Has there ever been a documented case of someone being killed in the name of peer-reviewed science?
January 21, 2011 1:30 PM Subscribe
Has there ever been a documented case of someone being killed in the name of peer-reviewed science?
Sure, we all know that religion has spawned an astonishing number of conflicts, and deaths as a result of them over the course of human history - it is very well documented. My question is this: Are there any documented instances of someone being killed over the course of history over peer-reviewed science? Wars? Murders?
Sure, we all know that religion has spawned an astonishing number of conflicts, and deaths as a result of them over the course of human history - it is very well documented. My question is this: Are there any documented instances of someone being killed over the course of history over peer-reviewed science? Wars? Murders?
Do people who died as a result of an experimental treatment count? Or the science was the start of a violent conflict?
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:35 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:35 PM on January 21, 2011
Depending on your definition of "peer reviewed science", the Burke and Hare murders, which I learned of from Kate Beaton.
posted by muddgirl at 1:36 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by muddgirl at 1:36 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
The men in the Tuskegee syphilis trials were effectively killed by scientists who withheld treatment that was known to be effective. That study was tax-payer funded. Read more, also.
posted by halogen at 1:43 PM on January 21, 2011 [16 favorites]
posted by halogen at 1:43 PM on January 21, 2011 [16 favorites]
Before WWII, there were scientific journals (e.g. Annals of Human Eugenics) and scientific conferences devoted to eugenics; it was considered a perfectly legitimate scientific topic, and we all know how that turned out.
posted by Ashley801 at 1:45 PM on January 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by Ashley801 at 1:45 PM on January 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
Poster, can you clarify what you mean here? People are answering two different questions. My reading of your question is not "were people killed during peer-reviewed science experiments?" but rather "have conflicts over peer-driven science driven people to murder others?"
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:48 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:48 PM on January 21, 2011
Nazi experiment were reviewed by the experimenters' peers, prolly not what you meant though.
posted by goethean at 1:48 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by goethean at 1:48 PM on January 21, 2011
Most "religious wars" are originally and primarily about power, or territory, or ethnicity, or nationalism, or what have you, and actual religious affiliation is either a proxy for nationality/ethnicity or a means of dehumanizing the enemy -- that's not to say that religions can't play an important part in prolonging and aggravating violence, but if you're docking religion points for causing suffering then you might as well give some credit to the ingenious power of science to invent weapons capable of killing millions and millions of people.
posted by theodolite at 1:49 PM on January 21, 2011 [13 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 1:49 PM on January 21, 2011 [13 favorites]
That said, the Tuskegee experiments are by no means alone in the annals of American science.
posted by theodolite at 1:52 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by theodolite at 1:52 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, if we're talking about organized conflicts, the "peer-reviewed" science era has really only lasted less than 300 years, while religion has had like 100,000 years to breed tribalistic conflict.
On preview, this.
posted by muddgirl at 1:54 PM on January 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
On preview, this.
posted by muddgirl at 1:54 PM on January 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
My reading of your question is not "were people killed during peer-reviewed science experiments?" but rather "have conflicts over peer-driven science driven people to murder others?"
Right, I can't really tell from your wording but it seems like you want to know if there has ever been a scientific equivalent of a Holy War. It would be a stretch, but you could argue that if economic and socio-political theories such as Marxism constitute science, the conflicts between Communist and Capitalist powers throughout most of the 20th century were as much about science as the Crusades were about religion.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:56 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Right, I can't really tell from your wording but it seems like you want to know if there has ever been a scientific equivalent of a Holy War. It would be a stretch, but you could argue that if economic and socio-political theories such as Marxism constitute science, the conflicts between Communist and Capitalist powers throughout most of the 20th century were as much about science as the Crusades were about religion.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:56 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Amy Bishop, who shot six of her colleagues after being denied tenure, most certainly had other problems as well. But yes, she certainly killed three people and wounded three others due to the results of peer-review.
(And Kepler maybe murdered Brahe for his observation records, but my professors are divided on this. OmniscientProf says no, but CharmingProf says yes.)
Redacting some of my opinions for now. The relationships between science, technology, and society over the course of history are very interesting, but this isn't a time for soap-boxing about them. :)
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 2:00 PM on January 21, 2011
(And Kepler maybe murdered Brahe for his observation records, but my professors are divided on this. OmniscientProf says no, but CharmingProf says yes.)
