Re: (Fwd) Re: guidelines/ethics

Eugene Leitl (
Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:48:33 +0100 (MET)

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Kathryn Aegis wrote:

> >I haven't noticed that, but then, I have not looked. Does anybody
> >knowledgeable second Kathryn's observations?
> I didn't think I needed to make a major case on this, given the major
> overhaul of NIH's medical research protocols in response to charges
> that "male as norm" studies were not responsive to women's needs in

That's obvious. There are huge differences even between members of the
same sex. What you're describing, is an excellent example of sloppy
science. Little wonder, as I know from personal experiences how medical
students are trained/how their "research" usually looks like (of course,
admirable exceptions exist).

> regards to pharmaceuticals and cancer treatments. But then, maybe I
> shouldn't have assumed.

Obviously, you misunderstood. I was referring to good science, while
medicine does not qualify as science at all. I would be amazed if a
particle physics experiment planned/implemented by a male/female would
produce different results. If reproducible, that would mean the end of
science as we know it.

However, experimental signatures of males/females differ much more
strongly as between experimentators of the same sex. In chemistry I have
made the observation that women are usually much more meticulous/clean
experimenters, and have much more stamina/are less prone to abandon a
course of experiments due to accumulated frustration.


> Kathryn Aegis

| |transhumanism >H, cryonics, |
| |nanotechnology, etc. etc. |
| |"deus ex machina, v.0.0.alpha" |
|icbmto:N 48 10'07'' E 011 33'53'' | |