Search

Here presented for the first time are results showing persistence over a 5+ year period in a human who had a hormone gene therapy administered to muscle. This growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) therapy was administered in two doses, a year apart, with a mean after the second dose of 195 ng/mL (13 × normal, σ = 143, σ M  = 34, max = 495, min = 53). This level of GHRH therapy appears to be safe for the subject, although there were some adverse events. Insulin-like growth factor 1 levels were little affected, nor were the growth hormone test results, showing no indications of acromegaly for the hormone homologue used. Heart rate declined 8 to 13 bpm, persistent over 5 years. Testosterone rose by 52% (σ = 22%, σ M  = 6%). The high-density lipoprotein/low-density lipoprotein ratio dropped from 3.61 to mean 2.81 (σ = 0.26, σ M  = 0.057, max = 3.3, min = 2.5), and triglycerides declined from 196 mg/dL to mean 94.4 mg/dL (σ = 21.9, σ M  = 5.0, min = 59, max = 133, min = 59). White blood cell counts increased, however, the baseline was not strong. CD4 and CD8 mean increased by11.7% (σ = 11.6%, σ M  = 3.3%, max = 30.7%, min = -9.6%) and 12.0% (σ = 10.5%, σ M  = 3.0%, max = 29.1%, min = -6.7%), respectively. Ancillary observations comprise an early period of euphoria, and a dramatic improvement in visual correction after the first dose, spherical correction from baseline (L/R) -2.25/-2.75 to -0.25/-0.5. Over the next 5 years, correction drifted back to -1.25/-1.75. Horvath PhenoAge was cut 44.1% post-treatment. At completion, epigenetic age was -6 years (-9.3%), and telomere age was +7 months (+0.9%).

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.