In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
To wit, a silly investigator using
himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without
subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been
"non-science" to further his position.

Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short
of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a
scientist to determine the consequences of black widow
poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers?
Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His
report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified
to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his
experiences are worth at least as much as other victims,
and better than most.

When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the
subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to
accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the
hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation.

When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself
I am thinking of two things.

1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo
procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test
subjects.

2) Self-knowledge.

I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone
to observe the effects. His observations are at least as
valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an
end; better in my opinion.

Following in the footsteps of Dr. Albert Hofmann.

And Dr. Barry Marshall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

Ulcers: they can be cured,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos