Edgar Alexander Pask (1912-1966). Sus contribuciones científicas durante la segunda guerra mundial y en la Universidad De Newcastle Upon Tyne / Edgar Alexander Pask (1912-1966). His Scientific Contributions During The Second World War And In Newcastle Upon Tyne University

Edgar Alexander Pask Catedrático de Anestesiología de la Universidad de Newcastle upon Tyne realizó importantes auto-experimentos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Aportamos datos biográficos y su currículo científico. Trabajó en el Departamento Nuffield de Anestesia de Oxford con el Profesor Sir Robert Macintosh. Permitió ser anestesiado en múltiples ocasiones con éter durantela realización de estas investigaciones en el Centro de Fisiología de la RAF en Farnborough. Estudio de los efectos de la hipoxia endescensos en paracaídas, estudio de la eficacia de las distintas técnica de ventilación artificial, estudio de la eficacia de los distintossalvavidas. Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial sus contribuciones científicas estuvieron relacionadas con la fisiología respiratoria, la monitorización, mortalidad e infecciones. Desarrolló aparatos de ventilación artificial, monitores de determinación de gasesarteriales y anestésicos. En su honor, la Asociación de Anestesistas de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda creó la Medalla Pask. (AU)

Edgar Alexander Pask Professor of Anaesthesia at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne performed self-experiments during the Second World War. We describe his scientific curriculum vitae and biographical data. He worked in the Nuffield Department of Anaesthesia in Oxford with Professor sir Robert Macintosh. He allowed himself to be anaesthetized with ether on many occasions duringthese experiments in the Physiological Laboratory, RAF Research Station in Farnborough. His research was: Studies of breathingin high altitude descend with a parachute in hypoxemia, study of the efficacy of different methods of artificial respiration, testingof life jackets. After the Second World War his scientific reports were related with respiratory physiology, monitoring, mortality andinfections. He developed ventilators, monitoring equipment of arterial blood gases and anaesthetic drugs. In his honour Pask Medalof the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland was established. (AU)

The pain of weight gain: self-experimentation with overfeeding.

The Vermont overfeeding studies were published 50 y ago and began a change in the acceptance of obesity as a bona fide area of academic interest. This article chronicles the experience of the author with acute weight gain while overfeeding, in the context of current obesity research, and presents a glimpse of things to come. The pain associated with acute overeating is illustrated by the firsthand experience of the author. The rapid return to normal weight contrasts with the difficulty that almost all people with obesity experience when they attempt to lose and maintain weight loss. Contrasting the response to overfeeding of individuals who are "resistant" to obesity with those who are obesity prone provides an avenue for unraveling the difficulties people with obesity face when they try to lose weight.

Current Day Auto-Experimentation of Psychotropic Medications by French Psychiatrists.

Auto-experimentation is a relatively unknown practice, albeit central to the history of medical discoveries. Outside of the context of research, auto-experimentation with psychotropic medications by psychiatrists currently persists in an informal manner. However, this contemporary practice has never been studied so far. This study was conducted by distributing an electronic questionnaire to French hospital-based psychiatrists and residents of psychiatry in the summer of 2016. Lifetime prevalence of taking psychotropic medications and the context of this ingestion were questioned: "therapeutic", "auto-therapeutic", "research protocol", "auto-experimentation/curiosity", "recreation" or "other". We only studied "auto-experimentation/curiosity" in this article. Participants were also asked their age and gender. Seven hundred and sixty-four participants were included. 15.1% of participants declared having already taken psychotropic medication at least once in the context of "auto-experimentation/curiosity". We found that those who reported taking medication for "auto-experimentation/curiosity" had a significant association with being male (p < .001) but no relationship to age. This practice highlights and questions psychiatry's relationship with formal and informal knowledge, the importance of the subjectivity of each professional in psychiatry and the epistemological foundations of our discipline. The strong ambivalence of the medical field toward this relatively taboo practice deserves further exploration.

Collective self-experimentation in patient-led research: How online health communities foster innovation.

