An International Delphi Study on the Challenges of Self-Experimentation for Medical Research Ethics.

IF 1.1
Tania Manríquez Roa, Felicitas Holzer, Julian März, Nikola Biller-Andorno
{"title":"An International Delphi Study on the Challenges of Self-Experimentation for Medical Research Ethics.","authors":"Tania Manríquez Roa, Felicitas Holzer, Julian März, Nikola Biller-Andorno","doi":"10.1177/15562646261451528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-experimentation is a research practice that might advance scientific progress and benefit populations worldwide. However, it also carries risks, both in terms of potential harm to researchers and the possibility of undermining research. This study seeks to explore expert perspectives on self-experimentation, examining its potential benefits and risks, identifying areas of consensus and divergence, and highlighting key themes to inform debates on its role in medical research.We conducted a three-round online Delphi study with a multi-regional panel of 16 experts with varying views on self-experimentation. The panel assessed, commented on, and proposed revisions to statements drafted by both the authors and panellists.Consensus was reached on several key points. Experts agreed that self-experimentation can serve as a means of gathering preliminary evidence, accelerating research, and assessing the technical feasibility of an intervention. However, there was also agreement that self-experimentation can harm scientists, has limited scientific value, and may produce unreliable data.</p>","PeriodicalId":520668,"journal":{"name":"Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE","volume":" ","pages":"330-351"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646261451528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-experimentation is a research practice that might advance scientific progress and benefit populations worldwide. However, it also carries risks, both in terms of potential harm to researchers and the possibility of undermining research. This study seeks to explore expert perspectives on self-experimentation, examining its potential benefits and risks, identifying areas of consensus and divergence, and highlighting key themes to inform debates on its role in medical research.We conducted a three-round online Delphi study with a multi-regional panel of 16 experts with varying views on self-experimentation. The panel assessed, commented on, and proposed revisions to statements drafted by both the authors and panellists.Consensus was reached on several key points. Experts agreed that self-experimentation can serve as a means of gathering preliminary evidence, accelerating research, and assessing the technical feasibility of an intervention. However, there was also agreement that self-experimentation can harm scientists, has limited scientific value, and may produce unreliable data.

自我实验对医学研究伦理挑战的国际德尔菲研究
自我实验是一种可能推动科学进步并造福全世界人民的研究实践。然而,它也有风险,无论是对研究人员的潜在伤害还是破坏研究的可能性。本研究旨在探讨专家对自我实验的看法,审查其潜在的好处和风险,确定共识和分歧的领域,并强调关键主题,以便就自我实验在医学研究中的作用进行辩论。我们进行了一项三轮在线德尔菲研究,由16位对自我实验持不同观点的多地区专家组成。该小组对作者和小组成员起草的声明进行评估、评论并提出修订建议。会议就几个关键问题达成了共识。专家们一致认为,自我实验可以作为收集初步证据、加速研究和评估干预措施技术可行性的一种手段。然而,人们也一致认为,自我实验可能会伤害科学家,科学价值有限,并可能产生不可靠的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书