Talk:Self-experimentation

POV concern

Somehow this entry has neglected to mention that self-experimentation is widely considered to be unduly fraught with experimental bias and is avoided whenever possible and at great expense by professional scientists. beefman (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011

You are free to add sources, but without any evidence of that assertion the POV notice has been removed. --71.229.205.80 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Experimentation Phobia in Fiction

The In Fiction section refers to the Fantastic Four case in which it is something outside the planned experiment that has bad consequences rather than unintended consequences of the experiment performed as intended. The test of the rocket was successful. It was not, as I read it, a test of the concept of travel outside the atmosphere. I am not familiar with the other cases that are mentioned and do not know whether they are also cases of accidents or of unintended consequences of the successful execution of the experiment. In addition, if Reed Richards was one those transformed by the rocket trip into the Fantastic Four, then we have a self-experiment. Or, if all four worked on the rocket, it might be deemed a self-experiment.

The fictional cases seem to suggest that writers see that the audience is likely to have a phobic reaction to the very idea of experimentation that makes both accidents in the execution of the experiment and unintended consequences seem plausible.

If I am experimenting with a toxin, drop a test tube, and die of the exposure, that is not essentially about the process of experimentation. If I am reading a book, turn a page, and get a paper cut, that is not about reading or books; it might be about paper.

I would prefer the examples to be more focused, if that is convenient. DCDuring 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be better to put the Jekyll and Hyde example first, as they are arguably more noteworthy 92.10.177.157 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Other (RFID case)

This item was removed without discussion. I have reverted to the version with it until I can get some kind of explanation that makes sense to me or greater power prevails. In the meantime, I am having some trouble making the references included show up on the page. DCDuring 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You can keep the Kevin Warwick item if you like, but since you moved it from a place where it was added as part of a single-purpose editor's campaign to promote Kevin Warwick, and since I couldn't get the ref link to find any verification, I thought we'd be better off without it. Dicklyon 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was able to make the CNN link work. It hadn't been formatted to work as an in-line link. I'm not really sure that this article would meet the highest Wikipedia standards, but I guess there is greater license with article that cover such special topics. I haven't yet checked the IEEE article, which is more reputable by my lights. I'm still not able to get the IEEE footnote to show up properly, but that's probably my inexperience and impatience with documentation. Whatever the motives, it is of interest for this article because so few documented cases exist. DCDuring 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

History of Chemical Taste Testing

Removed the following

The routine tasting of new compounds by chemists of bygone times is, in fact, the main source of knowledge of the human toxicity for certain chemicals.

Beucase no citation found I did some preliminary research into the matter and couldn't find anything conclusive. If someone else finds something feel free to re-add it. Also I'm rating the article. C because it's pretty "feature complete" with regards to explaining what Self-Experimentation is but it doesn't really delve at all into any of the information. Low because SE has more of a moderate historical significance within the field and next to none outside of it, but in a contemporary perspective it's importance is loosely tied to the ways in which it fails to be useful for the scientific method. aka "Here's an example of how NOT to do science". (WK) 198.96.34.221 (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced promotional material moved here

The following material is moved here because its sole source is a link that is broken. Here is the removed text:

Extended content

Seth Roberts and Allen Neuringer have advocated the broader use of self-experimentation, arguing that its low-cost and ease (compared to traditional large-sample experiments with human subjects) facilitate conducting a very large number of experiments, testing many treatments and measuring many things at once. This allows considerable trial and error and can lead to the generation and testing of many ideas. Self-experimentation provides superior evidence to mere anecdotal evidence, because the entire experimental is explicitly designed to test a hypothesis, but is subject to observer bias. Self-experimentation could be considered a useful adjunct to large-sample experiments in scientific research.

Note, I had already removed the "Dr" honorifics in from of each name before moving it here. Also, the bold portion of the material, to which I object most strongly, was removed earlier by User:George Church (Prof, Harvard), only to be returned to the text. You now have two professors saying this content (sentences 2-4) is better off out, rather than appear as it is currently presented.

