I have been reading Jonah Goldberg’s new book looking for ways that I can disagree with him and to the contrary, I have found it quite enlightening, even though the title sucks.
Anyway, I started thinking about my own work in the field of schizophrenia research. I do basic research (I am an electrophysiologist) so my work is far removed from what I will discuss, but it is connected none the less.
At the outset, lest you think I will be invoking images of marching Nazis, I want to say I am not talking about that sort of fascism, and not all fascism is Nazism contrary to how we colloquially think. I think it goes without saying that I think all forms of fascism are bad, but not always based on evil intentions. The phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions…” comes to mind here.
Finally, to make this as crystal clear as possible, I define fascism as an ideology which seeks to achieve a “pure” nation or race, by promoting cults of unity, strength and purity-using totalitarian statism to achieve this goal.
OK, now that we have done the housework, here is the real problem I want to think about this week, and it is very simple:
Let us say that my work in schizophrenia research leads to the development of a drug that reverses the effects of this horrible disease (note: I am NOT talking about genetic therapies, which are a whole different discussion).
If I develop the drug and the FDA requires treatment with the drug, did I just contribute to statist control over other people? If I know that the endpoint of my research is to develop something that will be used to eradicate disease, does that make me a friendly scientific fascist?
What if I develop a cure for cancer? Would fascism (aka statist controls of others’ behavior) be acceptable for me in this case?
I know this is a difficult dilemma for those of us who do not believe in the control of daily life by groups of central planners, but who do want to help people.
Who wouldn’t want a cure for cancer to be given to everyone on Earth! For those who refused treatment, would we need even more state control to protect them from the social discrimination that would surely follow such a choice?
Discuss.
I think we need a cure for philosophy.
Huh? I think I get that…please forgive me if I misinterpret-
I agree, but this is a practical problem, not a philosophical one.
Another way of saying it, if we are going to let naked data dictate the choice, does the data then become a philosophy? Human nature may lead that to happen…just look at your blog post about how to “interpret” p-values.
The way you put it, most laws could be interpreted as fascism; can’t leave school until you’re 16 = fascism, can’t walk the streets naked = fascism. I guess we need this friendly fascism after all!
This may be my own ignorance coming into play, but is there currently a drug that the FDA mandates people to take? Medication and medical care in the US, as far as I am aware, is entirely voluntary. Violent schizophrenics are a different case – they are confined in hospitals should they be convicted of any wrong doing. So I am not sure I understand your question. If you develop an excellent drug, you will help many people – all those people who want to be helped, or whose families are permitted to make the decisions for them. Where will the state come in?