The Origins of Human Experimentation

From the Book of Daniel to Ancient Rome

Aug 23, 2009 Jeffrey Willett

The practice and ethics of human experimentation is not a modern phenomenon, but has origins in ancient medicine and culture.

When viewed objectively, medicine is not the same as human experimentation. A doctor treats patients for their own benefit, while an experimenter uses subjects to test hypotheses and solve research questions. Although a doctor and an experimenter share common medical training, their functions are different — even while both roles are frequently combined in research settings. How can doctors serve the best interests of patients when their research is funded by pharmaceutical companies that want to test the safety and effectiveness of an experimental drug? This question can be answered only after examining how human experimentation has evolved over time.

Biblical Origins of Human Experimentation

Experimentation on humans has Biblical origins. The Book of Daniel relates how King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon commanded that a few young Israelites be brought into his court and trained in traditional Chaldean customs. While undergoing their studies, the Israelites would eat and drink the same food as other members of the royal court.

As one of the chosen Israelites, however, Daniel refused to touch the royal rations of meat and wine and instead asked only for “vegetables to eat and water to drink” (1:12). Believing that a vegetarian diet was more healthy than one overloaded with animal fat and alcohol, Daniel requested that his diet be strictly regulated for 10 days; at the end of that time, a comparison would be made. The palace master agreed, and when the 10-day experiment was concluded, Daniel's physical appearance was observed to be “better and fatter” than other men being fed traditional “royal rations” (1:15). Although Daniel freely offered himself to research, experimentation on less voluntary subjects was more typical of the period.

Human Experimentation in Ancient Egypt

In ancient times, religious and political leaders held absolute command over their subjects. The whims of a ruler decided what actions were lawful and ethical. As a result, human experimentation without consent was no obstacle to medical progress.

In the 1st Century BC, Cleopatra VII of Egypt (69 BC–30 BC) believed that it took only 40 days to make a fully-formed male fetus, while a female fetus needed twice as long to develop. To test her hypothesis, Cleopatra devised a simple experiment. Handmaids who had been sentenced to death were first impregnated and then their wombs were cut open at different gestation periods so that the fetal progression could be studied. Unfortunately, there is no record of the experimental results, nor of how many young women suffered and died to advance medical understanding.

Human Experimentation in Ancient Rome

Also in the 1st Century BC, a Roman writer named Aulus Cornelius Celsus (25 BC–50 AD) assembled an encyclopedia of contemporary knowledge about agriculture, law, medicine, military science, and philosophy. The larger work is now lost; the only surviving portion of the manuscript is De medicina, which focuses on Roman medicine and surgery in eight books.

The Preface (‘Prooemium’) is notable for discussing human experimentation in the context of dissection as well as involuntary vivisection. As Celsus observed, “no one can apply remedies . . . who is ignorant about the parts themselves,” and thus it was necessary “to open the bodies of the dead and to scrutinize their viscera and intestines” (translation paragraph 23). Celsus, however, also acknowledged that dissection of the dead did not afford a practitioner the same benefits as opening a living body: “Nor is anything more foolish . . . than to suppose that whatever the condition of the part of a man’s body in life, it will also be the same when he is dying” (translation paragraph 42).

Criminals as Subjects of Human Experimentation

Although observation of the interior parts of gladiators or soldiers who had been wounded in battle was beneficial, such occurrences were too infrequent to further the interests of medicine. Celsus noted that both the Greek physician Herophilus (335 BC – 280 BC) and the Greek anatomist Erasistratus (304 BC–250 BC) did their studies “in the best way by far,” which involved cutting open the bodies of criminals “while these were still breathing” (translation paragraphs 23-24).

Roman physicians had no qualms about following the ethics of their Greek predecessors. In fact, experimenting on unwilling criminals was not viewed as immoral, so long as there was a possible benefit to society as a whole: “Nor is it, as most people say, cruel that in the execution of criminals . . . we should seek remedies for innocent people of all future ages” (translation paragraph 26).

During this period of history, the ethics of human experimentation put little emphasis on the welfare of the individual. This unfortunate attitude would prevail for thousands of years.

References

Book of Daniel. 1989. New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Christian Catholics Ethereal Library.

Celsus AC. Volume I. Prooemium. De medicina. (reprinted through Loeb Classical Library edition, 1935). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Text is in public domain.]

The copyright of the article The Origins of Human Experimentation in Scientific Inquiry is owned by Jeffrey Willett. Permission to republish The Origins of Human Experimentation in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Medicine Requires Experimentation

Aulus Cornelius Celsus