I didn't have these people specifically in mind. When Walter Reed was
investigating the treatment of yellow fever (then a virulent killer), he
asked for volunteers to determine whether or not it was spread by
mosquitoes. Those already infected would not be suitable subjects; it was
HEALTHY volunteers he asked for, and received.
>As for Galileo, people like that have
>an internal drive to understand the world, to discover and push the
>envelope of knowledge - the motive isn't precisely to help others. <
Agreed, but to save his own skin pain and grief he might as well have
kept the knowledge for himself, arranged for the information to be
published posthumously, or written under a pseudonym - none of which he
did. He pushed it, then and there, against the opposition of the
authorities.
> That
>this may be the end result of both of the examples is excellent for the
>rest of us, but we should not confuse it with the original intent of the
>person acting.<
Intent is difficult to determine, which is why I tried to pick general
examples. I apparently didn't succeed all that well.
> As for the third example, the answer is usually a 'yes,' but
>I think that's largely hard-wired into us, and I would be hard-pressed
to
>attribute it to a conscious decision.<
A good point, but is it really hard-wired? I can present counter-examples
of negligent parentage.
Thank you for a well-written and thoughtful post.
Cheers!
james