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 Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

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 annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This manuscript explores the ethics of human inoculation experiments in young healthy adults with wild-type severe acute respiratory sydrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a tool to evaluate vaccine efficacy in the context of the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report, and in the context of dose-response relationships with infectious agents. Despite societal pressure to develop a SARS-CoV-2 challenge model to evaluate vaccines, we argue that there are substantial risks that cannot be adequately defined because the dose of SARS-CoV-2 that causes severe disease in young adults is unknown. In the absence of curative therapy, even if a volunteer consents, longstanding ethical codes governing human subjects research preclude the conduct of such experiments.

Human Challenge Studies With Wild-Type Severe Acute Respiratory Sydrome Coronavirus 2 Violate Longstanding Codes of Human Subjects Research