>
> Here I disagree - let me suggest that the ethics of the question are
> more significant than the scientific discoveries involved.
>
> For instance, there is I believe consensus within the scientific
> community that experiments upon human beings that result in
> foreseeable and permanent harm are indefensible, and that any
> discoveries made thereby should be REPUDIATED.
I think (but am not sure) that the distinction here is a little more
subtle. There are cases where the US government feels the research
being done by drug companies is unethical but it is okayed by the
foreign government involved. What happens is the reasearch from
these studies can't be used to get FDA approval but if it happens to
lead them to make a new drug which later approved studies verify as
being safe and effective it is still allowed.
I am not sure and would appreciate correction if I am in error.
Anyway if GIMPS wanted to be pedantic about it we could revirify all
the positive results (hey what do you know lucky guess m does divide
2^p-1).
But the real point is the results of the studies aren't allowed
because then their would be an unbearable financial incentive which
encouraged this illegal activity. GIMPS certainly doesn't fit this
problem (I doubt many people here really believe that the reward is
really worth the prision risk).
Secondly even if the results were illegally obtained do we classify
it as immoral. Balance knowledge vs. a possible slowdown in USWest
computers (which may very well not have been caused by NTprime).
If NTprime didn't affect them it might be illegal but I hardly
think immoral.
Keep the results if they were immorally obtained why would we top it
off by the added sin of keeping (possibly important) information from
the rest of the species.
Peter
