Q&amp;A: Barry Marshall

Azad, Meghan B.

doi:10.1038/514s6a

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even Barry Marshall, who won a Nobel afterward for the relationship of Helicobacter pylori to ulcers, did not tell his institution what he was doing. 1 Werner Forßmann was terminated after showing cardiac catheterization could be done safely by testing it on himself. His superior hoped to prevent him ever practicing medicine again.…”

Section: Why This Article?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists

Hanley¹,

Bains²,

Church

2019

Rejuvenation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine self-experimentation ethics history and practice, related law, use scenarios in universities and industry, and attitudes. We show through analysis of the historical development of medical ethics and regulation, from Hippocrates through Good Clinical Practice that there are no ethical barriers to self-experimentation. When the self-experimenter is a true investigator, there is no other party to be protected from unethical behavior. We discuss the n-of-1 issue in self-experiments, and make suggestions for improving experiment design. We discuss real-world scenarios of self-experimentation: at universities, for independent single-subject investigators, investigator/employees at pharmaceutical firms, and nonscientist self-experimenters. Our survey of ethics committees regarding policy and review for self-experimenting investigators show that approximately one-third of ethics committee respondents had a policy regarding self-experimentation, and one-third did not require ethical committee review of proposed experiments. There was no relationship between having a policy and asking for review. We also surveyed member attitudes to, and experiences of, self-experimentation among members of the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, and European Academy of Sciences. To our knowledge, this survey is the first breakdown of self-experiments into impact-relevant type classifications, and represents an advance in the field. Half of our scientist respondents performed self-experiments, and roughly one-fifth had conducted serious self-experiments. Most responders thought self-experiments were valuable, however, biologics injections, radiation exposure, and surgical implants had negative ratings greater than positive. We conclude that self-experimenters should not have attempts made to terminate them, bar them from use of facilities, nor be barred from using themselves or their tissues except in exceptional circumstances. Organizational uncertainty over the ethical and regulatory status of self-experimentation, and resulting fear of consequences is unjustified and may be blocking a route to human experiments that practicing scientists widely consider appropriate, and which historical precedent has shown is valuable.

show abstract

Section: Why This Article?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists

Hanley¹,

Bains²,

Church

2019

Rejuvenation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientific findings are often met with skepticism, especially when those findings defy widely-held beliefs. Notable examples include Barry Marshall demonstrating that the H. pylori bacterium causes ulcers, which challenged the prevailing view at the time that stress and lifestyle were the major causes of ulcer disease, and Francesco Redi's fly experiments offering evidence of biogenesis, which disputed the long-standing idea of spontaneous generation of living organisms (Azad, 2014;Gottdenker, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Registered Reports Make Scientific Findings More Believable to the Public?

Costa

Inbar

Tannenbaum

2022

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Registered reports are an important initiative to improve the methodological rigor and transparency of scientific studies. One possible benefit of registered reports is that they may increase public acceptance of controversial research findings. We test this question by providing participants in a large US-based sample (n = 1,500) with descriptions of the key features of registered reports and the standard peer-review process, and then eliciting credibility judgments for various scientific results. We do not find evidence that participants view findings from registered reports as more credible than findings conducted under a standard (non-registered) report. This was true for both plausible and implausible study findings. Our results help clarify public attitudes and beliefs about scientific findings in light of recent methodological developments.

show abstract

Biodiversity, the Human Microbiome and Mental Health: Moving toward a New Clinical Ecology for the 21st Century?

Prescott¹,

Millstein

Katzman

et al. 2016

International Journal of Biodiversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in research concerning the brain-related influences of the microbiome have been paradigm shifting, although at an early stage, clinical research involving beneficial microbes lends credence to the notion that the microbiome may be an important target in supporting mental health (defined here along the continuum between quality of life and the criteria for specific disorders). Through metagenomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and systems biology, a new emphasis to personalized medicine is on the horizon. Humans can now be viewed as multispecies organisms operating within an ecological theatre; it is important that clinicians increasingly see their patients in this context. Historically marginalized ecological aspects of health are destined to become an important consideration in the new frontiers of practicing medicine with the microbiome in mind. Emerging evidence indicates that macrobiodiversity in the external environment can influence mental well-being. Local biodiversity may also drive differences in human-associated microbiota; microbial diversity as a product of external biodiversity may have far-reaching effects on immune function and mood. With a focus on the microbiome as it pertains to mental health, we define environmental “grey space” and emphasize a new frontier involving bio-eco-psychological medicine. Within this concept the ecological terrain can link dysbiotic lifestyles and biodiversity on the grand scale to the local human-associated microbial ecosystems that might otherwise seem far removed from one another.

show abstract

Q&A: Barry Marshall

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists

Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists

Do Registered Reports Make Scientific Findings More Believable to the Public?

Biodiversity, the Human Microbiome and Mental Health: Moving toward a New Clinical Ecology for the 21st Century?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About