English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In the debate surrounding testing pesticides on human subjects, two distinct positions have emerged. The first position holds that pesticide experiments on human subjects should be allowed, but only under stringent scientific and ethical standards. The second position asserts that these experiments should never be allowed. In this article, we evaluate what we consider to be the strongest argument for the second position--namely, that the benefits of the experiments are not significant enough to justify the risks posed to healthy subjects. We challenge this argument by examining the benefits and risks of testing pesticides on human subjects. We argue that a study that intentionally exposes humans subjects to pesticides should be permitted if a) the knowledge gained from the study is expected to promote human health; b) the knowledge cannot be reasonably obtained by other means; c) the study is not expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to the subjects; and d) appropriate safeguards are in place to minimize harm to the subjects.

Pesticide Testing on Human Subjects: Weighing Benefits and Risks