eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search   

"Self-experimentation" in vulnerable populations

Allen C Cheng
MJA 2003; 178 (9): 471

To the Editor: I note with interest the case study of experimental Ancylostoma caninum infection in a 22-year-old student.1 In his accompanying editorial, Van Der Weyden highlights the courage of these researchers, as well as some of the risks and discomforts associated with their participation,2 including in two studies in which he was a co-author.

However, it is also worth highlighting some of the ethical issues associated with such experimentation. Larry Altman, who provided many of the quoted examples of self-experimentation, also reflects on Walter Reed's experiments with yellow fever vectors in Cuba. Although later credited with the use of written consent forms, on an earlier occasion Altman alleges that Reed withdrew at the last moment from inoculation experiments in which one of his colleagues died.3

Although not mentioned in the published work, the A. caninum experiment was initiated and undertaken by Landmann under the supervision of Prociv, who has himself self-experimented with both A. caninum and Necator americanus (human hookworm) in previous work (Juergen Landmann, Student; Paul Prociv, Senior Lecturer, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Queensland, personal communication). In this case, the study was wholly initiated by the student so consent was not an issue, but other such studies raise the potential problem of consent in situations of an unequal power relationship.

Students under supervision constitute a "vulnerable" group in that consent may be given under a form of duress.4 Just as special protection is needed for populations for whom research is combined with care, protection is required for students who may feel obliged to participate in such research.

There have been recent calls for a fuller discussion of ethical issues in published experimental studies,5 where ethical justification should be accorded the same weight as statistical considerations. The unusual study by Landmann and Prociv highlights the need for such discussion in potentially controversial research protocols.

  1. Landmann JK, Prociv P. Experimental human infection with the dog hookworm, Ancylostoma caninum. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 69-71. <PubMed><eMJA full text>
  2. Van Der Weyden MB. Researchers as guinea pigs [editorial]. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 52-53. <PubMed><eMJA full text>
  3. Altman LK. Who goes first? The story of self-experimentation in medicine. Chapter 6: The myth of Walter Reed. New York: Random House, 1987.
  4. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Initiated 1964. Available at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17c.pdf (accessed Feb 2003).
  5. Miller FG, Rosenstein DL. Reporting of ethical issues in publications of medical research. Lancet 2002; 360: 1326-1328. <PubMed>

(Received 30 Jan 2003, accepted 6 Feb 2003)

Infectious Diseases Unit, Menzies School of Health Research, Casuarina, NT.

Allen C Cheng, MB BS, FRACP, Infectious Diseases Physician.

Correspondence: Dr Allen C Cheng, Infectious Diseases Unit, Menzies School of Health Research, PO Box 41096, Casuarina, NT 0811. allencATmenzies.edu.au

AntiSpam note: To avoid attracting spam mail robots, authors' email addresses on the MJA website are written with AT in place of the usual symbol, and we have removed "mail to" links. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address. We regret the inconvenience this entails. Lobby your government for more effective antispam regulations.

©The Medical Journal of Australia 2003 www.mja.com.au Print ISSN: 0025-729X Online ISSN: 1326-5377

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search

The Medical Journal of Australia    eMJA