Would you like to merge this question into it? MERGE already exists as an alternate of this question. Would you like to make it the primary and merge this question into it?
Copyright notice Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely.
Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged for example,? Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives? Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract In the debate surrounding testing pesticides on human subjects, two distinct positions have emerged. The first position holds that pesticide experiments on human subjects should be allowed, but only under stringent scientific and ethical standards.
The second position asserts that these experiments should never be allowed. In this article, we evaluate what we consider to be the strongest argument for the second position—namely, that the benefits of the experiments are not significant enough to justify the risks posed to healthy subjects.
We challenge this argument by examining the benefits and risks of testing pesticides on human subjects. We argue that a study that intentionally exposes humans subjects to pesticides should be permitted if a the knowledge gained from the study is expected to promote human health; b the knowledge cannot be reasonably obtained by other means; c the study is not expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to the subjects; and d appropriate safeguards are in place to minimize harm to the subjects.
Environmental Protection Agency, ethics, Food Quality Protection Act, human subjects research, pesticide testing Background Although private companies have tested pesticides on human subjects since the s, the public debate about the ethics of such experiments began to simmer inwhen the Environmental Working Group EWG released a report titled The English Patients: Human Experiments and Pesticide Policy According to the report, the companies exposed volunteers to various insecticides to determine safety levels for exposure to these compounds.
One of the experiments mentioned in the report involved the oral administration of dichlorvos to 53 subjects. Another experiment administered orange juice laced with aldicard to 47 subjects EWG The media soon reported other pesticide experiments conducted elsewhere.
In one experiment conducted by Novartis, managers for the company ingested diazinon. The EWG report recommended that the U. Environmental Protection Agency EPA conduct a comprehensive review of its human research policies and issue a moratorium on the acceptance of data derived from privately funded or third party human experiments.
Inthe U. EPA announced that it would not accept any pesticide data derived from privately funded toxicology research on human subjects until the ethical and regulatory issues were resolved Lockwood In the notice, the U.
EPA requested public comments on many different issues concerning industry-funded human studies submitted to the agency. EPA—sponsored research Silbergeld et al.
In Februarythe NRC issued its report. It recommended that privately funded human dosing experiments for U. EPA regulatory purposes can be conducted only if they meet strict scientific and ethical standards and provide a public health or environmental benefit.
The NRC recommended that institutional review boards IRBs should review all proposed experiments to determine whether they meet appropriate scientific and ethical standards and that the U.
EPA should establish a special review board to oversee these types of experiments. The NRC also stated that the U. EPA should not accept data from previous experiments, which it said did not meet scientific and ethical standards NRC On 3 Novemberthe U.
EPA released a draft of a proposed plan for human testing.
In the proposed plan, the U. EPA ap. As soon as the U.Arguments against animal testing Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective.
A powerful tool that lets scientists modify DNA with extreme precision could be used to genetically engineer the human species. For the past three days, scientists, bioethicists, and other. Human subjects.
Yet, despite the litany of failures to maintain ethical standards in research, these remain the exceptions and a focus on scandals can seriously distort proper discussion about research ethics. Research involving human subjects is not intrinsically ethically dubious.
Another argument Singer employs to refute the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status focuses on the supposed moral relevance of such properties as rationality, autonomy, the ability to act morally, etc.
Singer argues that if we were to rely on these sorts of properties as the basis of determining moral status, then . One argument against is that it involves experimenting with the health and safety of human beings. An argument for is that although effects of drugs on animals may be similar to their effects on.
Aug 23, · Whereas testing on humans a med that was harmless on a model % similar to us is almost like having done no testing at all and directly test on humans with all the risks. Nothing is ever a % the same, something that will work .