Lin 1

Shulammite Lin
Professor M. Ogbara
English 1A
14 December 2015

The Cost, Profit, and Choice in Human Experimentation for Medicine

Contrary to easy belief, most advancements in human medicine biological and
psychological, did not come about in the name of hard work and detailed measurements; rather, a
great deal of medical upgrades have been assisted with data collected by the conductors of
arguably the lowest human acts in history. In cases of human experimentation, countless numbers
of injustices have been made in the outwardly apparent pursuit of knowledge and meaning well,
and yet the brutal details and outcomes of the circumstances have very often been swept under
the silent rug of bribed press. Publically accessible reports of human experimentation occurring
today are rather limited due to the controversies attached to them, so therefore I will be using
historical reports and testimonies to stress both the overall severity of certain respective
experimental conditions as well as generally how profitable the respective research has been to
so many who enjoy the benefits of medicine today. Though it is not my wish to overwhelm
readers with the sickening images of how inhumane humanity can be, I find myself obligated to
expose the denied, and yet honest histories of those who have paid the price of life and health for
the well-being of medicines future, regardless of their choice in the matter. Though it is
undeniable that the number of medical benefits found through human experimentation outweigh
the number of lives being wounded or killed in the elimination of errors, the scientific use and
sacrifice of human beings in research is not in any way an ethical practice.

Lin 2
The topic of human experimentation - the use of human beings for research as tested
subjects, has often been neglected due to its sensitivity and inevitability in the laws of proper
science. In developing any medical advancement available to pharmaceutical shelves, it is
understood and expected that the particular product has undergone thorough testing prior to its
accessibility. Due to this requirement, scientists are unable to escape the risks of human
experimenting. This constraint reasonably demands for an acceptable and diverse sample size,
most conveniently consisting of civilians. Presently, drug tests are mostly known to be
consensual with legal contracts, however, when the health stakes are higher, consent is not
always available. With this, for the sake of the advancement, as well as due to the degree of
ambition found in the particular scientist(s), there have been multiple records throughout history
of experiments executed upon civilian populations completely defenseless and unaware. Whether
in the form of war crimes or as disguised medications, the number of inexcusable sacrifices
caused in the name of curiosity prompts ethicists to question what science believes to be the
worth of a human life, as well as why such a dismissal of morality has been so confidently
enacted under the mask of serving a majority. In the end, any sacrifice, when examined with an
ice-cold eye, can be deduced as an act of injustice, regardless of how great of a harvest grows as
a result.
The upsetting list of experimental brutalities performed throughout history hit a peak
during the early to mid-1900s under the umbrella of war crimes committed in World War II.
Notable contributors during this war were Eduard Wirths and his team, which included the
infamous Angel of Death Josef Mengele, of the Auschwitz concentration camp. From highaltitude and freezing experiments investigating the limits of human endurance, to Mengeles
twin and physical abnormality studies. Through these operations, all those responsible

Lin 3
unlawfully and willfully committed war crimes without their subjects consent (Goliszek 360.) In
the past century, the developments in medicine have experienced tremendous inflations, mainly
due to the unbroken curiosities of scientific risk-takers and their procedures implemented upon
human subjects. Another notorious, yet less discussed, peak of human experimentation took
place in Japans invasion of Nanking, China during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The Nanking
Massacre, often referred to as the Rape of Nanking, and the witnessed extent of its happenings
are, until today, denied by the Japanese government and its people. Japans biological warfare
Unit 731, led by General Shiro Ishii, committed atrocities so unspeakable to the Chinese people,
the stories told were absurd enough to be considered unbelievable. To put the ruthlessness of the
event into perspective: pressure tests, gassing experiments, live dissections, and amputations
were all only some of the least inhumane acts which occurred. The resulting number of
executions ranges from each nations story; however, it has been estimated by historians that
around twelve thousand individuals died as a result of medical experiments, while another two
hundred and fifty thousand were eradicated through Japanese field tests - in which entire areas
were infected through contaminated fleas or infected germs (Goliszek 45.) Towards the end of
World War II, the Japanese surrendered following the bombing of Hiroshima, and the actions of
Unit 731 were unveiled by the United States Army. However, the value of the data collected was
not missed by General Douglas MacArthur, and thus immunity and silence over the crimes
committed were given in exchange for the profited information (Goliszek 47.) This decision
made by the U.S. government still disturbs us today, however, the biowarfare data collected
became a great stepping stone in advancing military weapons, as seen in the inflated use of
chemical warfare during the following Cold War.
Human experimentation, though ethically defective, produces an extensive amount of

