Is it justifiable to conduct human experiments on heinous criminals? We examine the conflict between human rights, ethics, and scientific progress, exploring its possibilities and limitations.
While browsing the web recently, I came across a personal blog post asking, “Couldn’t we use people incarcerated in prisons (convicts) for human experiments?” The post proposed conducting experiments on individuals sentenced to death in court—people who were going to die anyway—arguing that using them for experiments would benefit social welfare and scientific progress rather than letting them die. It further claimed that experiments could be performed on particularly heinous criminals, such as serial killers who caused significant social upheaval, regardless of their consent.
While somewhat extreme, the argument was presented with its own logic and seemed plausible at times, making it partially relatable. However, even for heinous criminals who caused immense social upheaval, is it acceptable for the government and society to disregard their human rights and use them as subjects for experiments? My conclusion to this question is: ‘Human experimentation should not be permitted.’
Of course, if experiments on human subjects pose no health risks to the test subjects (people), there would be no issue. However, considering that throughout human history, the path of science has not always left only positive footprints, I will proceed with the premise that there is a significant possibility experiments could adversely affect the health of the subjects.
First, such arguments are fundamentally flawed from their basic premise. The fundamental principle of this argument is as follows: it posits a premise of “you reap what you sow” or “karma,” suggesting that since heinous criminals have violated others’ human rights, we are not obligated to protect their own human rights. This principle of “reaping what one sows” raises significant problems. For example, just because someone accidentally broke my leg, I cannot break the perpetrator’s leg in return. Similarly, I believe that even a heinous criminal should not be forced to become an unwanted test subject, regardless of their past actions.
Furthermore, the person who broke my leg has no reason to have their own leg broken; instead, they must find another appropriate method to compensate me for the harm they caused. Likewise, a heinous criminal has already received the punishment of death according to the law for the crimes they committed. Therefore, there is no reason for them to become a subject of human experimentation.
Those opposing this position will likely counter that it is wrong for the crimes of heinous criminals to be simply covered up by a death sentence or life imprisonment. They will argue for the necessity and legitimacy of experiments on prisoners, citing the greater good of society. However, even a little further thought easily reveals reasons why this idea should not be realized, and indeed cannot be realized.
Second, attempting to implement such an idea is difficult because the definition of a “heinous criminal” is ambiguous. Crimes have categories, and punishment is meted out according to the law based on the type and severity of the crime. However, unlike measuring the type of crime, there is no clear standard for measuring the degree of criminality. When comparing someone who stole a small amount of money to someone who stole a large amount, or someone who killed a few people to someone who killed many, it is impossible to take an objective approach without subjective judgment intervening. Since it is impossible to precisely define a heinous criminal who has caused significant social upheaval, human experimentation targeting only such criminals is unfeasible.
Third, supporting experiments on heinous criminals reflects a misplaced prioritization of values. Such arguments claim that experiments are permissible when considering the welfare and interests of society as a whole. However, the dignity of human life and personhood must take precedence over all other values. Even if justified for the welfare and interests of society, disregarding moral values like the dignity of life will ultimately harm society’s overall welfare and interests.
Another recent controversy concerns research involving children. I also hold a negative opinion on this issue. The first problem is how to balance protecting children from human rights exploitation with the necessity of experiments for advancing scientific research. Research involving children presents difficulties because, unlike adults, children lack sufficient decision-making capacity, making it hard to obtain their consent. Instead, consent must be obtained from parents or other guardians, a process that often fails to reflect the child’s own wishes.
Second, while therapeutic research has justification for the health benefits of children, non-therapeutic research faces controversy over whether it should be permitted due to the potential risks outweighing the health benefits for children. While non-therapeutic research may be unavoidable to aid the health and welfare of children in society as a whole, it raises concerns regarding the protection of the human rights of the children involved.
Third, when the research subjects are children residing in protective facilities, there is a high likelihood of human rights violations. Children in protective facilities are precisely those who require greater protection, yet they are often targeted for research due to the convenience of experimentation and medical efficiency. This approach, prioritizing convenience, is highly problematic.
To summarize, the idea of conducting experiments on violent criminals is based on a flawed premise. Even if implemented, ambiguous criteria become problematic, and the argument contains a fundamental error in prioritizing values. Furthermore, research involving children is unacceptable because it is difficult to reflect the subjects’ consent and their human rights are easily violated.
I agree and acknowledge that research involving human subjects is necessary for human welfare and scientific advancement. The crucial point is that the subjects for such research must be determined through reasonable procedures and methods acceptable to all; they should not be individuals who are socially disadvantaged, such as prisoners or children. A more moral stance and ethical responsibility are required when conducting scientific experiments and research.
