When one thinks of human testing, it almost always brings up images of horrible regimes performing acts worse than torture.
At least as far back as the Romans, using fellow humans as test subjects has existed. But because of how some of these tests have been taken out, the process as a whole has negative stigma.
Whether it’s the Nazis’ experimentation during World War II or our own experimentation on African-Americans at Tuskegee, there are many reasons for being wary of the tests. Josef Mengele and the abominable experiments in Tuskegee will likely scar human experimentation for decades to come — understandably.
As horrible as these situations may have been, however, we must realize the advancements we have at times gotten through them. Testing on animals can only get us so much, and for us to truly advance medically, new breakthroughs must be applied to humans.
Not only am I against testing on animals for ethical reasons, but I also believe it simply is not as effective as our research should be. We are not biologically the same as many of the animals we use as test subjects, and in some cases, what may be lethal to them could have no effect on us, and vice-versa.
Does it make sense then for us to put our trust in this type of testing?
The medical tragedy caused by Thalidomide certainly argues against it. Although this drug seemed to work as intended among animals, it resulted in a massive amount of birth defects when it was introduced to the general public.
Had the drug been tested on human subjects before its launch, the many deformities that resulted likely could have been avoided.
But there still remains the problem of where one might find subjects on which to test these potential drugs. While volunteers are certainly useful, we can’t truly account for all their actions. Additionally, there are undoubtedly going to be certain drugs that some volunteers simply don’t want to risk testing.
This situation is where we have to look elsewhere for test subjects. Specifically, I think we should look at a place overflowing with people who would likely be willing to make deals: our prison system.
Now, I’ve talked before about how I believe the death penalty doesn’t work, but I haven’t been able to expand on what exactly should be done with prisoners. Ideally, this situation is what those on death row can be used for.
There are two ways to go about this. We can either give the inmates the option of downgrading to life in prison in exchange for becoming a test subject, or we simply use them as a test subject without their consent.
While the second option might seem similar to the unspeakable acts above, there’s rhyme to my reason. Ultimately, it goes back to the argument of what’s really “cruel and unusual” punishment.
While lethal injections are legally sanctioned as a viable punishment for those on death row, there is nothing we truly gain as a society. If we were to instead use them as test subjects, their death could indeed be caused, but it would at least have the potential to benefit society.
Obviously, inmates will have to expend all their appeals, and both options would require oversight to prevent abuse.
In the end, this could be a solution to several problems. Not only could it help clear out those on death row (either through deals or deaths), but it could also serve to expedite research on new drugs.
While human testing has had a sordid, dark history, its use can be one of the best ways to keep moving forward.
Zachary Davis is a 20-year-old history junior from Warsaw, Poland. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_zdavis.
 
—————
Contact Zachary Davis at [email protected]