Agent Watkins arc - ethical compass discussion (arc spoilers)

[Techwright]

SPOILERS

 

 

Just finished the Agent Watkins arc, and the ending reminded me of something.

 

Watkins notes that medical advancements sometimes happen due to tragedies.  He's in part referring to the Vahzilok research which in the arc is said to be nearly complete, though halted due to heroic "interference".

 

The situation reminded me of an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, where a holographic reconstruction of an alien war-crimes doctor is utilized, very reluctantly, to save the life of one of the crew.  When the "doctor" points out that the computer has all the research the original collected through horrific, criminal research on those enslaved, and states that the work is done and therefore should be utilized to save lives,  the hologram and the research are instead erased, and a decision is made to never again use the research.

 

Which brings me back to this arc.  If you've played the game, you know how horrific the doctor and his disciples have been to those they've kidnapped.  But the fact remains that the research has been documented.  Is it better to:

    A) destroy the research as an outgrowth of a horrific series of tortures and events, or

    B) recognize that the research results are viable and needed by the living, condemn the doctor and his cult, wipe their names from ever receiving credit, and rename the research to something that memorializes the victims?  (I'm making the assumption here that the research will be reviewed to make certain of it's validity, before using it in future, legitimate research and treatments.)

 

I'll offer a "C" option here, in case someone comes up with a notable third option.

 

[Greycat]

Well... bluntly, we use research (using that term... loosely, at times) that was basically obtained via torture, infection, etc. all the time.  Gynecological information obtained by "research" on african american women, altitude/vacuum chamber information, the results of - I forget what they were called, but I'll call them "plague camps" run by the Japanese during WWII and more.

 

Heck, you can call some *legitimate* (for the time) procedures and research unethical and/or horrific.

 

Use the research, but very *much* keep its history and its victims visible. They go forgotten far too often, and to me, just destroying and throwing out the research is throwing the victims out as well.

[cranebump]

B. If you can get any good out of that crap, you probably should. The question I ask myself is, “if I were killed in one of those horrible experiments, but my death could save someone’s life later on, I’d rather the life be saved.” 
 

Different subject, but I also recall Trek explored similar theme involving the Bomb (an Oppenheimer type character who created a doomsday weapon who later wanted to use his theories for good). When the scientist was asked why he worked on the weapon when he knew what it would do, he said someone would have done it anyway. He added, “it’s good to know the way the world works” (or something to that effect). Not the same as human experimentation, by any means, but the driver of advancement is always the question. The question of consequences does not always immediately follow. And therein lies the prospective dangers.

[Snarky]

3 hours ago, Techwright said:

The situation reminded me of an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, where a holographic reconstruction of an alien war-crimes doctor is utilized, very reluctantly, to save the life of one of the crew.  When the "doctor" points out that the computer has all the research the original collected through horrific, criminal research on those enslaved, and states that the work is done and therefore should be utilized to save lives,  the hologram and the research are instead erased, and a decision is made to never again use the research.

 

I would be in favor of using the research.  Creepy fact, a not insignificant chunk of worldwide aeronautical and medical tech has its roots in Nazi Germany.

 

Then, of course, beat down anyone in the galaxy who is still around that is affiliated with causing people such misery.  

 

We cannot control the horror of the past.  We can only act with hope for the future.

[JasperStone]

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/

 

This poses a lot of questions.

I do believe her family finally received some measure of financial restitution.

[huang3721]

After reading the options, my knee-jerk reaction was something like this: 

 

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

A) destroy the research as an outgrowth of a horrific series of tortures and events,

Dr. Vahzilok shared his research on underground websites long before his incarceration. Many like-minded people have imitated and improved his design. Destroying it is no longer possible at this point.

 

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

B) recognize that the research results are viable and needed by the living, . . .

I am not sure about this. More on this later.

 

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

condemn the doctor and his cult, . . .

Law enforcement has condemned Dr. Vahz and his followers.

 

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

wipe their names from ever receiving credit, . .

I don't think this is a good idea because Dr. Vahz's and his followers' work are already well known. Give credit where credit is due. 

 

16 hours ago, Techwright said:

and rename the research to something that memorializes the victims?

They killed a bunch of them. Which one?

 

To elaborate about Dr. Vahz's work:

Vahzilok tried to defeat death. He failed. Eidolons, the most evolved of his creatures, require regular replacements for their constantly decaying skin and organs. If anything, Eidolons are more vulnerable than average human beings. Keep them from replacing their organs for a while, and they are dead.

Dr. Pierce and Doc Buzzaw use his research to make an army of Freakloks. These creatures, while improved, still need constant maintenance. They are worse than the Protector program from Crey or Praetoria's clockwork technology.

