'Gray Area' science and sapient experimentation

[Guest]

Alright. A topic that popped up concerning science is how unethical research can actually get, before IC or OOC repercussions are forced upon individuals.

This ties to the discussion of what NT should really be about in the lore question section and general operation of geneticists. I've faced some examples of highly unethical research, yet was both exporative of game mechanics and made sense ICly. One of them was a brain transplant which had a very high chance of killing or generally damaging a person. Nonetheless, the person being tested upon signed a consent form, albeit, not with a psych eval. It also had support of the RD, who prompted me to allow it, with high reluctance. Other example is my well known incident of allowing eyes to be surgically removed from a live vampire, on basis of them being a hostile alien species, not a crew member or accepted alien species. Third case that usually pops up is genetic experiments on and teleporting volunteers with telescience, both of which can kill them.

This scientist doing it usually faces backlash or demotion even if they had all the required paperwork. If they don't, security and IAA creates so much pressure on command that it's unbearable. Of course, there will always be know-it-alls among the crew who will object to anything you do, and should be either listened to or ignored based on your own judgement, I'm aware of that. However, it's a question if it should be an issue if it doesn't put anyone else in danger.

This thread is not about the personal opinions of your characters or your own ethical values. What I want to know is what the general CC perspective on the issue would be by getting the general concensus of the server. Then, it can be easily implemented into the station directives and enforced on the staff.

My opinion is that overly opressive science standards go against the fact that Aurora is a high-security research station, as science is forced to do cookie cutter low profile 'science', instead of doing risky, but ground-breaking hops that have raised NT to the top of the food chain. It makes science, frankly, unfun and only causes OOC problems. Of course, there is always chucklefuckery that has nothing to do with science, but RDs and captains should by defintion curb such type of behavior. But I think they should be allowed to actually allow unusual and borderline unethical research.

[Skull132]

Gonna poke the OOC side of it in here, will input IC once I have more time.

OOCly, assuming none are antagonists, as long as all participants are willing for the right reasons and the research actually meaningful, roleplay wise, we won't really stop you.

Scientists and docs have been exploding, desecrating protohumans and willing test subjects ever since the start of the server. And we don't really stop them.

The breaks are put on when the research is done without valid reason and usually concerns monkeying, slimeying or slimemanning yourself. Everyone who has been PM-d about monkeying themselves usually says it's because it's their character's dream or some such.

[Guest]

Gonna poke the OOC side of it in here, will input IC once I have more time.

OOCly, assuming none are antagonists, as long as all participants are willing for the right reasons and the research actually meaningful, roleplay wise, we won't really stop you.

Scientists and docs have been exploding, desecrating protohumans and willing test subjects ever since the start of the server. And we don't really stop them.

The breaks are put on when the research is done without valid reason and usually concerns monkeying, slimeying or slimemanning yourself. Everyone who has been PM-d about monkeying themselves usually says it's because it's their character's dream or some such.

 

That latter examples would be fit definition of chucklefuckery pretty well.

I would like to know if I had sent a report to Odin of the mentioned examples of unethical research, asking if to allow them or not, what the reply would be.

[Jamini]

My stance on the issue ICly is simple:

1. Security has no real place in determining what experiments the research department can perform. At all.

2. The IAA should be ensuring the proper paperwork if filled and proper precautions are taken.

3. Command should be determining if a project is viable and permissible.

To clarify.

Security : Their job is to uphold the station regulations, they are not the masters of the station nor are they even remotely qualified to make feasibility or judgement calls on scientific experiments. The extent of their involvement should extend to arresting scientists who fail to get proper forms filled out, or who cause intentional harm to the station or its crew. Security officers who overstep should be brigged and charged with exceeding official authority and demoted. Non-research crew who harass scientists for doing their jobs over the radio (such as a particular Tajaran EMT) should be slapped with misuse of comms.

Internal Affairs Agents: Last night I had a wonderful set of exchanges with Frank Terrence, regarding engineering installing a TEG in the construction area that I had authorized atmospherics to build. Rather than simply asking for paperwork or attempting to get it shut down he asked me to analyze the benefits, and risks, of the project. This forced me to think critically about the project, and helped me notice a rather large flaw with the layout of the area. In my mind, that is exactly how the IAA should be involved with other research. They are the people who ask "Why", "How", and "What benefit can this give us".

Command - More than any other individual, command staff represent their departments when it comes to large projects. They are the voice for their subordinates in overall station goals and directions, and often the people expected to consider how the IAA will play in. Each head, within their lane, should have and provide an opinion on large-scale or dangerous research.

-RD : The director is in charge of, and responsible for unethical or dangerous projects directly. They need to understand that they are the ones who are ultimately at fault if something goes wrong, as well as the ones who should be pushing well thought-out and organized projects in the first place. As the head of reserach, they should be the ones who okay or deny a project

-CE: The CE is in charge of, and responsible for the station integrity. If a project might risk station integrity or systems, they should weigh in. If a project needs station modifications to go ahead, they should be approving or denying the modifiations and assigning staff to perform the modification.

-CMO: The CMO is in charge of, and responsible for crew health. If a project might risk serious crew injury or death, they should weigh in. Psychological evaluations, surgeries on crew-members (and ex-crewmembers), and treatment of the dead all fall in the CMO's domain, and should be reviewed by them.

-HOS: The HOS is in charge of, and responsible for crew behavior. The extent of their involvement should be ensuring that nothing outright illegal by NT regulations is being done. Ultimately, this means they should have very, very little to do with high-end research at all unless it is used for theft, sabotage, etc.

