the facts. But perhaps the guy had reasonable reasons to disregard the adverse evidence. Maybe he defended himself. I am pretty sure that the person involved in the ‘scientific scandal’ was well-known – someone like Fermi.

But hardly anyone outside the group of scientists who were involved in such research knew anything at all about it. Not a thing.

What I am trying to illustrate is that science had its own form of ‘ethics’. Essentially, that is to ‘tell the truth and leave nothing out’.

What has been happening in the last several decades is that ‘tell the truth and leave nothing out’ has ceased to be a scientific ethic in Public Health. I read today about a hospital which wanted to build smoking shelters, but Public Health England vetoed it. How PHE had any right to intervene is unclear.

The same happened a few years ago in Bolton, where I live. The hospital board wanted to build a couple of smoking shelters, but the politicians screamed, and the shelters were not built. Andy Burnham, Mayor of Manchester, was the main shouter.

There is a class of person who should never ever be allowed anywhere near ‘power’. Such people are crude. They can be spotted, such as Sarah Wollaston. They are extremists. She advocates extreme policies which would seriously inconvenience people and raise their costs. But she does not give a shit about that. The mere fact that her suggested policies might possibly cause a couple of kids not to get fat is enough to justify the extreme policy.

Why do not MPs cold-shoulder her? Why do they not expel her from ‘polite’ society? Perhaps they admire her and wish that they had the courage to be just as extremist. I really mean that.

It is easy for scientific ethics to be eroded. Money is very powerful. That is especially true of the quasi-scientific nature of epidemiology.

Epidemiology is not strong enough to justify persecution of smokers, not by smoking bans or taxes. Such bans and taxes are unethical.

The importance of ‘ethics’ involves the bombing of targets in Syria and the like. Let them fight it out if that is what they want to do, but whatever regime results, you can bet that not much will change. Places like the Middle East are in such turmoil because their populations have outstripped their resources. Saudi Arabia cannot help because it too is overextended as regards its population.

Africa is sparsely populated, as compared with Europe. And so is the USA. What is important for Europe is to keep the population down to a level that it can be fed and housed. It is extremely stupid to import more people. Industry must find better ways to function than importing slaves.

The Persecution of smokers in the whole world indicates a conspiracy. There is no doubt. Science WILL be bent to support the conspiracy.

That is why the Mayor of Manchester is a dickhead.

 

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “About Scientific ‘Ethics’”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    O/T

    Just in case you didn’t pick up on the volcanic eruption in Guatemala. Seems that horrid pyroclastic flow that featured in Pompey happened last night.

    http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/06/04/563826/Guatemala-Volcano-Death-Toll

    Lengthy local tv report plus photos.

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for the link. I think that the pyroclastic flow was not nearly as great is hit Pompeii. The latest evidence, from layers of pumice debris, ash and then more ash, shows that the last pyroclastic flow was the worst. The first one was stopped by the city walls, but the last one was far bigger. You have to think of a super-heated, dense cloud, 20 metres high, blasting its way through the town minute by minute, and piling ash everywhere where it was stopped. It is hard for us to visualise such a thing. Is it possible to visualise a wave of water in the sea which is 100 metres high? Very hard.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes Junican the Mayor of Manchester is certainly a dickhead ! He has a long track record of being a moronic arsehole and a nasty little bigot too.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: