As I biohacker I do quite a bit of self-experimentation. There is an interesting ethical question about self-experimentation. Obviously people have the right to make their own decisions. Self Experimentation has a long history in Medicine and at least five Nobel Prize winners have won a prize following self experimentation. However, it is potentially dangerous and people have died. The ethical question is whether researchers should be penalised by being unwilling to self-experiment. To that extent some US ethics committee argue against the academic publishing system accepting the results of self-experimentation. I personally, unsurprisingly, think that is wrong. There should not be a condition of employment that people self-experiment, but it cannot be right to exclude the results. We also need to recognise that there are serious problems with animal experiments. Everything Wrong with Mouse Studies (Kinda) subtitled: Odors, magnetic fields, and even a mouse's siblin...
Professor Thomas Seyfried and the Question: Is Cancer Primarily Nuclear DNA or Mitochondrial DNA? Professor Thomas Seyfried argues that cancer is mainly mitochondrial rather than purely nuclear/genetic. Below are the key experiments supporting the view that cytoplasmic/mitochondrial factors, rather than nuclear mutations alone, drive the malignant phenotype. Nuclear Transfer Experiments (Cancer Nuclei → Normal Cytoplasm) McKinnell, R.G., Deggins, B.A., Labat, D.D. (1969) Transplantation of pluripotential nuclei from triploid frog tumors Science, 165(3891):394-6 Summary: Nuclei from frog renal tumor cells transplanted into enucleated eggs developed into normal swimming tadpoles, demonstrating that cancer nuclei retained developmental pluripotency when placed in normal cytoplasm. McKinnell, R.G. (1979) The pluripotential genome of the frog renal tumor cell as revealed by nuclear transplantation International Review of Cytology Supplemen...