Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Self-experimentation.

John K Davis1

  • 1Department of Medical Humanities, The Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 2S-17 Brody Medical Sciences Building, Greenville, NC 27858-4354, USA. davisjoh@mail.ecu.edu

Accountability in Research
|February 26, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Life Extension and Overpopulation: Demography, Morals, and the Malthusian Objection.

HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues·2022
Same author

Enhancing the resilience and well-being of rural poor to climate risks: are the economic functions of social protection enough?

Disasters·2022
Same author

Dr. Google and Premature Consent: Patients Who Trust the Internet More Than They Trust Their Provider.

HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues·2017
Same author

Four Ways Life Extension will Change Our Relationship with Death.

Bioethics·2015
Same author

Genome sequence of Desulfitobacterium hafniense DCB-2, a Gram-positive anaerobe capable of dehalogenation and metal reduction.

BMC microbiology·2012
Same author

Justice, insurance, and biomarkers of aging.

Experimental gerontology·2010
Same journal

Correction.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Development, validity, and reliability of the pre-attendance conference evaluator (PACE) tool for identifying predatory conferences.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Managing manuscripts with potential dual-use research of concern: A thematic analysis of life science journal policies.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Researching retraction: Do we need more rules or more honesty?

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Accountability in evidence syntheses: On the need for rigorous peer review and reporting guidelines.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Shared responsibility to address questionable research practices? - A study of perceived efficacy of organizational research integrity policies.

Accountability in research·2026
See all related articles

Self-experimentation is generally discouraged due to scientific and ethical inadequacies. It often lacks controls and sufficient subjects, and is not a reliable ethical test for participant safety.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Research Methodology

Background:

  • Self-experimentation is a practice where researchers test procedures or substances on themselves.
  • Historically, this has been a method for scientific discovery, but raises significant concerns.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the scientific and ethical adequacy of self-experimentation in research.
  • To determine if self-experimentation is a suitable method for ethical review and participant safety assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the inherent limitations of self-experimentation regarding scientific rigor.
  • Ethical assessment of self-experimentation as a method for validating research protocols for broader participant groups.

Main Results:

  • Self-experimentation typically lacks adequate scientific controls and sufficient participant numbers for meaningful results.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

  • It is an insufficient ethical test, as investigator risk tolerance may not represent the general population.
  • Institutional ethics review and informed consent are superior methods for participant protection.

    • Conclusions:

    • Self-experimentation should not be encouraged due to its scientific and ethical limitations.
    • Alternative methods like institutional review boards and informed consent are more appropriate for ensuring research integrity and participant safety.
    • Potential for undue influence exists when junior researchers participate in self-experimentation within team settings.