6 ms·

From the linked research: > More recently in the news was the miraculous survival of a 16-year-old boy who stowed away in the wheel hub of a Boeing 747 travell

From the linked research: > More recently in the news was the miraculous survival of a 16-year-old boy who stowed away in the wheel hub of a Boeing 747 travelling to Hawaii. He survived freezing temperatures and very low oxygen levels occurring at the 38,000 ft flight altitude for several hours and recovered with no medical complications. Doctors speculate that his body quickly entered a hibernative state due to the rapid temperature drop thus permitting him to survive at the minimal oxygen levels. This example where something unique occurs but our ethics prevent us from anything beyond speculation, makes me wonder how much faster we could expand our understanding of medical science by instituting a voluntary and humane program for human experimentation. Is such a concept inherently contradictory or can it be done?

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I was thinking this too lately when I heard someone talk about brain research on chimpanzees. The chimps are total slaves with no choice in what happens, which is horrible. Would it not be better for humans to be able to volunteer? I guess we would need to keep money out of the equation or it could get unseemly fast.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Uhm... all kinds of animals actually, but you need ethics approval if you use vertebrates. And I don't think you will find non-crazy volunteers for the invasive experiments... I took neuroscience courses - and a lot of what I learned was made possible by such experiments, so I'm not against them. However, the cost for the animals that get selected is high. You can't do that with humans, only the most benign experiments. But many experiments involves cutting open the head. inserting electrodes at the very least, sometimes you want to see the brain too - there are things you can do, like two-photon microscopy (example: https://www.neurotar.com/contract-research/two-photon-imaging-living-mouse-brain/ https://www.neurotar.com/contract-research/two-photon-imagin... -- you have to expose the brain), or inject dyes, and other options). A possible setup (for invasive experiments) is that the animal is drugged, the brain exposed, electrodes inserted, the head fixated. Now you can, stimulate the retina, or the ears, or whiskers, and follow what happens in the living brain. Here is an example for what you get from such an experiment: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/29/9537 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/29/9537 > Mice were head-fixed using a titanium head postimplant... For implantation, mice were anesthetized with isoflurane..., and maintained at 37°C body temperature on a thermal blanket (Harvard Apparatus). Following a local injection of Marcaine (50 μl), the scalp and periosteum over the dorsal surface of the skull were removed. The skull was then coated with a thin layer of cyanoacrylate adhesive (Krazy Glue, Elmer's Products).... (etc.) What sane human would allow an experiment like this to be performed on them: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/7/2789 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/7/2789 (go to "Materials and Methods") - video: https://youtu.be/wPiLLplofYw https://youtu.be/wPiLLplofYw
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    "And I don't think you will find non-crazy volunteers for the invasive experiments" Take a look into the "wirehead" culture. There are people right now applying electric currents to their brains because they believe it enhances them in various ways. Many are sane, unless you define them as insane solely on the basis of being wireheads. It's a waste and a tragedy that we can't monitor their outcomes in a scientifically valid way. Not to mention chilling their self-reporting with legal uncertainty.
URSpider94 8y ago
It’s very hard to structure such a program. Just some concerns: - even if it’s voluntary, how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? - how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? - how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? - if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? - if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Keep in mind that we are also only 70 years away from some striking cases of the Medical-government complex in multiple countries performing some horrid experiments on human subjects without their consent.
- darawk 8y ago
  > how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? Speak to them privately, away from any outside influences. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to ensure someone isn't coerced. I suppose there are complex situations (e.g. someone is holding your children hostage) where this may not be sufficient, but it's unclear why someone would go to that trouble to coerce someone to lend themselves to such an experiment. This seems like mostly a non-issue. > how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? Have a psychiatrist/psychologist interview them. Give them a long cooling off period, so that it's not a spur of the moment decision. Require the sign-off of the psychiatrist/psychologist, or panel thereof before approval. > how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? Why do you need to do that? If someone wants to kill themselves, we might as well let them contribute to humanity in so doing. > if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? We could decide that they must be, if we felt that was necessary. > if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Why is that a problem? People often point this out, but I don't really get it. Let's phrase it another way: Why shouldn't we give poor people agency over themselves and their situation? The fact that poorer people are more get the option to do this thing that could improve their situation seems like only a great thing to me. This only gives them a new choice that they didn't previously have - it's hard for me to see how that could be a bad thing.
maxxxxx 8y ago
In the past researchers did self experimentation so maybe that would work. Doing risky research on others has a lot of ethical problems. How do you the person hasn't been coerced?

