
Sci&Tech editor Adam Abrahams unpicks the ethical conundrums of a clinical future that pushes beyond the confines of evidence-based medicine protocols
When Dr. Beata Halassy was diagnosed with a recurrence of breast cancer in 2020, she was determined not to face another round of chemotherapy. Taking matters into her own hands, the Croatian Virologist injected herself with lab-grown viruses in a form of unproven treatment. Thankfully, the procedure was a success and Halassy has been cancer-free for four years, but since publishing her findings, discussion has spread regarding the ethics of self-experimentation within medicine.
How Did She Do It?
Halassy employed a technique called Oncolytic Viral Therapy (OVT). This treatment is far from new – theories were first developed in the 1890s, and experimentation has taken place since the 1950s – though a recent growth in virology research has seen increasingly promising results. Currently, four OVTs have been approved for global use, though none have been approved to treat any stage of breast cancer, further emphasizing the importance of Halassy’s work.
The therapy works in two stages:
Stage 1 begins with injecting specifically-chosen viruses into the body. These are not engineered in any way, and so begin to attack healthy and cancerous cells alike; however, due to cancer cells’ lack of self-regulation mechanisms that would ordinarily deter viruses, they become much easier targets.
the tumour shrunk by 63% in only nine weeks, allowing it to be surgically removed much earlier.
Stage 2 relies on the body’s immune system to join the fight. The commotion of stage 1 leaves the area littered with viruses and dead cancer cells. The immune system notices this, sending immune cells to kill the viruses and clean up the dead cancer cells. However, in interacting with these pieces of tumour, the immune system improves at identifying the cancer cells, and thus becomes better at seeking out and killing them throughout the body.
Halassy’s case was unique not only in its subject, but also in its methods. In an innovative step, Halassy chose to inject herself with two viruses. Whilst not an expert in OVT, Halassy used her specialist knowledge of virus cultivation to identify two strains that would effectively target the tumour whilst not posing a significant risk to herself.
The process was overseen by oncologists, who were prepared to step in to administer chemotherapy if the experiment failed. Yet much to their surprise the tumour shrunk by 63% in only nine weeks, allowing it to be surgically removed much earlier than expected.
`
Matthew Manning / Facebook
Ethics of Self-Experimentation
After such an inspirational success, it may seem absurd to call ethics into question – after all, Halassy only put herself at risk, and her findings may save countless lives. However, self-experimentation has a long and complex history within scientific ethics, with many researchers struggling to publish work involving the taboo practice. Halassy herself was rejected 13 times before finally being published in August this year.
[many argue] that scientists are the only ones who can truly give informed consent within their own experiments.
For as long as the scientific method has existed, scientists have been using themselves as test subjects. J.B.S. Haldane – British scientist, science fiction essayist, and infamous eccentric – once drank a vial of hydrochloric acid, then locked himself in a room flooded with carbon dioxide in order to test the effect of blood acidification. He provided the insightful observation that it ‘gives one a rather violent headache’.
Even a host of Nobel Prize laureates, including Rosalyn Yalow and Barry Marshal, joined the ranks. The former tested her own blood in order to develop modern techniques for disease screening, whilst the latter drank a culture of ulcer-inducing bacteria to prove his discoveries to sceptical colleagues. Please note that both this writer and Redbrick News do not condone the consumption of acids, bacteria or any harmful substances, despite how promising your research may be.
The controversy regarding Halassy’s work follows the same arguments that have historically come up regarding self-experimentation; concerns regarding the encouragement of self-harm, unnecessary risk, and the unreliability of experiments featuring only one subject. These ethical red flags are picked up across many institutions, though surveys have indicated that the practice, often conducted in secret, takes place at a much greater frequency than the public would expect.
Self-experimentation, despite its stigma, is not illegal. In fact, many advocate for it, with Yalow arguing that scientists are the only ones who can truly give informed consent within their own experiments. Biotechnologist William Bains believes that the high costs and red tape of clinical trials mean that pharmaceutical companies have become far more conservative with the treatments they are willing to test. This oversight of potentially effective therapies is something he believes can be combated by encouraging self-experimentation.
In an interview, Halassy stated that her paper is being discussed for the wrong reasons; focus should be on the potential of the therapy, not the ethical debate. This is certainly true, though a positive consequence of the controversy is that is has drawn greater attention to OVT research in general. Whilst not encouraging others to reject conventional cancer treatments, Halassy has no regrets about her methods, and hopes that by disclosing the truth she can further the development of life-saving treatments.
Enjoyed this article? Read more from Sci&Tech here:
World Health Organisation and TikTok to Collaborate for Science-Based Wellbeing
Comments