Those who have been proven guilty without a shred of doubt, AND have been proven to be beyond rehabilitation are the only ones who should be remotely eligible for any sort of "human guinea pig" program.

Being a Christian, I disagree with the assumption that this means that my view is obvious or predictable.Punishing prisoners beyond their sentence isn't really fair as such.If I remember correctly, much of our knowledge of human reactions to adverse conditions come as a result of them experimenting by just dumping prisoners into those conditions.Medical knowledge can be translated to technology. For example, life vests, personnel uniforms, personal armour, etc.It's pretty dangerous to say that one can lose their status as a human by actions. As a human, he is allowed access to human rights, which are meant to be the basic rights of a human which one can neither lose nor fail to qualify for.Would it still be morally inadmissible if the embryos were destined for destruction and subsequent disposal?They did things because they thought the reasons they had for them were sufficient. Due to no fault of their own, they either truly believed that the lives that would be saved as a result of the experiments were worth more or otherwise were detached, in one way or another, from what they were doing.I am interested to find out why exactly this is.

Us down here don't have a bill of rights, so we're golden.

I believe this is in fact where all current US experimental strains were harvested from, frozen embryos slated for disposal leftover from In-Vitro Fertilization treatments. However, googling such gathers too much noise from the debate over their use that I cannot verify this fact.

@Allstone
Because it's necessary, and I'd rather it be happening to animals, rather than another member of my species.

This. I agree with the above statement. Besides, testing it out before deployment is a good thing in case of any potential side effects.

I know what your saying. Damn hypocrites


And heres a link for more

I need to find the statistics on animal testing, if I recall of all medicine medicine that is released after such testing, it was like a 98% recall rate.
Can't we use human cells, not human convicts?

science cannot be controlled, just like you cant control music, art, even religion. There will allways be someone saying "i want to do that", and someone saying "you shouldnt do that". It really does not matter, let people be free as long as nobody dies because of it!

There are so many violations, and technicalities to that rule.
Besides, like a wing of scientists can go against the government.

violations and technicalities?
i can see violations, but technicalities can be ignored, If a human being is killed, or injured without agreeing to what was done to him or her dont do it, final

How do you think scientific research works?
I am not sure your vision of it is entirely accurate.

How can humans do something unnatural, being a natural being themselves?

im not talking about research itself, im referring to science as a whole. technology also, do things that help people not hurt them

In some cases this is backwards, but in the hands of a moral country fighting immoral ones it works out, lives are saved in the end. (nuke refrence)

its up to an indavigual to decide what is right and wrong, and up to the group (humanity) to decide if its wrong, if its a tie, let them do it.

Research takes a lot of money. To do research you need lots of people that agree with you to the extent that they are willing to give you lots of money. Scientific advance is thus controlled to a great degree. If someone dies during research, the research generally loses quite a bit of money, either through people disapproving or covering up deaths. Explain how Japan is a less moral country than America to the point where nuclear engagement was justified.