> People keep asking about examples of work that exemplifies "potential harms [that] outweigh the benefit of publication." How about large scale human vivisection?
People are asking for example of something this particular set of rules would prevent.
An example that's already illegal in the most extreme sense of the word doesn't convince anyone.
This is a straw man. The only people who won't see it as such are those who already agree with you.
The point is not to satisfy the empty criticism of "this is invalid because I can't think of an situation where it would apply." It is an elementary example of how the scientific community polices itself and prunes its methods in line with the evolution of norms and ethics.
Unit 731 is extreme but consider the many invasive and painful experiments still done on chimpanzees. At what point does the suffering of the animals outweigh the benefits of the study? Showing that the balance is on the side of the benefits is a basic part of getting any work approved at universities and research institutions. Nature is simply aggregating some of the ethical guidelines already present in many of these processes and proposing them as a broader and more inclusive structure.
People are asking for example of something this particular set of rules would prevent.
An example that's already illegal in the most extreme sense of the word doesn't convince anyone.
This is a straw man. The only people who won't see it as such are those who already agree with you.