BrainMan Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 The Nuremberg Code, #6: "No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects." Do any of you agree with this? Disagree? Is it ok to perform deadly experiments given you use yourself as a participant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 I suppose it could be used as evidence the physician didn't feel that it would cause death or injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorcerer Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 The Nuremberg Code' date=' #6: "No experiment should be conducted where there is an [i']a priori[/i] reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects." Do any of you agree with this? Disagree? Is it ok to perform deadly experiments given you use yourself as a participant? It seems odd, considering you would noramlly be put into a mental institution for self mutilation or attempted suicide..... but I guess its just as odd as making suicide illegal. I agree, I take a completely non-paternalistic stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 well, thats what they used to do in the prehistoric ages me thinks. didnt someone die , tasting mercury or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Chemists used to taste things all the time, acids and bases can be distinguished by their taste. Acids are sour, bases are bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badchad Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 ^^^^ Albert hoffman discovered LSD that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainMan Posted September 30, 2004 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 I suppose it could be used as evidence the physician didn't feel that it would cause death or injury. Interesting. I didn't really think of that. Even if the experimenter thought it could cause injury or death, he/she would have to believe that the experiment is just so important that the risks (to his/her self) are worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiredude Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 i think if a scientist wants to test something on him/herself, they should be able to. i totally agree with brainman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 It seems rather noble to try it on yourself before experimenting on others. However there is another side to the coin. Perhaps the drug should be tried on someone that is desperately ill before wasting a good mind that could save many people in the end. But I’m a freak. I think I will probably test a small amount of any drug or bio-pharmaceutical that I make after animal testing to make sure I will not be killing anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caustic Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 many drugs were discovered by self experimentation, The medical use of N2O (nitrous or laughing gas) for example was discovered when a chemist was experimenting on himself by inhaling different gases. According to my chemistry book he noted that he "became extremely intoxicated". N2O has since become very important in medicine, especially dentistry. MDMA or "Ecstacy" was also discovered this way and origionally intended for use psyco therapy, and was legal for years until the abuse exploded in popularity in the late '80s. So self experimentation is a good way to test drugs that normally would not be tested on humans. But it seems like a majority of chemicals are toxic or harmful in some way, im sure poisons have been accidently discovered in this manner too, so i would never do this unless you know what your dealing with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 HA! I remember a thread I made similar to this often regarded as te stupidest i have ever on SFN (still not covinced though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3233&highlight=experimenting that has everything you need to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 seems we have liberalized a little bit since then when I was told I 'should grow up' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 seems we have liberalized a little bit since then when I was told I 'should grow up' I wouldn't bet on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 i suppose thats a good thing, well for the survival of the SFN users..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 It seems rather noble to try it on yourself before experimenting on others. However there is another side to the coin. Perhaps the drug should be tried on someone that is desperately ill before wasting a good mind that could save many people in the end. removed it lucid it was only a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 I seem to remember a nazi saying something similar.Just before the final solution I think your misunderstanding what I meant. The point is to try a risky cancer drug on someone who is desperately ill with cancer instead of risking the life of a healthy scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 HA! I remember a thread I made similar to this often regarded as te stupidest i have ever on SFN (still not covinced though) and... http://www.scienceforums.net/forums...t=experimenting that has everything you need to know and... seems we have liberalized a little bit since then when I was told I 'should grow up' oh dear ( it would seem that all this time, and all your appologies for being and saying Stupidities in that thread, hasn`t taught you a thing at all has it actualy occured to you that THIS thread is NOT the same as the one you refered to? and that not only I, but everyone else can see the difference too? personaly, your best bet is to have a Hush for a while, before you dig a deeper hole for yourself, you`ve exclaimed to me many times with appoligise just how sorry and embarssed you felt about that thread, and then what do you do... bring it up again and even post it! LOL SHUSH! would be my advice to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 well it HAS taught me things and the apologies WERE genuine. I just didnt want Brainman to be in the same situation as I was. Sorry if i misunderstood the purpouse of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 ed84cwell it HAS taught me things and the apologies WERE genuine. I just didnt want Brainman to be in the same situation as I was. Sorry if i misunderstood the purpouse of this thread. and... HA! I remember a thread I made similar to this often regarded as te stupidest i have ever on SFN (still not covinced though) in particular "(still not covinced though)" Yeah, sounds like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 still not convinced was that experimenting on myself had no advantage at all. i dont disagree it WAS the stupidest thing i posted. But rest assured i dont plan any expos. BUT when the goverment allow the bl**dy Aids vaccine to be tested at long last (its just weakened aids and has had NO SIDE AFFECTS on chimps) please Put me on the list! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 HIV vaccine. Only media idiots call it an AIDS vaccine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylonicus Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I think self-experimentation is good. If someone is willing to try to develop something, and they know it will work, but the regulation on human testing is too strict, this gives them a valuable tool to test and develop their treatments. Also, alot of patients self-experiment, and alot of times they know better than the doctors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 BUT when the goverment allow the bl**dy Aids vaccine to be tested at long last (its just weakened aids and has had NO SIDE AFFECTS on chimps) please Put me on the list! which 'AIDS' vaccine? some of the antibody based ones actually increased the level of CD4+ depletion. usually, in a subject with AIDS, the level of CD4+ cell death is way higher than would be assumed for the amount of HIV infected CD4+ cells. One possible mechanism for this (and the HIV vaccines aggrevation of the AIDS) would be that as unsucessfull attempts by HIV to infect a cell leave their gp120 molecules on the cell surface, the CD4+/gp120+ cells then will become targeted by the anti-gp120 antibodies and thus the helper-T-cells would be phagocytosed by macrophages, increasing their level of depletion. another mechanism: anti-gp120-antibodies are known to be quite antigenic, ie the body will raise antibodies against them (anti-anti-gp120 antibodies). now, as gp120 binds to CD4, CD4 is the opposite (in shape and charge) of gp120. anti-gp120 antibodies are also the opposite in (shape and charge) of gp120, and thus share a high level of homology with CD4, so any antibodies raised against anti-gp120 antibodies have a relatively high chanse of also showing a binding affinity for CD4, thus leading to macrophage-phagocytosis of helper-T-cells, even if they have never been challenged by HIV. So in summary, some HIV vaccines make AIDS worse, hense why people are cautios at allowing human trials to commense. just out of interest, were the monkey-trials performed on monkeys infected with HIV or SIV do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 actually thinking about it, if someone were to perform a clincal trial on themselves, and it was not one that would get govournment approval for human-stage trials, will any journals publish the results? i guess there might be a 'dont want to encorage that sort of thing' attitude, but knowledge is highly sought after by scientists... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now