Ethics of Self-Experimentation

The Dilemma of Self-Experimentation

by Behjet Ansari

Although the term self experimentation is pretty self explanatory, I'm going to provide a definition first just so we're all on the same page. Self-experimentation refers to the special case of single subject research in which the experimenter conducts the experiment on himself or herself. Usually this means that a single person is the operator, subject, analyst, and reporter of the experiment. 

Source:https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/prevention-better-cure-targeted-vaccination-halt-epidemics

There have been scientists in real life who have actually experimented on themselves and won Nobel prizes for their contributions to science, while some others did not live to tell the tale. 

So of course there had to be movies made where scientists were shown experimenting on themselves.

We have seen scientists who conduct self-tests for crazy reasons in some movies, while in others, there are scientists who self experiment for more noble intentions. If we talk about Hollow Man (2000), we clearly see that it falls into the mad scientist category. Other movies like Contagion (2011) and World War Z (2013) also show scientists conducting self-tests, but for nobler reasons (although Gerry in WWZ was not a scientist...more on that later). 

All this talk on self experimentation is to lead you to the more tricky topic of the ethics regarding it. There are more factors that are to be considered before self experimenting other than saving mankind or a mad scientist satisfying some crazy curiosity or acting out of overconfidence. 

Scientists are not a lone entity. They have an institute they are affiliated with. They are a part of a team. Scientists who ignore all ethical bounds and experiment on themselves put the entire team, mentors, and institute at risk. The institute does the job of monitoring and backing scientists on their decisions. One ill decision on the scientists' part reflects poorly on the entire institution and may even result in the institution to shut down. Not to mention the fact that there is a lot of money, resources and time that goes into making a scientist; years and years of study, training and research. All to lose it for one experiment? It’s too big of a loss for the scientific community! But then again, if the results have a chance to possibly cure all of mankind of a deadly disease, then is it worth the risk? Well, it’s not that black and white, but policies on ethics forbid self experimentation, of course. And no wonder, seeing as making a scientist is a huge investment. 

Coming back to Hollow Man, we see this incredibly egoistic and impulsive scientist Sebastian Caine, who is clearly devoid of all ethical and moral qualms. He so easily decides to break the rules by bypassing the board, convinces his teammates and just injects himself with the serum, making jokes the whole time.

Source: Hollow man (2000)

He overestimates his abilities and tests the invisibility serum, which the team is working on for the military, on himself. The serum, surprise surprise, does work on him, the first human being tested for it, but the problem arises when no one knows how to bring him back to being visible. Since this was done without the permission of their superiors, the team tries to contain and tackle this problem as soon as they can. We all know how that played out.

  

Sebastian clearly does not cooperate. He exploits his invisibility in the worst possible ways and acts selfishly and irresponsibly. Would you ever have imagined a scientist like him? 

Source: https://diablito666tx.tumblr.com/post/171152112730/hollow-man-2000

On the other hand are “heroes” like Gerry Lane (WWZ) and Dr. Hextall (Contagion) who put their lives on risk in order to get a vaccine which could be the possible cure for a virus killing humans. Were their decisions ethically wrong? For Gerry, not really, since he wasn’t a scientist in the first place. He just got lucky with the pathogen he injected in himself, and had he died from injecting the wrong vial, it wouldn’t have been a great loss for science (just sayin’). 

For Dr. Hextall, it was absolutely ethically wrong. Regardless of why she carried out the test on herself, she should have been transparent, making a public statement — or informed her superiors some other way — explaining why she has to experiment on herself and what results she expects to get by quickening the process of the human testing stage. Her intention being good did not make self-experimenting ethically correct. However, the outcome turned out to be massively beneficial for the world. 

This is something we have witnessed in the real world. When gastroenterologist Barry Marshall drank the bacteria (H-Pylori) solution his colleague gave him, he had symptoms like vomiting and bad breath. After waiting a few more days, he took the antibiotics to kill the bacteria in his stomach. His diagnosis was verified after doing a gastroscopy and 20 years later, he won a Nobel prize for his contributions to science and medicine! (Charisius, 2014) 

Not only had he discovered the bacteria which caused ulcers, but also the antibiotic that can cure it. And here’s the *shocker*: He had not asked an ethics commission for permission to carry out the experiment. (Charisius, 2014)

Similar was the case of the Curies, as I’m sure many would already know. Marie Curie won two Nobel prizes for her contributions to physics and chemistry (radioactivity), but died much later of aplastic anemia, believed to be caused by prolonged exposure to radiation. (Editors, 2020) So sometimes, doing something ethically wrong can reap tremendous results. 

BUT

It’s always a matter of life and death! Take the example of Jesse Lazear, a physician working on finding how the novel Yellow Fever was being transmitted. Although there were two volunteers to test the mosquito infection on, he also got infected (knowingly or unknowingly...that is unclear, but many believe that the fact that he tested on himself was covered up). He died from the fever at the age of 35, while the other two volunteers lived. (MacDonald, 2018)

There are many more famous mad-scientist, Jekyll and Hyde kind of stories from the past. Read more on them here: Scientists Who Self-Experimented

People have different stances over this. Some think scientists (if sane and healthy) should be allowed to self-test for the greater good. While others agree with the ethical side, not wanting to risk losing valuable resources like scientists. What opinion do you have? It’s definitely not easy to pick a side.

References:

Charisius, H. (2014, July 05). When Scientists Experiment on Themselves: H. pylori and Ulcers. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scientists-experiment-on-themselves-h-pylori-and-ulcers/

Editors, B. (2020, February 24). Marie Curie. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from https://www.biography.com/scientist/marie-curie

MacDonald, J. (2018, March 23). When Scientists Perform Experiments on Themselves | JSTOR ... Retrieved December 3, 2020, from https://daily.jstor.org/when-scientists-perform-experiments-on-themselves/