Pros And Cons Of Human Experimentation: Under Control

Human Experimentation: Under Control
According to Merriam-Webster, experimentation is defined as, “a procedure or operation carried out to resolve an uncertainty.” When we discuss human research and experimentation, various emotions and opinions tend to surface. Throughout history, human experiments proved to manifest as both successful outcomes as well as horrendous acts; one’s position on the matter may vary significantly and becomes one of personal choice. For me, human experimentation is acceptable when certain stipulations and safeguards are in place. Following research tragedies such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Trial, many members of society have lost trust and respect for the scientific community regarding human experimentation (Steinbock, London, & Arras, 2012). Research conducted utilizing human experimentation offers many benefits under the appropriate circumstances; I believe this includes only utilizing subjects over the age of eighteen years old for all invasive studies as well as obtaining informed consent.
Some of the benefits include giving people an opportunity to help others. A feeling of contributing to a great cause can be experienced when one is potentially assisting with future advances. Second, these trials often
offer compensation to the subjects. People can profit financially while helping the scientific community gain knowledge. Last, research and data obtained through these trials have the potential to offer lifesaving treatments or assist with finding a cure to devastating conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and cancer. While there are countless benefits to be had, the above name a few of the more well-known debilitating and often-fatal medical conditions. When analyzing ethical matters such as human experimentation, the justice theory can offer guidance (Steinbock et al., 2012).
The justice theory maintains the general concept that a person is important simply because they are human; factors such as age, socioeconomic status, gender, race, etc. should have no bearing on one’s advantage (Steinbock et al., 2012). This theory is relevant in numerous ways, including the selection of subjects. For example, mentally disabled individuals could not be targeted and so forth. Unlike the utilitarian principle, which looks at the “greater good” and what outcome will help the most people - despite the ramifications, the justice theory, is based on liberty and equality (Steinbock et al.,
2012). In contrast, there are obvious disadvantages to human experimentation as well. While the analysis of benefits versus risks may stem from personal values and beliefs, the cons must be discussed nonetheless. First, there is the obvious risk of negative effect to the subject, including but not limited to death and disfigurement. Additionally, there may be circumstances in which there is no benefit gained and the experiment was null; yet, the side effects may have left a permanent defect or disability.
While the medical community will continue to make advances, the need for human experimentation and research remains a vital approach to potential breakthroughs. With every situation, there will always be pros and cons to be identified. However, we must continue to grow. Such previous horrific instances must never occur again; we must learn from our successor’s mistakes. Yes, there is an obvious need for human experimentation when conducted in a well-informed and well-controlled environment.