-HOP: The HOP is in charge of, and responsible for crew employment and finances. The extent of their involvement should be insuring that Nanotrasen will profit from research, and demoting scientists who fail to follow proper procedure and sign forms. Ultimately, they have very little say in high-end research except on a reactionary level.

-Captain: The Captain, much like the RD, is responsible for all experiments carried out under his command. Often he will need to cover for the RD, sometimes without the RD's experience, and his approval and disapproval can be required for some high-end research. That said, in the end his job is to ensure that the station is working, following procedure, and communicating. The best way he can do this is by ensuring his staff communicate and coordinate, and cover empty roles in his roster.

[Susan]

Just because someone signs a waiver doesn't make it okay. You can't sign a paper giving someone permission to kill you, and whoever did kill you can still be charged and arrested.

[Jamini]

Just because someone signs a waiver doesn't make it okay. You can't sign a paper giving someone permission to kill you, and whoever did kill you can still be charged and arrested.

 

Cyborgification Paperwork

This is demonstrably untrue.

[Skull132]

That latter examples would be fit definition of chucklefuckery pretty well.

I would like to know if I had sent a report to Odin of the mentioned examples of unethical research, asking if to allow them or not, what the reply would be.

 

If you explain the project, intent and benefits, I don't see why they shouldn't approve of it. As long you can outline a direct gain, or at least ensure that there won't be any loss of valuable assets (such as the station, cough), it should be fine.

 

---

---

 

Also, regarding IC, as promised earlier.

 

This scientist doing it usually faces backlash or demotion even if they had all the required paperwork. If they don't, security and IAA creates so much pressure on command that it's unbearable. Of course, there will always be know-it-alls among the crew who will object to anything you do, and should be either listened to or ignored based on your own judgement, I'm aware of that. However, it's a question if it should be an issue if it doesn't put anyone else in danger.

 

Conditions that need fulfilling for dangerous experiments:

• You have RD's permission, potentially the rest of Command Staff's as well
• You have signed paperwork as is necessary
  
• You take the precautions you can to ensure in the safety of the station and rest of the crew

 

Once all three conditions are filled, Command should not curb. They should straighten out their back and outline to whoever is pressing the matter that the test was legitimate, and that they cannot do anything about it, as all of the conditions that Central Command demands (paperwork, equipment safety) are fulfilled. If they still try, guess what. Fire them. There isn't anything more to discuss. The RD and Science team have ensured that they adhere to the rules, and as such, no one can touch them. If anyone tries, then they aren't adhering to their own rules and deserve repercussions in accordance with their own conduct.

I've played RD for a good long time. And because I wasn't much of a medical RD, security and IAA didn't really give a crap about my bombs. Engineering did, though. And a lot of the time, they didn't take kindly to it. But the moment they tried anything against it, I simply raised my papers, showed them the signatures and told them to kindly get out of my lane.

The one caveat is that you should be prepared to take responsibility for something completely outlandish. Tests shouldn't be conducted in a "Welp, shit happened," manner. Instead, you actually try to assist as much as you can in cleaning up your fuck up, if it does come about.

 

---

---

 

Just because someone signs a waiver doesn't make it okay. You can't sign a paper giving someone permission to kill you, and whoever did kill you can still be charged and arrested.

 

As for this? This is a game. And one of the rules to this game is very simple: if there's a form for it, then you can do it. And if you're good enough, that rule basically means, "You can do whatever you please, until you cause enough pointless damage for Central to take you down."

As for an actual response. This is how medical science works, Sue. You cannot do everything in theory without practical testing. And practical testing will include failure. Just a few days ago I saw a news clip about a man planning to undergo a very experimental brain transplant surgery. Do you think he's going to live? Nope. Neither does he. But he still wants to do it. And I don't see no police trying to bust him nor the doctor down.

So, the point is. At some point, you need to take the dip. And at some point, someone will die as a byproduct of that. That is how medical science is, that is how it will be. Which is why, as long as the test is well enough explained, it's greenlit.

[Susan]

There is a difference between 'this may cause your death' and 'kill me outright'. I'm talking about a very specific instances, wherein the purpose of the experiment was to kill someone, not as a potential side effect.

[Guest]

Well, I think that much is clear. It's up to command staff to determine if the test has any practical value or sense, specifically the RD. If it does not, and it gets passed, then heads roll. If it does, and the scientist doesn't follow suit on what he said he would, it's neglect of duty.

[Guest]

As far as I know, duck and I have killed each other numerous times as nonantags for silly science things. We never signed paperwork, we never gave an RD a go-ahead, we never checked in to the command staff on what we're doing until they ask, in which case, we give them a rather non-explanatory and unhelpful answer. Buuuuut we don't include anyone else in our shenanigans because a lot of what we do could be interpreted as gamebreaking.

We've not been yelled at yet.

Whether it's against the OOC rules, it depends on what your science partner's intending on doing. If you both are having a laugh about it and are at least roleplaying it sufficiently, I don't usually see it as an issue. Provided you never do what you just learned ever again in an antag round.

ICly? Oh, I'm sure what we did was highly illegal but nobody has ever paid enough attention to care.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Guest

[Skull132]

Well, I think that much is clear. It's up to command staff to determine if the test has any practical value or sense, specifically the RD. If it does not, and it gets passed, then heads roll. If it does, and the scientist doesn't follow suit on what he said he would, it's neglect of duty.

 

I'd argue that as well. If the scientist took every precaution he could, but the experiment still doesn't deliver, it's just a failed experiment. And not neglect of duty.