A virologist recently made headlines after successfully using an experimental form of oncolytic virotherapy (OVT) to treat her own recurrent breast cancer. This case has come at a time when regulators are increasingly having to grapple with the proliferation of self-experimentation outside of accredited research institutions. There is therefore a pressing need to outline the key ethical dimensions of self-experimentation, and to develop ethical guidance for journals that may be faced with decisions about whether to publish research involving self-experimentation. In this paper, we aim to provide such guidance. We argue that whilst self-experimentation is not always ethically problematic, neither is there an in principle moral reason for exempting self-experimentation from ethical evaluation. After summarising the details of the recent case report of self-experimentation, and briefly placing it in historical context, we suggest that it is possible to navigate the ethical issues raised in cases of self-experimentation by returning to fundamental values in research ethics, focusing on the implications of self-experimentation for respect for respect for autonomy, reasonable risk, and preventing harm to others. We apply these principles to the case report, and explain why the publication of this report can be morally justified. We ultimately advocate for a case-by-case assessment of studies involving self-experimentation submitted for publication by ethical review boards and journal editors, and we propose a decision-making algorithm to help guide such decisions.
Self-censorship: Should scientific journals decline to publish self-experimentation. Wilkinson, D.
5 September 2025