Facemaker builds a beauty parlor based on Dr. Vahz's work. Arguably, she is the most successful one. However, Icon exists as a (better?) alternative.

 

In short: Viable? Yes. Needed by living? Not sure. 

My hunch is that Agent Watkins exaggerates Dr. Vahz's accomplishment. He is a NetOps agent, not a scientist with credible experience. IMO, whatever Dr. Vahz and his followers have come up with, it is pale compared to what the scientific community and the RnDs from many corporations already have.

 

Is it OK to use their work? I read an article about this topic. The researcher argued that it is OK as long as it doesn't make one complicit and doesn't legitimize/encourage wrongdoing. So, I guess it's OK (assuming the work is worthy), as long as the ones using it are not butchering people and do not encourage people to do so.

 

 

[Techwright]

19 hours ago, Snarky said:

We cannot control the horror of the past.  We can only act with hope for the future.

 

That's a great line, and while I was specific to the game (at least I hope it came across that way), it's a positive thought for moving forward in the real world, too.

 

6 hours ago, huang3721 said:

After reading the options, my knee-jerk reaction was something like this: 

 

Dr. Vahzilok shared his research on underground websites long before his incarceration. Many like-minded people have imitated and improved his design. Destroying it is no longer possible at this point.

 

I am not sure about this. More on this later.

 

Law enforcement has condemned Dr. Vahz and his followers.

 

I don't think this is a good idea because Dr. Vahz's and his followers' work are already well known. Give credit where credit is due. 

 

They killed a bunch of them. Which one?

 

To elaborate about Dr. Vahz's work:

Vahzilok tried to defeat death. He failed. Eidolons, the most evolved of his creatures, require regular replacements for their constantly decaying skin and organs. If anything, Eidolons are more vulnerable than average human beings. Keep them from replacing their organs for a while, and they are dead.

Dr. Pierce and Doc Buzzaw use his research to make an army of Freakloks. These creatures, while improved, still need constant maintenance. They are worse than the Protector program from Crey or Praetoria's clockwork technology.

Facemaker builds a beauty parlor based on Dr. Vahz's work. Arguably, she is the most successful one. However, Icon exists as a (better?) alternative.

 

In short: Viable? Yes. Needed by living? Not sure. 

My hunch is that Agent Watkins exaggerates Dr. Vahz's accomplishment. He is a NetOps agent, not a scientist with credible experience. IMO, whatever Dr. Vahz and his followers have come up with, it is pale compared to what the scientific community and the RnDs from many corporations already have.

 

Is it OK to use their work? I read an article about this topic. The researcher argued that it is OK as long as it doesn't make one complicit and doesn't legitimize/encourage wrongdoing. So, I guess it's OK (assuming the work is worthy), as long as the ones using it are not butchering people and do not encourage people to do so.

 

 

1) You make an excellent point about research posted to underground websites.  While I'm not sure there's a way to completely eradicate the research as a result, there would be a way to routinely purge and prune heavily to try to keep the information to a minimum. 

 

2) The viability of the Dr. V's research - while it is not complete, and you give good evidence of that, it is advancement (if I can use such a word in this ghoulish instance), which could help others to understand and advance the areas of science.  While an organ replacement without maintenance might not be possible today, it might in the future, in part based on the research, and that is where it touches on the "needs of the living".

 

3) Law enforcement condemning the Doctor is a good start, but it needs to be greater.  There should be some sort of address by the medical community and society in general, especially since not all society perceives law enforcement in a positive light.

 

4) Consider the in comparison the victims of a serial killer.  Should their names and the record of their lives be forever a sub-point to the killer?  Perhaps I overstep in this discussion.  I don't wish to bring the real world fully into this topic, but the parallels are unmistakable.  Art (in this case a video game) does imitate life after all.

 

5) Not any singular name, though I'd be for a memorial in the city with a list of the names.  More like "Victims Memorial Research" with "victim" being substituted for something more positive in a group sense.  Perhaps something like "Candle Vigil Memorial Research", or something like that.  Stupid name, I couldn't come up with something better than referencing the oft-done candle vigils, but hopefully it makes the idea understood.

 

Personally, as a player in this virtual world, I think I'd favor @cranebump's thought:

20 hours ago, cranebump said:

B. If you can get any good out of that crap, you probably should. The question I ask myself is, “if I were killed in one of those horrible experiments, but my death could save someone’s life later on, I’d rather the life be saved.”

...but I do like seeing the alternate viewpoints and hopefully the underlying reasons.

[cranebump]

Agreed on hearing opposing views. And if I may ruminate: 

 

As a history teacher I make it a point to look at everything, including the harsh, unpleasant truths of the past. How else can we know who we were, where we’ve been, and what we’d like to be (and not be)?
 