Redacting some of my opinions for now. The relationships between science, technology, and society over the course of history are very interesting, but this isn't a time for soap-boxing about them. :)
posted by Made of Star Stuff at 2:00 PM on January 21, 2011
Gottfried Leibniz got the short end of the stick in the Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy. At the time of his death, Leibniz was essentially persona non grata. You wonder if it affected his health; he certainly didn't have the cash or prestige at that point for the best care available.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:07 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:07 PM on January 21, 2011
Can't say peer-review applied to both sides, but Lysenkoism resulted in the death of Nikolai Vavilov, Lysenko's predecessor and Mendelian-genetics-espousing rival, in prison.
posted by Quietgal at 2:14 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Quietgal at 2:14 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Dian Fossey, a zoologist, killed for protecting gorillas.
posted by artlung at 2:18 PM on January 21, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by artlung at 2:18 PM on January 21, 2011 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: To Clarify, I am not interested in people who were killed during the course of their research by their actual research. I am interested in conflicts that have erupted and resulted in deaths after, for example, the release of new scientific material, the defending of material under scrutiny - "my theory is better than your theory so I am going to stab you" type of stuff.
I am interested in how violent conflicts that surround scientific inquiry or that are carried out in the name of scientific inquiry, if they exist, compare to violent conflicts carried out in the name of religion.
Does that make sense?
posted by mister-m at 2:34 PM on January 21, 2011
I am interested in how violent conflicts that surround scientific inquiry or that are carried out in the name of scientific inquiry, if they exist, compare to violent conflicts carried out in the name of religion.
Does that make sense?
posted by mister-m at 2:34 PM on January 21, 2011
I don't know if it counts, but the suicide rate in some high-pressure science grad schools is staggeringly high.
posted by miyabo at 2:41 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by miyabo at 2:41 PM on January 21, 2011
I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, due to lots of reasons that have little to do with what you're looking for. Here is the closest thing I can find:
Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that child mortality at a obstetric hospital for poor women could be drastically reduced if doctors would just wash their hands after dissecting cadavers and before sticking their hands up in a lady.
posted by muddgirl at 3:05 PM on January 21, 2011
Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that child mortality at a obstetric hospital for poor women could be drastically reduced if doctors would just wash their hands after dissecting cadavers and before sticking their hands up in a lady.
At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Each case was considered unique, just as a human person is unique. Semmelweis's hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered was cleanliness, was extreme at the time, and was largely ignored, rejected or ridiculed. He was dismissed from the hospital for political reasons and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, being eventually forced to move to Pest.A large number of babies died because of this scientific feud.
posted by muddgirl at 3:05 PM on January 21, 2011
What about Soviet and American deaths during the space race?
posted by muddgirl at 3:12 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by muddgirl at 3:12 PM on January 21, 2011
I am interested in conflicts that have erupted and resulted in deaths after, for example, the release of new scientific material, the defending of material under scrutiny - "my theory is better than your theory so I am going to stab you" type of stuff.
I don't think it happens in such an overt way, but what does happen sometimes is just as insidious. It's more like "my theory is better than your theory, and even if it isn't you could cause me to lose my standing or lose my money, so I am going to try to ruin your career, shun you, etc." Destroyed careers, and, when we're talking about medicine, sometimes unnecessarily destroyed health and patient deaths. You'll see a lot of this if you read about scientific paradigm shifts. Scientists can be just as dogmatic and mercenary as religious fanatics. The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions, by Kuhn, is a really interesting read.
posted by Ashley801 at 3:27 PM on January 21, 2011
I don't think it happens in such an overt way, but what does happen sometimes is just as insidious. It's more like "my theory is better than your theory, and even if it isn't you could cause me to lose my standing or lose my money, so I am going to try to ruin your career, shun you, etc." Destroyed careers, and, when we're talking about medicine, sometimes unnecessarily destroyed health and patient deaths. You'll see a lot of this if you read about scientific paradigm shifts. Scientists can be just as dogmatic and mercenary as religious fanatics. The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions, by Kuhn, is a really interesting read.