Researchers across academia, government, and private industry increasingly value patient-led research for its ability to produce quick results from large samples of the population. This study examines the role played by self-experimentation in the production of health data collected in these projects. We ask: How does the collaborative context of online health communities, with their ability to facilitate far-reaching collaborations over time and space, transform the practice and epistemological foundations of engaging in n = 1 experimentation? We draw from a digital ethnography of an online patient-led research movement, in which participants engage in self-experiments to develop a protocol for using psilocybe-containing mushrooms as a treatment for cluster headache, an excruciating neurological disease for which there is little medical research and huge unmet treatment need. We find that the collectivizing features of the internet have collectivized self-experimentation. Group dynamics shape everything in "collective self-experimentation," from individual choices of intervention, reporting of outcomes, data analysis, determinations of efficacy, to embodiment. This study raises important questions about the role that individuals play in the creation of medical knowledge and the data that informs crowdsourced research.

L'auto-expérimentation athlétique du docteur Fernand Lagrange (1880-1900).

This article examines the efforts of Dr. Fernand Lagrange to establish the study of the physiology of exercise on a scientific basis. As a sports enthusiast and physician, Lagrande was inspired by the efforts of Claude Bernard and Étienne-Jules Marey to use his own body as a source of experimentation and methodical observation. Lagrande's self-experimentation pioneered the physiology of exercise, but his primary goal was to improve human health by demonstrating the benefits that could be derived from regular physical exercise. His observations of other human subjects, be they farmers, schoolchildren, students, or sportsmen, were always driven by the "moral motivation" for his new science to realize a more perfect knowledge of its object.

Cet article a pour but de dévoiler l'origine des travaux de Fernand Lagrange et la méthodologie qu'il a mise en place, à une époque où la physiologie des exercices corporels n'en était qu'à ses balbutiements. Il en ressort que ce docteur sportsman a éprouvé personnellement les choses avant de les éclairer scientifiquement. Dans la veine impulsée par Claude Bernard ou Étienne-Jules Marey, il a pratiqué ce que l'on est en droit d'appeler une auto-expérimentation athlétique. Précurseur incontestable et incontesté de la physiologie des exercices du corps, son objectif premier fut d'améliorer la santé de l'être humain en démontrant tous les bénéfices que ce dernier pouvait tirer d'une pratique physique régulière. Il a toujours porté un regard sur les autres, qu'ils soient paysans, écoliers, étudiants ou sportifs, avec une « motivation morale ¼, et ce en vue de fonder son intervention avec une parfaite connaissance de son objet.

Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists.

We examine self-experimentation ethics history and practice, related law, use scenarios in universities and industry, and attitudes. We show through analysis of the historical development of medical ethics and regulation, from Hippocrates through Good Clinical Practice that there are no ethical barriers to self-experimentation. When the self-experimenter is a true investigator, there is no other party to be protected from unethical behavior. We discuss the n-of-1 issue in self-experiments, and make suggestions for improving experiment design. We discuss real-world scenarios of self-experimentation: at universities, for independent single-subject investigators, investigator/employees at pharmaceutical firms, and nonscientist self-experimenters. Our survey of ethics committees regarding policy and review for self-experimenting investigators show that approximately one-third of ethics committee respondents had a policy regarding self-experimentation, and one-third did not require ethical committee review of proposed experiments. There was no relationship between having a policy and asking for review. We also surveyed member attitudes to, and experiences of, self-experimentation among members of the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, and European Academy of Sciences. To our knowledge, this survey is the first breakdown of self-experiments into impact-relevant type classifications, and represents an advance in the field. Half of our scientist respondents performed self-experiments, and roughly one-fifth had conducted serious self-experiments. Most responders thought self-experiments were valuable, however, biologics injections, radiation exposure, and surgical implants had negative ratings greater than positive. We conclude that self-experimenters should not have attempts made to terminate them, bar them from use of facilities, nor be barred from using themselves or their tissues except in exceptional circumstances. Organizational uncertainty over the ethical and regulatory status of self-experimentation, and resulting fear of consequences is unjustified and may be blocking a route to human experiments that practicing scientists widely consider appropriate, and which historical precedent has shown is valuable.

Self-Experiments with Psychoactive Substances: A Historical Perspective.

