this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
416 points (97.7% liked)

Science Memes

17446 readers
2652 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 8 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Doesn't a criminal give up their right to freedom by doing crimes?

So why wouldn't a war criminal give up their right to privacy by doing war crimes?

[–] Piafraus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is it already proven that they are criminals or do you want to remove someone right in order to prove they are criminals?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Who is harmed by this? No one living. Maybe you could argue Hitler has some right to not have his remains disturbed, but DNA testing isn't very invasive and we do it at crime scenes without consent all the time, so it's minor even if relevant.

What could we learn? Nothing of value. Even if there is some "psychopath gene" or "genocide gene" you'd need 100s of examples to show the effect and far easier to just pick such candidates from living, diagnosed people who can consent.

So then should we do it? Probs not. No real reason to, even though there's little reason not to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know my institution wouldn't allow this without informed consent from himself pre-death or legally responsible family members. Plus you have to be able to withdraw consent at any time and we have to destroy all data, including sequencing analysis, upon request. Not sure how that affects published data but we'd have to strip it out of any data repositories the publications may point to as well.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

I haven't really read up on the topic since the early days of the human genome project - has there been any attempt to round up and remove all of the sequencing data obtained from indigenous people under dubious consent or disclosure conditions or is the intent of these policies more "going forward we'll keep things above board"?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

Nice try, but I watched The Boys From Brazil. No Hitler DNA for you!

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

There's propaganda value to "Hitler was quasi-Trans" as same revisionist demonism as "Hitler was a socialist" to revive a (neo) naziism without the baggage of Hitler, that can better serve Zionist first Christofascism in erradicating Islam, humanist governance, and whatever "the woke" needs to mean.

Beyond privacy rights, is what is the usefulness of the messaging, and could that usefulness be more important to someone/agenda than the moral failures of completely fabricating it.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

Data protection only covers the living IIRC.

[–] AnarchoCummunist@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

Yes. It does. Fuck his privacy.

Someone asking that should suck on diese hoden.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Most arguments for using Hitler's DNA end up supporting the eugenicist trash Nazi scientists espoused. There is little practical use for it.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›