In any case, please do not reintroduce it without a good source, and good secondary source to ensure its broad acceptance. "Self-experimentation provides superior evidence…" needs to be expert published content, and not one paper's perspective, or editor opinion. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving two unsourced sections here

The following two sections, which both make the section overly long, and make it un-encyclopedic—because these two paragraphs do not contain a single source—are moved here for verification and sourcing:

Extended content

Until recently, it was common practice among synthetic chemists to taste newly prepared compounds. The purpose was to provide an additional characteristic for identification, taking advantage of the selective chemical receptors that form this sense. However, as one might guess, this practice also led to numerous fatalities and near-fatalities. Surprisingly, it was not recognition of the risk of this self-experimentation that led to its extinction, but rather the advent of instrumentation capable of exacting physical characterization of compounds (particularly spectrometers with infrared, ultraviolet, NMR and mass selectivity). The routine tasting of new compounds by chemists of bygone times was a contemporary source of knowledge of the human toxicity for certain chemicals. This practice had positive and negative aspects. It probably contributed to the death of Carl Wilhelm Scheele from apparent mercury poisoning. Joseph Priestley discovered soda water while experimenting with carbon dioxide and tasting the results. Dr. Albert Hofmann discovered the psychedelic properties of LSD by accidentally absorbing it—and later intentionally ingesting it—in a self-experiment.

Note, per WP policies and guidelines, wikilinks do not constitute sources. This material has some useful elements; it simply cannot stay in place unless it is tied to a reliable secondary source. Please do not put in a blog, or other popular web posting of anecdotes. In returning the information, please make it encyclopedic. On the key historical stories—Priestley, Scheele, Hofmann—there is very ample good sourcing to be found. Please leave here until it can be added back with such sources. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced bible story moved here as WP:OR

The following vignette, apparently taken from an editor's personal knowledge (that is, WP:Original research), does not constitute encyclopedic content on the history of self-experimentation. Please reintroduce it, only when it can be tied to a reputable published source:

Extended content

The earliest example of self-experimentation may go back to 605 BCE when Daniel and several other Jewish captives of Nebuchadnezzar were offered positions in the government and a diet of the king's own rich meats and wines. Refusing to violate the Jewish dietary laws, they declined the food and asked for a diet of legumes and water instead. The officials had a serious concern that such a limited diet might be unhealthy so Daniel offered to conduct a "clinical trial" (of sorts). He conducted a diet study as a self-experiment (along with three others: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah). After 10 days on the abstemious diet, the subjects appeared even healthier than the controls eating the king's food and they were allowed to continue. Details of the Bible stories can be found in Wikipedia, on the web and elsewhere.

Once again, text only supported by wikilinks does not constitute adequate sourcing or encyclopedic writing, nor does the suggestion that people can look up the needed sources on their own. Please return this, when it is encyclopedic. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Haldane anecdote moved here

The following detail-filled description/vignette about Haldane and self-experimentation, which includes plagiarised quoted material, also does not constitute encyclopedic content. Please reintroduce it, only when it can be tied to a reputable published source:

Extended content

JBS Haldane, a notable British biologist, is yet another example of a scientist who conducted experiments upon himself. Haldane was a keen experimenter, and was more than willing to expose himself to danger in order to obtain the desired data. One such experiment involving elevated levels of oxygen saturation triggered a fit which resulted in him suffering crushed vertebrae. In his decompression chamber experiments, Haldane and his volunteers suffered perforated eardrums, but, as Haldane stated in What is Life, "the drum generally heals up; and if a hole remains in it, although one is somewhat deaf, one can blow tobacco smoke out of the ear in question, which is a social accomplishment."

Once again, text only supported by wikilinks does not constitute adequate sourcing or encyclopedic writing, nor does the mention of a book name in the text. Please return this, when it is encyclopedic. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

LSD?

I was surprised to not see this anecdote about LSD: Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#History kentyman (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kentyman: That's because you haven't added to the article yet - could you please add some info on it? --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fixuture: You make a fair point. Done. – kentyman (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kentyman: Thank you! Btw it's always good to add references to your edits - it's really simple: just google the few key words of your paragraph, select the best article and link it via the "Cite"-button in the upper right of the editor (after clicking it just select "cite web" in the "Templates"-combobox on the left) - I added one for you.

You might also be interested in this discussion I just started: Talk:Self-experimentation_in_medicine#Self-experimentation_with_drugs

--Fixuture (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)