We live in an age, however, where people want to expunge anything that doesn’t agree with their version of the past, because it’s difficult, uncomfortable. Sanitizing the past in any manner may go far in making us feel better about ourselves. But it does a disservice to our being to paint pretty pictures of the often unpretty past.

 

What is true is that the world has always been a difficult place, with difficult situations, and difficult people. You move forward by confronting the reality, then determining the next step. Being comfortable? That won’t get us anywhere but our own couch (so to speak).

[huang3721]

3 hours ago, Techwright said:

Art (in this case a video game) does imitate life after all.

Really agree with that.

 

Dr. Vahzilok reminds me of Dr. Robert Koch, a bacteriologist from German Empire known for identifying the pathogen responsible for tuberculosis. He also made a cure, which would be the pinnacle of his life's work. Spoiler: it didn't work, and the early result should have alerted him. Yet, he brushed it off, persisted in his endeavor, and pushed it to the general public.

 

God knows how many were duped by his empty promise. 

 

IMO, one underlying problem with Dr. Vahz and Dr. Koch is that they believe a scientific breakthrough is a solo effort. A genius cures the whole world! Nothing can be further from the truth.

 

Dr. Vahzilok's work is art imitating real life. And I guess I've disparaged Dr. Vahz for a while. I should stop now. Thanks for reading. 

[Luminara]

There are few or no laws prohibiting the use of information garnered from illegal or unethical pre-existing research, but from everything I've read, it's strongly discouraged in the medical community.  Like, "No, we won't peer review that paper... oh, and we just might revoke your license and ostracize you.  And report you to the authorities.  And the WMA.  And NATO." discouraged.  You can find some examples of people trying to use such information, and the results of those attempts, if you poke around.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation is a good place to begin.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki
https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/release-data-unethical-experiments

 

As can be seen in the American Medical Association's opinion, even setting aside the ethical implications, such information is generally considered to be unreliable and of questionable value because it's rarely obtained through proper science, meaning the tests weren't conducted in a manner which met falsifiability requirements, failed to account for all variables and weren't properly documented.  If such research can be reproduced through proper scientific method and ethical testing (this is option C), it's permissible as a reference.  That doesn't happen very often.

 

Most unethically obtained medical data is pseudoscience, mad science and/or skewed "proof" of a biased or scientifically questionable theory.  It's almost never of any value, and in the rare case where it can be useful or worthwhile, the method by which it was obtained taints everything based on it and use of that research is considered to be dismissive of the horrors the patients experienced, which, itself, is a violation of medical ethics.  Most medical professionals will actively search for a reason to discount the research if it involves violation of patient rights, violation of medical ethics, torture, abuse, et cetera, and they usually find that reason.  Doctors just don't want to be associated, even tenuously, with torture, grotesquery, murder and patient abuse.  Nor should they, as it presents a picture diametrically opposed to the care-giver and healer, and using immorally obtained research data definitely portrays a lack of regard and concern for patient rights, feelings, and even their very existence.  People shouldn't and wouldn't trust medicines or surgical techniques created from research which involved torture, abuse and/or murder, or want such used on them due to the connotations with said atrocities.

[cranebump]

While I agree in principle with everything @Luminara posted, above, you can safely assume that, if someone was terminal, and they knew they could be saved by methods, practices, discoveries that came from unethical research, you bet your ass they’d take advantage of it. Ethics goes out the window when people are desperate. I ain’t sayin’ it’d be the right thing to do, but dying a noble death is easier said than done.

 

and no…I’m not cynical…:-)

[GM Crumpet]

History is full of abominations. Much of our medical and scientific knowledge is grounded in the suffering of others. The hard ethical point is that experiments and research has to be peer reviewed and replicated. A lot of "breakthroughs" have been faked and debunked when other scientists try to recreate the experiment. How can you do that when the research is obtained unethically?

We are also in an age where opinion is as valid (in the minds of some people) as actual proof. The covid vaccine is a good example. Lots of misinformation about the vaccine spread like wildfire, and most of it was made up out of whole cloth. So many people jumped on the bandwagon that it was a new, untested and experimental vaccine, when the reality was very different. Scientists have been creating SARS  vaccines for decades and the research is very much out there. Covid is SARS-COV-2, and just like the influenza virus it didn't take as much effort to modify the existing research to take into account the new variant as it would to create a vaccine from scratch. The difficulty with covid is it's rate of mutation, but even that seems to have slowed down as it stabilised. Flu mutates every year and the vaccine you get is targeted at the most likely variant to spread. Sometimes they get it wrong and have to create a new vaccine, but most years they get it right. 

That doesn't stop people from thinking crystals, aromatherapy and horse medicine is a viable alternative.