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the rich tradition of self-experiments (SEs) with psychoactive substances carried out by scientists and therapists for more than a century. Scientifically inspired controlled SEs dominated until the end of the twentieth century, when ethical requirements minimized controlled SEs and "wild" SEs expanded particularly with the emergence of new psychoactive substances. The review focuses on laughing gas (nitrous oxide), cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, entactogens, and dissociative hallucinogens. This is due to the fact that substances that induce "complex" effects such as alteration of space/time experience, ego dissolution, and increased feelings and insights (e.g., hallucinogens, entactogens) represent by far the majority of SEs, whereas SEs with substances inducing "simple" effects such as euphoria, anxiolysis, dissociation, or emotional blunting (e.g., cocaine, opioids) are much rarer or even absent (e.g., benzodiazepines). Complex drug effects are much harder to describe, thus allowing SEs to fulfill a more important function.SEs with psychoactive drugs appeared to emerge in the mid-eighteenth century, which triggered a long-standing tradition throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. SEs have been de facto performed for a variety of reasons, ranging from establishing scientific knowledge and gaining philosophical insights to compensating for personal deficits. Self-experimenters can be divided into two general types. Besides their scientific intentions, "exploratory" self-experimenters intend to expand awareness and insight, whereas "compensatory" self-experimenters might aim for coping with psychiatric symptoms or personality deficits. Scientific limitations of SEs are obvious when compared to double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Whereas the former might lead to more "realistic" detailed description of subjective effects, the latter lead to more solid results in respect to objectively measurable "average" effects. Possible adverse effects of SEs were identified that resulted in loss of scientific objectivity and decreased control over substance use and addiction, development of isolation, problematic group dynamics, and "social autism."

Opening (and Swallowing) A Can of Worms to Treat My Crohn's Disease.

Editor's Note: This article discusses the experience, ingenuity, and determination of Sean Ahrens, a young patient with Crohn's disease who took it upon himself to treat his longstanding, symptomatic Crohn's disease with pig whipworm eggs. Reading this story will make some of you uncomfortable. You might question whether this work belongs in a medical journal or sends the wrong message to readers. However, we recognize that this topic is controversial and that N=1 reports cannot and should not change practice. The purpose of this story is not to encourage the use of pig whipworm or to demonstrate its efficacy (or lack thereof). We firmly believe that patients are uniquely qualified to provide insights into how they view their illnesses, weigh risks and benefits, and ultimately achieve self-efficacy. Stories like this are important for us to acknowledge and understand, even if they do not change our practice.

The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals.

Scientists and neuroethicists have recently drawn attention to the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding the do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation community, which comprises individuals stimulating their own brains with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for self-improvement. However, to date, existing regulatory proposals and ethical discussions have been put forth without engaging those involved in the DIY tDCS community or attempting to understand the nature of their practices. I argue that to better contend with the growing ethical and safety concerns surrounding DIY tDCS, we need to understand the practices of the community. This study presents the results of a preliminary inquiry into the DIY tDCS community, with a focus on knowledge that is formed, shared and appropriated within it. I show that when making or acquiring a device, DIYers (as some members call themselves) produce a body of knowledge that is completely separate from that of the scientific community, and share it via online forums, blogs, videos and personal communications. However, when applying tDCS, DIYers draw heavily on existing scientific knowledge, posting links to academic journal articles and scientific resources and adopting the standardised electrode placement system used by scientists. Some DIYers co-opt scientific knowledge and modify it by creating their own manuals and guides based on published papers. Finally, I explore how DIYers cope with the methodological limitations inherent in self-experimentation. I conclude by discussing how a deeper understanding of the practices of DIY tDCS has important regulatory and ethical implications.

A framework for self-experimentation in personalized health.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an interdisciplinary and methodological framework for applying single case study designs to self-experimentation in personalized health. The authors examine the framework's applicability to various health conditions and present an initial case study with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: An in-depth literature review was performed to develop the framework and to identify absolute and desired health condition requirements for the application of this framework. The authors developed mobile application prototypes, storyboards, and process flows of the framework using IBS as the case study. The authors conducted three focus groups and an online survey using a human-centered design approach for assessing the framework's feasibility. RESULTS: All 6 focus group participants had a positive view about our framework and volunteered to participate in future studies. Most stated they would trust the results because it was their own data being analyzed. They were most concerned about confounds, nonmeaningful measures, and erroneous assumptions on the timing of trigger effects. Survey respondents (N = 60) were more likely to be adherent to an 8- vs 12-day study length even if it meant lower confidence results. DISCUSSION: Implementation of the self-experimentation framework in a mobile application appears to be feasible for people with IBS. This framework can likely be applied to other health conditions. Considerations include the learning curve for teaching self-experimentation to non-experts and the challenges involved in operationalizing and customizing study designs. CONCLUSION: Using mobile technology to guide people through self-experimentation to investigate health questions is a feasible and promising approach to advancing personalized health.