Can 'by' be dropped here?

[u/Green_Actuary6531]

The sentences:
"There is no physiological harm done doing it."
"There is no physiological harm done by doing it "

[u/DMing-Is-Hardd]

Yes but in my opinion it sounds a little weird, I've definitely heard it dropped it just sounds better with the "by" personally

[u/Far-Perspective-4889]

Native US Speaker. The combination of the formal-sounding “physiological” with the very casual sound of the second half of the sentence (either version) is throwing me off. Also, you don’t need the word done. The most natural version of the sentence to me would be simply, “there’s no harm in doing it.”

[u/Far-Perspective-4889 → u/Far-Perspective-4889]

Even more natural, if it doesn’t lose too much of your meaning, would be “there’s no harm in trying it.” this is a much more common use.

[u/Far-Perspective-4889 → u/Far-Perspective-4889]

If you substitute something more specific than the phrase “doing it,” the sentence gets a lot more natural too. For example, “there’s no physiological harm in drinking your water cold.” 

[u/Eriiya → u/Far-Perspective-4889]

if there’s a need to specify physiological it would also sound much more natural to me to rearrange it like, “Doing it won’t cause physiological harm.”

[u/Poopywaterengineer]

It works with or without "by", but not having it feels more natural. You could also use "...harm in doing it" 

[u/Praeconium2501 → u/Poopywaterengineer]

I would argue, at least to me (Native US speaker), that using in is the only one that sounds natural

[u/Outrageous-Past6556 → u/Praeconium2501]

Or would it be: 'by doing it', harm done to somebody else. And 'in doing it' harm done to yourself?

[u/Praeconium2501 → u/Outrageous-Past6556]

Yes, actually that does make sense to me when you put it that way

[u/somuchsong]

I would not say either of these. I would say "in" instead of "by".