Lin 4
benefits to society. Bioethicist David B. Resnik addresses the need to examine and compare the
benefits and the risks of human experimentation before arguing the moralities of any certain
operation in his article entitled Social Benefits of Human Subjects Research. Resnik quotes the
Nuremburg Code to argue that in human experimentation, the degree of risk to be taken should
never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the
experiment. There will always be disagreements in morality, due to ethics being in part a
product of both nature and nurture (Gazzaniga.) External forces in culture often blur the lines of
morality, whether they be fueled by religious or political values. Therefore, in the eyes of
committed scientists, it can be argued that the universal necessities of medicine, as well as the
benefits reliable healthcare brings to society should be considered as a higher cause when
compared to the risk of a finite number of human lives being lost.
Due to the fact that a majority of human experimentation debates usually fall in favor of
scientific operations, there have been certain scholars who have found the unceasing morality
discussions to be troublesome and useless. In philosopher Sissela Boks article On Opening
Human Experimentation to Moral Debate, Bok addresses the need for continuous discussion, as
close scrutiny has been the cause for the enactment of many necessary legal standards in
experimental fields. There has been a push for specific operation codes in regards to the rights of
involved subjects, and though it has definitely not closed a cap on the risks or the process of
human experimentation, these arguments have surely increased the focus of scientific
procedures, while it has also reduced the number of risks being crossed. On the other hand,
Richard Summers of The Harvard Crimson points out in his article The Ethics of Human
Experimentation that the limits to academic research have to be crossed, and have
unquestionably been dismissed all throughout history. Summers argues that consent and

Lin 5
confidentiality are often interferences in the process of experimenting with human subjects, and
that the blurred definitions of informed consent can very often be detrimental and tempting to
a scientists level of integrity. With a focus on psychological tests, the circumstances are not
always clear cut to the guidelines enforced, and embracing the emotional sincerities of any
psychological experiment can cause a great deal of controversy. Summers states, If a situation
came up in which [the scientists] felt the research was valuable enough, they would probably
allow the risk of much possible harm.
There have been many disclaimers in speculation of immoral human experimentation
occurring today. From the recent lawsuit unveiling that Johns Hopkins University students
participated in the injections of STDs into nearly eight hundred patients in Guatemala to the U.S.
government revealing that the CIAs interrogation and detention protocols were actually the basis
of human experimentation projects (Hajjar), one can suspect that the seriousness of human
experimentation is still an underground reality. Though some scientists justify their immoral
actions through means of using criminals as test subjects, their actions cause many to question
who the real criminals are. It is believed that humans should be given a right to their health, so
therefore criminals should not be treated inferior in possessing this right. Very few would
consider practitioners of medicine in the United States being comparable to the horrific
biological units and concentration teams during World War II. However, the ugly past of so many
human experiments sponsored by this nation have been uncovered in recent years, and there are
very few distinctions between these two groups. Whether the doctors should be called heroes
or mass murderers is only dependent on how brightly or dimmed their story is presented.
Though medical professions are often marked with ethical norms, such as to first do no harm,
many of the most productive scientists have deviated from this standard by their willingness to

Lin 6
make those who were once healthy sick. Yes, they were able to bring about profitable results for
research and the lives of others, but at the same time, they took advantage of their good-willed
title, and dismissed the trust of the patients in their hands.
In conclusion, the topic of human experimentation must continue to be discussed in its
entirety, as the subject remains as an ethical debate. Scientists and subjects must balance their
views on both sides of the matter on whether the degree of risk is worth the importance of a
problem being solved for society. It is undeniable that without the use of human experimentation,
the public would be deprived of benefits they experience so fruitfully today; however, the
scientific use and sacrifice of human beings in research is not an ethical practice, as the
experimenters are by default given an upper hand in the distribution of health. Though there are
many who believe that the happenings of human experimentation are inevitable, there are no
legal nor moral grounds which give the right for scientists to choose which lives will be broken
under their quest to care. Society must see that their comfortable, healthy living is very often a
product of someone elses demise. There must be more security for the lives of innocent and
guilty civilians, as the right to health and life should be accepted as a universal domain. Though
there may be difficulties in the experimentation process, informed consent is absolutely vital in
hopes that scientifically advanced and ethically sound improvements may be made in harmony. It
is difficult to see many other options to this dilemma, however, there is no measured price of a
life. Therefore, one should not consider a humans worth as higher, equivalent, or less than any
others. Humans should not be treated as only numerical statistics when each one has so much
unknown potential to grow, change, and be so much.

Lin 7
Work Cited
Bok, Sissela. On Opening Human Experimentation to Moral Debate. The Hastings Center
Report 16.5 (1986): 1011. Web.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. "Toward a Universal Ethics." 2005. The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana,
2005. N. pag. Print.
Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research,
and Human Experimentation. New York: St. Martins, 2003. Print.
Hajjar, Lisa. "The CIA Didn't Just Torture, It Experimented on Human Beings." The Nation, 16
Dec. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
Resnik, David B. "Social Benefits of Human Subjects Research." ResearchGate. Journal of
Clinical Research Best Practices, 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
Summers, Richard. "The Ethics of Human Experimentation." The Harvard Crimson, 21 Apr.
1968. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.