Re: Human penises, was Re

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Bryant: "Re: Human penises, was Re"
• Previous message: destevens@delphi.com: "Narragansett Indians"

In article <3ta8uc$nai@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Mary Beth Williams <mbwillia@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <60.12107.3724.0N1E815F@canrem.com> j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore)
>writes:
>
>>My> Point being, Ms. Williams ought not be
>>My> "disgusted" by any line of research that is ethically pursued.
>
>Well, let's see.... I *ought not be "disgusted" by any line of research
>that is ethically pursued*? And who, per chance, is on the ethics
>committee? How would you determine something *unethically pursued*?

I'd say that the existing safeguards (human studies review board, animal
care board) are good starts. What *harm*, exactly, do you posit we in
sexual selection research cause when we turn from our preoccupation with
the effects of female choice on males to the reverse? (I'm assuming we
agree that harm is a measure of immorality.)

>Now really disgusted (although I'll check with the ethics committee to
>see if I can qualify)
>
>MB Williams
>Wesleyan

Hope you get to feeling better.

Bryant

• Next message: Bryant: "Re: Human penises, was Re"
• Previous message: destevens@delphi.com: "Narragansett Indians"