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I was thinking this too lately when I heard someone talk about brain research on chimpanzees. The chimps are total slaves with no choice in what happens, which is horrible. Would it not be better for humans to be able to volunteer? I guess we would need to keep money out of the equation or it could get unseemly fast.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Uhm... all kinds of animals actually, but you need ethics approval if you use vertebrates. And I don't think you will find non-crazy volunteers for the invasive experiments... I took neuroscience courses - and a lot of what I learned was made possible by such experiments, so I'm not against them. However, the cost for the animals that get selected is high. You can't do that with humans, only the most benign experiments. But many experiments involves cutting open the head. inserting electrodes at the very least, sometimes you want to see the brain too - there are things you can do, like two-photon microscopy (example: https://www.neurotar.com/contract-research/two-photon-imaging-living-mouse-brain/ https://www.neurotar.com/contract-research/two-photon-imagin... -- you have to expose the brain), or inject dyes, and other options). A possible setup (for invasive experiments) is that the animal is drugged, the brain exposed, electrodes inserted, the head fixated. Now you can, stimulate the retina, or the ears, or whiskers, and follow what happens in the living brain. Here is an example for what you get from such an experiment: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/29/9537 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/29/9537 > Mice were head-fixed using a titanium head postimplant... For implantation, mice were anesthetized with isoflurane..., and maintained at 37°C body temperature on a thermal blanket (Harvard Apparatus). Following a local injection of Marcaine (50 μl), the scalp and periosteum over the dorsal surface of the skull were removed. The skull was then coated with a thin layer of cyanoacrylate adhesive (Krazy Glue, Elmer's Products).... (etc.) What sane human would allow an experiment like this to be performed on them: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/7/2789 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/7/2789 (go to "Materials and Methods") - video: https://youtu.be/wPiLLplofYw https://youtu.be/wPiLLplofYw
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  "And I don't think you will find non-crazy volunteers for the invasive experiments" Take a look into the "wirehead" culture. There are people right now applying electric currents to their brains because they believe it enhances them in various ways. Many are sane, unless you define them as insane solely on the basis of being wireheads. It's a waste and a tragedy that we can't monitor their outcomes in a scientifically valid way. Not to mention chilling their self-reporting with legal uncertainty.

URSpider94 8y ago

It’s very hard to structure such a program. Just some concerns: - even if it’s voluntary, how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? - how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? - how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? - if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? - if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Keep in mind that we are also only 70 years away from some striking cases of the Medical-government complex in multiple countries performing some horrid experiments on human subjects without their consent.

darawk 8y ago
> how do we ensure that volunteers are not coerced? Speak to them privately, away from any outside influences. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to ensure someone isn't coerced. I suppose there are complex situations (e.g. someone is holding your children hostage) where this may not be sufficient, but it's unclear why someone would go to that trouble to coerce someone to lend themselves to such an experiment. This seems like mostly a non-issue. > how do we validate that volunteers truly comprehend the risks? Have a psychiatrist/psychologist interview them. Give them a long cooling off period, so that it's not a spur of the moment decision. Require the sign-off of the psychiatrist/psychologist, or panel thereof before approval. > how do we ensure that volunteers are of sound mind and not suicidal? Why do you need to do that? If someone wants to kill themselves, we might as well let them contribute to humanity in so doing. > if someone is gravely injured or disabled in the experiment, is the institution prepared to care for them for the rest of their life? We could decide that they must be, if we felt that was necessary. > if we offer compensation, how do we account for the fact that people of lower socio-economic status will be more likely to take that compensation for the same risk? Why is that a problem? People often point this out, but I don't really get it. Let's phrase it another way: Why shouldn't we give poor people agency over themselves and their situation? The fact that poorer people are more get the option to do this thing that could improve their situation seems like only a great thing to me. This only gives them a new choice that they didn't previously have - it's hard for me to see how that could be a bad thing.

maxxxxx 8y ago

In the past researchers did self experimentation so maybe that would work. Doing risky research on others has a lot of ethical problems. How do you the person hasn't been coerced?