It is stunning to learn that scientists are giving serious consideration to deliberately infecting human volunteers with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in order to assess the effectiveness of potential COVID-19 vaccines.
At first, it appeared that the advocates of such “human challenge studies” had gone so mad with panic that they had forgotten the history and horrors of medical experimentation on humans. On closer inspection, they included some of the world’s most respected vaccine researchers and medical ethicists, and even the WHO.
Their principal argument is that waiting for an answer from naturally occurring infections would take too long. The novel coronavirus has already infected 6.5 million people and killed more than 386,000, including 107,000 in the US alone. [Editor’s note: All three of these figures have increased since the article was written.]
In the absence of safe, effective vaccines and treatments, measures aimed at controlling the virus’ spread are ruining economies around the world. The WHO’s recent white paper on the use of human subjects for vaccine research makes it clear that such trials are a desperate last resort.
Vaccines are indeed the most effective medications. Some have conferred long-term immunity against great scourges such as smallpox, polio, typhoid, diphtheria, typhus and tetanus.
There are just as many diseases for which no truly effective vaccine exists, including HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.
Some vaccines can do more harm than good, as attempts to develop a dengue vaccine have demonstrated.
Caveats notwithstanding, the rush to develop a COVID-19 vaccine that would definitively end the loss of life and stop the economic devastation has already produced more than 100 candidates, all in very early stages of development.
With so many pharmaceutical companies and governments scrambling to get some skin in the game, each day seems to bring announcements of new programs, most of them unaccompanied by supporting data.
Deliberately infecting volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 to test the efficacy of vaccine candidates is unnecessary, uninformative and unethical.
Most vaccines are developed in the context of active epidemics. One prominent British researcher recently said that there is only a 50 percent chance that enough people in the UK would be infected with the virus for the University of Oxford vaccine field trial (as currently designed) to yield a statistically significant result.
What a curious statement. Does it mean that the trial is too small, or too short, or that the Oxford team expects their vaccine to be only partly effective — or all three?
After all, there is no shortage of new infections. On an average day, close to 100,000 newly confirmed cases are reported worldwide, and there is no other disease for which such a number was insufficient for a field trial of a drug or vaccine.
Surely, with more time and patience, a real test is possible.
Moreover, the major departure from the norm entailed by human challenge studies presupposes a lack of alternative means to control the pandemic.
Many East Asian countries, as well as some Nordic states, New Zealand and Australia, have so far successfully controlled the virus in the absence of highly effective drugs or vaccines. Even Wuhan, the Chinese city where it originated, is now essentially free of COVID-19, save for minor, containable flare-ups.
In each case, the relevant authorities have executed well-known, proven public health measures: clear messaging, strong stay-at-home orders, vigorous disease detection, contact tracing and mandatory supervised controlled isolation for all those exposed to the virus.
Although not every country is capable of implementing what works, all should try their best to control the pandemic through proven methods, rather than pinning their hopes on a vaccine that either would be slow in coming or might not work at all.
In addition, medical ethicists should consider governments’ moral obligations to protect citizens through proper use of public health measures, rather than by opening a Pandora’s box of unnecessary human experimentation.
Challenge studies are also uninformative. Protocols for vaccine trials envisage enrolling only young, healthy adults. This is understandable from a recruitment perspective, but COVID-19 morbidity and mortality are highest among the elderly, who have a plethora of underlying chronic diseases.
Numerous studies have shown that vaccines that are effective among the young can fail in older populations — sometimes completely. The body’s ability to respond to most, if not all, vaccines declines precipitously with age.
Are today’s COVID-19 vaccine developers seriously entertaining the idea of trials that use a live virus in this vulnerable population?
Furthermore, preliminary studies using nonhuman primates have already shown that potential vaccines might not provide complete protection; when confronted with the virus, the vaccinated animals were spared serious infection of the lungs, but not of the nasal passages.
The same was true of the wide variety of vaccine candidates previously developed for SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), also coronaviruses. The implications of partial protection for both community spread and human disease are not well understood.
Finally, human challenge trials are unethical. SARS-CoV-2 causes multisystem disease in about 20 percent of those infected, and the incidence might be even higher in challenge studies, given the large virus doses likely to be used.
Infection might permanently damage the heart, lungs, brain and kidneys, in the young as well as the old. Moreover, once someone is infected, there is no known drug that completely cures or even ameliorates COVID-19, much less reverses serious damage.
Because it is extremely unlikely that all vaccine candidates would work in all trials, a number of volunteers would be permanently harmed.
If such trials are unnecessary, uninformative, and dangerous, then they are by definition unethical.
In the rush to find a “medical miracle” to end the pandemic’s toll in human lives and livelihoods, these trials would jeopardize the centuries-old moral imperative to do no harm, possibly destroying trust in the integrity of science and medicine for generations to come.
In that case, the losses we would face would be far greater.
William Haseltine, a scientist, biotech entrepreneur and infectious disease expert, is chair and president of the global health think tank ACCESS Health International.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Lockheed Martin on Tuesday responded to concerns over delayed shipments of F-16V Block 70 jets, saying it had added extra shifts on its production lines to accelerate progress. The Ministry of National Defense on Monday said that delivery of all 66 F-16V Block 70 jets — originally expected by the end of next year — would be pushed back due to production line relocations and global supply chain disruptions. Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) said that Taiwan and the US are working to resolve the delays, adding that 50 of the aircraft are in production, with 10 scheduled for flight
RSS