No. The enforcement mechanism is multifold. There are the state and local regulatory bodies, there are the academic regulations and rules, there are international regulatory processes that inform the lower systems. Since it is an international effort, there is no military enforcement short of a world war, which everyone wants to avoid.If there's no enforcement mechanism then it's like the league of nations, a good idea only. I mean there's some soft power there and influence but nothing is going to stop a country like china if they want to do it.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that involves creating systems that recommend concepts of right and wrong.So then hodj, and I'm not baiting you here, what is ethics? Who decides what is ethical?
ethics - Google ?j?M
And the people who decide what is ethical in science is the international scientific consensus and community.
You can't Godwin an argument about medical ethics when the fucking Nuremburg Code is the foundation of modern medical ethics.You've godwin'd this argument two posts after I told you to make your final statements, ergo you lose. Cad is the winner. If you guys want to continue an ethics discussion do so in another thread.
Also the only reason I responded is because Cad responded.
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No one is glibly comparing someone else to Hitler or the Nazis. No Godwinning of anything has occurred.Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]
Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written.[11]