Somewhat parallel, people also critize WebMD. Obvoiusly, scientists want their finding to be used but in a reasonable matter, not without context and into the blue. And publications are (among scientists) are rendered not that important (and everyone knows that). It is just that you get judged by them, so you do them and as good as you can. As a software engineer you also at some point finish your project, although you could obtimize on it for ever.
They should have at least some knowledge of how research works. Whats the point in experimenting if you aren't adding a control group for example?
> One could say "they shouldn't be doing that", but don't researchers want their results to be used for something, or is it just about publication?
I imagine they would like their results to be used for positive purposes. If people are misapplying the methods and permanently damaging themselves, I doubt the scientists are super happy about that just because their research got applied somewhere.
So really, someone experimenting on their own could be considered more ethical than researchers doing it to other people ;-) This is really an area where having all the data is critical and that publication bias we keep reading about at HN can actually be harmful to people relying on published results. One could say "they shouldn't be doing that", but don't researchers want their results to be used for something, or is it just about publication?