One of the more recent trends in globalization is the increase of medicine testing abroad. Western pharmaceutical companies relocate their tests to developing countries. Most of us will have the intuition that this relocation is not unproblematic, without immediately knowing what is wrong or why. I argue that ipso facto there is nothing wrong with medicine tests in developing countries, and that they can even have beneficial effects. The problem, however, is that it is very difficult to distinguish beneficial from harmful (or even exploitative) forms. In this paper I want to answer two questions. (1) How can we distinguish beneficial from harmful forms of medicine testing abroad? (2) Which policies can allow and encourage beneficial forms of medicine testing abroad without allowing non-beneficial forms? The plan of the paper is as follows. In the first two sections I describe medicine testing abroad, explain how this practice is fuelled by the emerging globalization, and emphasize the ethical questions involved. Section three focuses on the motivations of Western pharmaceutical companies to relocate their medicine tests to developing countries and distinguishes morally neutral from morally problematic motivations. Section 4 shifts the attention from pharmaceutical companies to western governments. Since the medicine tests are aimed to gain access to their markets and they can refuse test-designs, western governments can determine how these tests are conducted. I discuss four possible ways how western governments can deal with the ethical implications of medicine testing abroad. Section 5 concludes by describing some possible institutional provisions that can be used to enforce these ethical requirements on pharmaceutical corporations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]