posted by Ashley801 at 3:27 PM on January 21, 2011
A former graduate student at my undergrad institution went on a shooting spree because he thought he deserved a prestigious award that went to another student's Ph.D. dissertation. He shot and killed the other student, several prominent professors including his advisor, and went after the university president and VP of academic affairs (killing the VP) before killing himself as police arrived.
posted by jdwhite at 3:36 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by jdwhite at 3:36 PM on January 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Would death threats from animal rights activists count if they were carried out? Some critics claim that animal testing is not needed to support the research being done and/or that animals are not appropriate proxies for humans. So it's somewhat of a scientific dispute.
posted by parkerjackson at 3:47 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by parkerjackson at 3:47 PM on January 21, 2011
In 1992, Valery Fabrikant shot and killed four colleagues at Concordia University, in part because of misappropriations of authorship and mishandling of funds (see).
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 3:54 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 3:54 PM on January 21, 2011
Reading histories of science, it's not at all rare to read of someone whose life work is (rightly or wrongly) discredited or rejected, subsequently entering a depressive decline and dying. This is death by heartbreak rather than the more overt direct stabby-stabby kind of killing.
posted by hattifattener at 4:25 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by hattifattener at 4:25 PM on January 21, 2011
Not really, No.
We have religious wars, not science wars.
posted by SLC Mom at 5:31 PM on January 21, 2011
We have religious wars, not science wars.
posted by SLC Mom at 5:31 PM on January 21, 2011
Not exactly what you're looking for, but this anthropologist tried to kill a bunch of other anthropologists (and a judge) for busting his drug manufacturing operation that went down in the lab from which I'm currently typing. Here's more info. Even now, it's a touchy subject to bring up.
posted by bergeycm at 7:38 PM on January 21, 2011
posted by bergeycm at 7:38 PM on January 21, 2011
Marie Curie discovered radiation. Shortly thereafter, she discovered that radiation exposure is really bad for you.
I'm sure there have been plenty of car accidents on the way to the lab...
posted by schmod at 10:36 PM on January 21, 2011
I'm sure there have been plenty of car accidents on the way to the lab...
posted by schmod at 10:36 PM on January 21, 2011
the reason we have a long history of religious wars, but no long history of scientific wars, isn't really because science is better than religion.
It's mainly because, in a post-enlightenment world, the leaders of nations are given their power by humans and not by "god".
In the immediate aftermath of the Reformation, suddenly it was realized: wait a sec, if God grants the king power to rule, and the king is a filthy Protestant/Catholic/Whatever, then... hold up... does that mean????! Could God be a filthy Protestant/Catholic/Whatever? No, I think that rather than following that to its logical conclusion, we ought to just exterminate the filthy Protestants/Catholics/Whatevers. Yes. Let's.
Now, if things were tweaked a little, and scientists ruled the world? Then, yeah, it's possible that such a thing could happen in the name of science. And the folks who've mentioned the Cold War and communism vs. capitalism aren't far off in terms of what such a thing would look like.
posted by Sara C. at 12:08 AM on January 22, 2011
It's mainly because, in a post-enlightenment world, the leaders of nations are given their power by humans and not by "god".
In the immediate aftermath of the Reformation, suddenly it was realized: wait a sec, if God grants the king power to rule, and the king is a filthy Protestant/Catholic/Whatever, then... hold up... does that mean????! Could God be a filthy Protestant/Catholic/Whatever? No, I think that rather than following that to its logical conclusion, we ought to just exterminate the filthy Protestants/Catholics/Whatevers. Yes. Let's.
Now, if things were tweaked a little, and scientists ruled the world? Then, yeah, it's possible that such a thing could happen in the name of science. And the folks who've mentioned the Cold War and communism vs. capitalism aren't far off in terms of what such a thing would look like.
posted by Sara C. at 12:08 AM on January 22, 2011
Maybe Lysenkoism?
30 million dead influenced by using bogus agricultural methods?
I have Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine by Jasper Becker.
posted by bleary at 10:22 AM on January 22, 2011
30 million dead influenced by using bogus agricultural methods?
I have Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine by Jasper Becker.
posted by bleary at 10:22 AM on January 22, 2011
Unabomber.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:55 AM on January 24, 2011
posted by Jacqueline at 4:55 AM on January 24, 2011
« Older Surely the economy isn't this terrible! | Durable, cheap Cotton/Polyester tshirts online Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by brainmouse at 1:34 PM on January 21, 2011