Actually, everything i've seen suggests that the various "unethical" tests conducted by the Nazi's actually had little to no scientific value.

Furthermore, Nazi other technology WOULD of grown even faster... except they scared some of their best scientists out of the country...

who were Jewish.

Ethics do hold back science, but the examples you gave are poor ones.

Better ones would be something like how FDA regulations greatly slow the release of helpful drugs and treatments that can save peoples lives who have no hope otherwise.

That's actually not true.

Though Galieo's theory turned out to be correct, the most "scientifically sound" theory at the time was Tycho Brahes... The Tychonic System.

Galieo's main point for the earth revolving around the sun was that the Tides change once per day... and the fact that they change twice everywhere it's being observed was just because of the Medterianian Sea.  Before he was forced to change it, the original book was called "Dialogue of the Tides."

It wasn't until MUCH later that Galieo's system had evidence over the Tychonian System.  In 1687 for the actual data that proved it and 1838 for actual observations.

Because he thought he was right (and he was) he mainly relied on unscientific assumptions that went against actual scientific observations... the Church was wrong in it's prosecution... however most would find his work flawed.

Really he was more prosecuted because his book intentionally cast the pope in a negative light.  It was like giving the pope... who was actually one of his bigger supporters up until that point, the middle finger.

Do that to any powerful ruler in that era and your fate is sealed.

Unniversities had taught the copernican system for decades before Galieo.  The church only stepped in once Galieo essentially turned the pope into a strawman who was named "Simpleton."

Wrong for the prosecution however were we in a similar case today with the facts as they were known then scinetifically, The Tychonian system would be the ones most scientists would follow with Galeio's version of the copernican system being seen as a "fringe" outside system that relied on some assumptions that we knew were incorrect.

Not something that would go away entirely but it would of never suplanted the more "sound" tychonic system.

Really it's a lesson on how not to be overly confident on scientific consensus and to consider alternative theories.

Or preventing cancer/AIDS patients from using medical marijuana which would help them keep their food down and appetite up (prevent prescription drug side effects).  I know my examples were pretty poor in the op now that I look back at them, and I will probably change the op to some better topics.   I just wanted to get the discussion going but perhaps caused more harm due to the use of poor examples.

I agree that not too much was actually beneficial from most of the Nazi experiments.  Perhaps the Navy/Air Force could tell how fast they needed to rescue pilots/sailors from freezing waters before they froze to death due to putting human test subjects into a tub of freezing water.

yes, that too! lol.  Funny how I forgot some of the more obvious ones you pointed out.

One other thing I want to add, just because I think controversial debate is important, is that science owes much to ethics.  A lot, or maybe all, of the ethical concerns holding science back today are a product of the values that have been endowed upon us by religion.  And in that sense science owes much of it's initial progess to religion.  How?  Well, suprise suprise, much of science throughout history was funded (not really money per say, but resources in general) by the religious institutions.  Science used to be thought as a studying of God's creations.  In other words, to study God was to study the universe and it's many principles, patterns, and laws by which it obeys.  Somewhere along the 17th century these two sides began to split and go their seperate ways and so that has been something swept under the rug imo.

But discovering God was the "end game" of science even when it was just religion and not religious institutions.  People felt they were studying something mystically important and so they scientifically progressed because of that religious passion.  Not trying to completely make this a scienve vs. religions debate, but whenever "ethics" are thrown around it's almost impossible not to forget about religion being the biggest role player in history's (then and now) conception of ethics.  Just some food for thought.

Pretty damn good post there robzo.

That view seems somewhat Eurocentric.

While it's true that essentially the only ethical system in the Western World was created by Judeo-Christian values, other continents morals developed differnetly.

For example Confusinism which is essentially an aethistic moral code.

The same holds true for religions place in science.

Practically every huge early scienctist had some connection to the church... but that's every early western scientist.

I think you do have a point there, and perhaps it is somewhat Eurocentric. But not completely as I think what I said can still apply to many ancient civilizations that maybe were more mystics rather than religious people. I may be splitting hairs there between mysticism and religion but it broadens it a bit more outside of Europe.

I don't know too much about any one culture in depth, but in general I understand the split between Western and Eastern thought. And you're right that not only Confusinism, but Taoism/Daoism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and maybe even Hinduism, are much more pantheistic/atheistic and so perhaps science does not owe as much to them.

All that being said, European culture was the root of Western thought, and Western thought is what has played a larger picture, I think, in the advancement of science by far, even if it is that same science that has now spread to other parts of the world. I know I'm getting vague...

we should just go back to infecting poor people with lethal diseases just so we can see what happens eventhough we really have no "valid" scientific reason to be doing it

To make that group sterile was a reason.  Scientific explanation of making an entire group (poor people) or race sterile could be that they are too weak (stronger survive and the weak die).  I don't believe this should be applied to humans but some humans (ones on life support) don't seem to be doing too much with their lives, and without technology such as the breathing tube they would be dead already. 

Well while I might agree with you some what. There needs to be safeguards. For example I don't want to live in a society where people are forced into weird tests just to advance science. Example prisoners (jews) being forced into medical experiments which is something the Nazi's did and I am glad we got rid of. And as far as technological advancement. I'd say greed drives that as well as any mad scientist could ever dream of. And people look at the past at Nazi technological progress and forget that a lot of it failed and there were plenty of equal or greater advancements on the other side, for example RADAR.