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

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.

Keywords

self-experimentation Delphi study research ethics medical research standards expert consensus

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackerman

T. F.

Altman

L. K.

Veatch

R. M.

Levine

R. J.

(1988). Research with human subjects. The Hastings Center Report, 18(5), 47. https://doi.org/10.2307/3562224

Bains

(2008). The Biomedical Mutual Organization: A new approach to developing new medical treatments. Medical Hypotheses, 70(4), 719–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.08.017

Benatar

S. R.

(2000). A new look at international research ethics. BMJ, 321(7264), 824–826. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7264.824

Caplan

A. L.

Bateman-House

(2020). The danger of DIY vaccines. Science, 369(6507), 1035. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6507/1035?rss=1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe4440

Davis

J. K.

(2003). Self-experimentation. Accountability in Research, 10(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/714906095

Dresser

(2013). Personal knowledge and study participation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(7), 471–474. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101390

Dresser

(2014). Personal knowledge and study participation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(7), 471–474. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101390

Estep

P. W.

Church

G. M.

(2020). Transparency is key to ethical vaccine research. Science, 370(6523), 1422–1423. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf4851

Forum for Global Health Ethics, U. of Z. (2020). Webinar on Self-Experimentation in Times of Covid-19 (No. 1) [Broadcast]. https://www.ibme.uzh.ch/en/Biomedical-Ethics/who-collaborating-centre/Forum-for-Global-Health-Ethics/Webinar-on-Self-Experimentation-in-Times-of-Covid-19.html.

10.

Guerrini

C. J.

Sherkow

J. S.

Meyer

M. N.

Zettler

P. J.

(2020). Self-experimentation, ethics, and regulation of vaccines. Science, 369(6511), 1570–1572. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1963

11.

Guerrini

C. J.

Wexler

Zettler

P. J.

McGuire

A. L.

(2019). Biomedical citizen science or something else? Reflections on terms and definitions. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(8), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1619880

12.

Hanley

B. P.

Bains

Church

(2019). Review of scientific self-experimentation: Ethics history, regulation, scenarios, and views among ethics committees and prominent scientists. Rejuvenation Research, 22(1), 31–42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29926769. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2018.2059

13.

Ienca

Vayena

(2020). “Hunting down my son’s killer”: New roles of patients in treatment discovery and ethical uncertainty. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 17(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-09963-0

14.

Jünger

Payne

S. A.

Brine

Radbruch

Brearley

S. G.

(2017). Guidance on conducting and REporting DElphi studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliative Medicine, 31(8), 684–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685

15.

Kempner

Bailey

(2019). Collective self-experimentation in patient-led research: How online health communities foster innovation. Social Science & Medicine, 238, 112366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112366

16.

London

N. L.

London

W. T.

(1997). A case of self-experimentation. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 6(7), 475–476.

17.

Manríquez Roa

Biller-Andorno

(2020). Going first: The ethics of vaccine self-experimentation in coronavirus times. Swiss Medical Weekly, 150(4748), w20415. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20415

18.

Manríquez Roa

Biller-Andorno

(2024). Self-experimentation in the development of COVID-19 vaccines and the release of product formulas. In Research ethics in epidemics and pandemics: A casebook (Vol. 8, pp. 49–50). Springer International Publishing.

19.

Murphy

(2020). These Scientists Are Giving Themselves D.I.Y. Coronavirus Vaccines. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/science/covid-19-vaccine-diy.html%20.

20.

Murphy

M. K.

Black

N. A.

Lamping

D. L.

McKee

C. M.

Sanderson

C. F.

Askham

Marteau

(1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 2(3), 1–88. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2030

21.

Nobel Prize Outreach AB. (2023). The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2005, Barry J. Marshall Biographical. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/marshall/biographical/.

22.

Open Humans. (2023). Self Research – Open Humans. Open Humans. https://www.openhumans.org/self-research/.

23.

Pugh

Wilkinson

Savulescu

(2021). Cross-Post: Self-experimentation with vaccines. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2021/02/cross-post-self-experimentation-with-vaccines/.

24.

Pugh

Wilkinson

Savulescu

(2025). Self-censorship: Should scientific journals decline to publish self-experimentation?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110730

25.

RADVaC. (2022). Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative. https://radvac.org/researchers-map/.

26.

Rammensee

H.-G.

Gouttefangeas

Heidu

Klein

Preuß

Walz

J. S.

Tandler

Durholz

Sipos

Hohenberger

Groth

Wagemakers

Adamopoulou

Schoor

Koch

H. G.

Storzum

Rammensee

H. G.

Aulmann

(2021). Designing a SARS-CoV-2 T-cell-inducing vaccine for high-risk patient groups. Vaccines, 9(5), 428. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8146137/#B10-vaccines-09-00428. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050428

27.

Regalado

(2020). Some scientists are taking a DIY coronavirus vaccine, and nobody knows if it’s legal or if it works. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/29/1005720/george-church-diy-coronavirus-vaccine/.

28.

Resnik

D. B.

(2011). Limits on risks for healthy volunteers in biomedical research. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9201-1

29.

ScienceDirect. (2023). Self-Experimentation—An overview. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/self-experimentation.

30.

Spranger

Homberg

Sonnberger

Niederberger

(2022). Reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques in health sciences: A methodological review. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 172, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.025

31.

Swan

(2012). Crowdsourced health research studies: An important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(2), 46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376509/. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1988

32.

The Equator Network. (2023). Reporting Guidelines. The EQUATOR Network. https://www.equator-network.org/?post_type=eq_guidelines&eq_guidelines_study_design=0&eq_guidelines_clinical_specialty=0&eq_guidelines_report_section=0&s=delphi&btn_submit=Search+Reporting+Guidelines.

33.

Vayena

Brownsword

Edwards

S. J.

Greshake

Kahn

J. P.

Ladher

Montgomery

O’Connor

O’Neill

Richards

M. P.

Rid

Sheehan

Wicks

Tasioulas

(2016). Research led by participants: A new social contract for a new kind of research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(4), 216–219. https://jme.bmj.com/content/42/4/216. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102663

34.

Weisse

A. B.

(2012). Self-experimentation and its role in medical research. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 39(1), 51–54.

35.

Wexler

(2015). The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: Implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(4), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102704

36.

World Medical Association. (1947). Nuremberg Code. https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2011/04/BMJ_No_7070_Volume_313_The_Nuremberg_Code.pdf.

37.

World Medical Association, W. M. (2022). WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.

38.

Zettler

P. J.

Sherkow

J. S.

Guerrini

(2019). Regulating Genetic Self-Experimentation as Biomedical Research. https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/30/zettler-sherkow-guerrini-regulating-genetic-self-experimentation-biomedical-research/.