Cruelty of science

Use of human in experiments

In science experiments the use of humans are also included. Many experiments are directly performed on humans without thinking about the results.

 In January 1944, a 17-year-old Navy seaman named Nathan Schnurman volunteered to test protective clothing for the Navy. Following orders, he donned a gas mask and special clothes and was escorted into a 10-foot by 10-foot chamber, which was then locked from the outside. Sulfur mustard and Lewisite, poisonous gasses used in chemical weapons, were released into the chamber and, for one hour each day for five days, the seaman sat in this noxious vapor. On the final day, he became nauseous, his eyes and throat began to burn, and he asked twice to leave the chamber. Both times he was told he needed to remain until the experiment was complete. Ultimately Schnurman collapsed into unconsciousness and went into cardiac arrest. When he awoke, he had painful blisters on most of his body. He was not given any medical treatment and was ordered to never speak about what he experienced under the threat of being tried for treason. For 49 years these experiments were unknown to the public.

This is one of the examples which show how an experiment ruined a young life.While he was feeling sick still the scientist asked him to stay unless the experiment completed. The poisonous gas made him die slowly for five consecutive days. And when he got blisters on his body, they didn’t provide him medical facility. This show how the some scientist only think about their benefits. Not all the experiment are beneficial for society they perform that experiment to earn money and power. The science should works on ethnics and morals not for power and wealth. 

A widespread ethical problem, although one that has not yet received much attention, is raised by the development of new pharmaceuticals. All new drugs are tested on human volunteers. There is, of course, no way subjects can be fully apprised of the risks in advance, as that is what the tests purport to determine. This situation is generally considered acceptable, provided volunteers give “informed” consent. Many of the drugs under development today, however, offer little clinical benefit beyond those available from existing treatments. Many are developed simply to create a patentable variation on an existing drug. It is easy to justify asking informed, consenting individuals to risk limited harm in order to develop new drug therapies for a condition from which they are suffering or for which existing treatments are inadequate. The same may not apply when the drug being tested offers no new benefits to the subjects because they are healthy volunteers, or when the drug offers no significant benefits to anyone because it is essentially a copy of an existing drugs.

Necessity is the mother of invention but sometimes some practical company works unnecessary over the drugs for increasing their demands and profit in market. Sometimes the drugs work with animals but not fitted for humans… but the scientist doesn’t care about the person they want their result. Beyond this there are many other examples of using humans as the subject in experiments. During COVID 19, many countries used their vaccines directly on humans which caused the death of them. Science should work according to the needs of society, not for power and wealth.

Unnecessary and questionable human experimentation is not limited to pharmaceutical development. In experiments at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a genetically engineered human growth hormone (hGH) is injected into healthy short children. Consent is obtained from parents and affirmed by the children themselves. The children receive 156 injections each year in the hope of becoming taller.

Growth hormone is clearly indicated for hormone-deficient children who would otherwise remain extremely short. This experiment also brings a bad impact on children Physical as well psychological condition.

This experiment is also the reason for human trafficking and other crimes against the human.

But we need to protect the people to use as the subject in the scientific experiments against theirs wills or if they participated in such kind of experiment there should be some rule or law must followed by the scientist or that company who performed that test on human.

 To protect people participating in medical research, the  government decades ago put in place strict rules on the conduct of human experiments.

Now the Department of Health and Human Services is proposing a major revision of these regulations, known collectively as the Common Rule. It’s the first change proposed in nearly a quarter-century.

In India, the drug controller general  of India regulated the human as the subject of an experiment. If any department finds the need to perform any experiment over then they need to take permission from the department.  If the department found flaws in the experiment only then they provide their approval.


  • Frank C. Conahan of the National Security and International Affairs Division of the General Accounting Office, reporting to the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations.
  • Flieger K. Testing drugs in people. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. September 10, 1997.
  • U.S. General Accounting Office. FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-85. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., 1990.
  • MedWatch, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Labeling changes related to drug safety. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Home Page; September 10, 1997.

Categories: Science

Tagged as: