[eldavido]

Ok, two questions.

1. What are the "social or political consequences" of this study? Can you explain those? Or perhaps clarify the asserted "collective damage"?

2. How do you weigh the benefits of better understanding against "collective damage" or "social or political consequences"?

These are real questions we have to answer as we make policy about research. I start from the position that more complete understanding of behavior/psychology is a good thing. There are times when human rights might stop scientific inquiry, but in my mind, the bar for that has to be set pretty high, because it's hard to know in advance what progress might come from better understanding.

In any case, I don't think taste or personal repugnance should have any bearing on scientific inquiry. "Rights" in the deontological sense perhaps, or breaking laws, but not taste.