Dolan, Mwalaba and Whitfield

Human Experimentation Survey Analysis

Hypothesis:
The general public will be split in their opinion of human experimentation. Most agree
that in order to find accurate cure for humans, experimenting on humans is a must. However, the
confliction of opinion comes from whether it is morally right and humane to do so.
Conclusion:
After reviewing the survey, the general opinion is that human experimentation is
beneficial to finding cures and/or medicines to help treat humans. However, there must be
limitations to how far an experiment can go.
Would you like there to be a cure to diseases?

Everyone agreed that they would like there to be a cure for diseases. Reason why is that
medicine is meant to help the sick and ill and prevent others from becoming one. Cures benefit
all people not just one.
Do you believe animal testing can help achieve it? Is it accurate?

Dolan, Mwalaba and Whitfield

Human Experimentation Survey Analysis

Most agreed that animal testing can be used to find cures however its accuracy can very.
One response read that it depends on the animals being used, for some are more genetically
similar to humans. Testing on humans is better because humans should be experimented for
human diseases.
Do you believe human experimentation is better and more accurate?

Most agreed that human experimentation is better and more accurate because in order to
heal ourselves, it would be better to test ourselves. Animal testing can be used but whatever
solution developed would go to humans anyway. Other idea coming from the results is that there
must be strict but helpful rules that are put in place to prevent danger (i.e. Nuremberg Codes).
Is it morally wrong or logically right to experiment on humans, in any capacity?

Dolan, Mwalaba and Whitfield

Human Experimentation Survey Analysis

The responses to this question were either definite morally wrong or logically right, and
more often than not, a mix of the two. Some would begin saying it is logically right to
experiment on humans but end eluding it to be morally wrong. It opens up the debate on how to
separate emotion from making a serious decision as this, especially when it could benefit the
lives of a multitude of people. Another big takeaway is getting consent from the person/people
being experimented on living or dead.
Likewise, the medical staff must stop the experiment at any point when they observe that
continuation would be dangerous. - Nuremberg Codes
Is it responsible or irresponsible to stop when it gets hard?

The majority believe it is responsible to stop an experiment when it begins to teeter on

becoming dangerous and harmful to the human subject. Possible reason for this result is that by
continuing, it becomes inhumane and immoral towards the human subject. Another reason,

Dolan, Mwalaba and Whitfield

Human Experimentation Survey Analysis
coming from one of the responses, is that by not stopping, it could cause Serious Adverse Event
(SAEs) to occur. SAEs are defined as "medical errors that healthcare facilities could and should
avoid" by the Washington State Department of Health.
Company Proposal:
Based on the responses from the survey, people are in support of human experimentation
with rules and regulations in order to produce the best results and prevent any misfortunes
occurring in the humans involved in the experiment. Majority agrees that although animal testing
has been successful in the past (insulin, cervical cancer vaccine, etc.), human experimentation
would lead to better and more accurate solutions because testing would be done on the people
being directly affected by a problem. What this means for our company is we will be in support
of lawful human experiments and develop and/or strengthen preexisting rules to insure they
remain safe and ethical.