CASE

The EPA should allow human testing of chemicals, especially pesticides.

BACKGROUND
In 2006, the EPA declared that it would accept studies that use people as guinea pigs in chemical
tests. On 16 June, the EPA reversed its decision.

CAVEATS
Volunteers would be warned of the risks; no coercion/silencing; products would have to be
labeled afterward i.e. “this pesticide was tested on humans”; pregnant and nursing women are
still banned from participating, which was status quo even before the reversal; this would make
standards of chemical testing equivalent to drug testing; studies have to meet Institutional
Review Board standards e.g. there is no a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury
will occur; there have to be humanitarian benefits that would result; animal testing already
happened, etc.

The first two points are going to deal w/ risk and reward, and the third point will treat the role of
the government vis-à-vis the individual.

1. The risk:
a. What is the nature of the risk? There is risk inherent in anything you do e.g.
driving a car. You know there’s a chance that you will crash, but you deem it
unlikely, so you drive anyway – even though there’s infinite variability
b. What are the risks if human testing is illegal?
i. When human testing is illegal, large chemical companies (think:
Monsanto) can give tons of money for underground research, not allowing
test subjects to go to the hospital if they get sick (think: The Constant
Gardener), which could result in hushed-up deaths
ii. When human testing is illegal, there is the chance (no matter how small)
for large-scale accidental death of those who come in contact w/ these
untested pesticides
c. What are the risks if human testing is legal? When human testing is legal, there is
only the chance (no matter how small – and in spite of the logic of my last point)
of small-scale death for people who voluntarily chose to be tested – this is a better
alternative

2. The reward:
a. What is the nature of reward? As I learned from Boy Meets World, there can be no
reward w/o some risk; the whole point is that you have to balance is the risk worth
the reward?
b. Is the reward worth it when chemical testing is legal?
i. It’s worth it for the people being tested – they are getting paid and are
doing a public good
ii. It’s worth it for the entire public – they get safer products that are going to
do a substantial good by improving the food industry (which impacts
everyone on a daily basis) and are not at risk of horrible side effects which
 would have been there w/o human testing; this eliminates the risk of large-
scale problems
iii. When human testing is legal, chemical companies have the incentive to
not even have there subjects die, which means they won’t have trial runs
w/ potentially lethal drugs – they don’t want to lose revenue by having
faulty products and horrible PR (think: Michael Clayton)

3. Role of government (EPA) / bodily autonomy

a. Consistency: Is there a meaningful distinction b/w drugs and pesticides? We say
no. In order for side opp. to win, they have to prove there is a clear and substantial
difference to justify allowing people to go through drug trials but prohibiting
chemical trials.
b. Tie goes to the runner: In order for the government to intervene, the burden of
proof rests w/ the government re: why intervention is necessary … we say
intervention is only justifiable when (a) there is no consent; (b) even w/ consent,
there would be negative externalities … in this case, there is IRB-standard
consent and only positive externalities
c. Bodily autonomy: A liberal democracy has no authority to intervene b/c the body
is property … in order for you to lead a fulfilling life, you must be able to do w/
your body as you would like as long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s ability to
do the same thing – in our case, we’re allowing people to live more fulfilling lives