“if it’s ok to do A or B then it’s fine to run an experiment on A vs B”
Allowing A and B, and allowing an experiment on A vs. B, may create different incentives, and these incentives may be different enough to change whether we should allow the experiment versus allowing A and B.
I’m not making that argument, but I do think that it’s easy to produce examples. For example, that was the problem with the Tuskegee experiment. The original incarnation was harmless, merely failing to provide expensive treatment that wouldn’t have been provided by default, only a problem in Schrödinger’s ethics. But later the investigators interfered with several other groups (eg, the WWII military) who wanted to provide treatment.
Allowing A and B, and allowing an experiment on A vs. B, may create different incentives, and these incentives may be different enough to change whether we should allow the experiment versus allowing A and B.
Maybe, but if this is common enough to justify limiting experimentation I’d expect people to be able to easily find examples.
I’m not making that argument, but I do think that it’s easy to produce examples. For example, that was the problem with the Tuskegee experiment. The original incarnation was harmless, merely failing to provide expensive treatment that wouldn’t have been provided by default, only a problem in Schrödinger’s ethics. But later the investigators interfered with several other groups (eg, the WWII military) who wanted to provide treatment.