The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test... A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed
It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people.
Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Energy web page that defines the "scope of research" for human subjects studies. It says, in part, [R]esearch using human subjects encompasses a broader range of research than many investigators... often realize. In addition to traditional biomedical and clinical studies, human subjects research includes, but is not limited to, studies that... evaluate environmental alterations
To make that even more explicit, they have a "regulations" web page [1]. The top link there is to a memo that clarifies that any "research involving intentional modification of an individual's or a group of individuals' environment" must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research.
(All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.)
> (All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.)
I find it likely that the military assessed the risk that their alteration posed (the inclusion of a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city) against the danger posed by not understanding the spread of bacteria introduced to a city, and concluded that the research was a reasonable use of human subjects.
Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did.
The frightening thing about the government is not that they do these things without concern for the moral implications, but rather that the government as a system fosters a disconnect from the people they govern and a fanaticism towards duty that drives reasonable people to unreasonable ends.
Very rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications: they simply believe they're doing good by them.
> the military assessed the risk [of including] a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city
This does not seem as if it should have a very high risk...
> Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did [...] they do these things without concern for the moral implications
Which NSA activity do you mean? Bulk collection of phone metadata on US residents? If the legal folks said they have a way of defending it as long as certain internal checks are in place, I don't think there are many "moral implications" to collecting data as an agency devoted to signals intelligence does all over the world, aside from the moral implications of signals intelligence itself.
> rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications
Now you're really escalating. "The government doing atrocity" usually involves intentionally killing a lot of people, not spraying the equivalent of sugar water or collecting phone records.
...must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research
I think applying the directive for human subjects research does not imply the humans involved are "human subjects" in the way nuremberg uses the term, because those rules don't appear say anything about being notified or opting out [1].
Correct my history if I'm mistaken, but I think Nuremberg was a result of direct experimentation on humans. It is using the still common definition of "experimental subject", which is the entity which is being studied, i.e. the properties of which are being measured.
I don't think it's practical to say the DoE or DHS cannot study air movement through a city without getting every occupant's approval. And how would that reasoning apply to a new radar dish design at an airport?
It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people.
Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Energy web page that defines the "scope of research" for human subjects studies. It says, in part, [R]esearch using human subjects encompasses a broader range of research than many investigators... often realize. In addition to traditional biomedical and clinical studies, human subjects research includes, but is not limited to, studies that... evaluate environmental alterations
To make that even more explicit, they have a "regulations" web page [1]. The top link there is to a memo that clarifies that any "research involving intentional modification of an individual's or a group of individuals' environment" must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research.
(All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.)
[0] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm [1] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/