We all watch the movies : A scientist or group of scientists secretly build a mutant, mutant start attacking people. Hero kills the mutant without a scratch, saves the girl, and everyone goes home happy.
Science has proven to be quite ambitious; vying to find solution and causes to phenomenas that has been boggling us. Unfortunately not all ambitions are healthy and the only way to confirm some theories is extremely immoral. The Nazi and US human experimentation further proves that.

As an aftermath of human experimenter, a lot of potentially useful experiment has been banned by the ever strict boards.


Here are some experiment which will benefit mankind if only they weren't so unethical. You ready?? Leggo


1) HUMAN CLONING : ( the making of new humans asexually)

We have all heard of cloning and marveled at its wonders (even if it hasn't gotten to Nigeria yet). The various advantages and disadvantages of it should be quite common to us. However cloning a human isn't allowed. Do not think it will be an easy task; the human body is made up of some octillion (10^27) atoms and to get it right will be friggin challenging. But if it were perfected, it will answer some great philosophical questions:
- Is the soul real or a fable

- Will the clone retain a person's behaviour or will it be like a baby

- Is the mind a one on one thing or can it be shared amongst two people.

- Is "body-switching" between the two possible??

But alas, we will never know, Human Cloning stinks too much of Hitler..........

If this does not get to FP then all the mods and all what they have being doing is unethical .Nice one OP i am following

2) HUMAN MUTATION: Mutation, as we know, is a principal part in evolution hence the need for it if humans are to evolve. Unfortunately, mutation doesn't just work quite right: It is usually harmful; rarely benefical. The Hiroshima babies, Chernobyl people just further confirms that theory.

However, there have been cases of humans who have experienced benefical mutation. There has been some people who have evolved a resistance to malaria, people who have extremely clear visions underwater, people who has even developed an immunity to HIV!!!!

Surely, mutation will take the human race to the next evolutionary stage if allowed to occur.

It would be quite easy really. All we need is a female test subject who is just some weeks pregnant and we expose her to some radiation (mild, or intense depending on the expected result).

We can also perform gene splicing (removal of a certain gene, addition of one) to the foetus before birth. We monitor the foetus growth and record the result (ugly or pretty). By the time the baby is born, his life is carefully studied and the result will almost certainly further prove/disprove evolution, depending on the result.

Mutation will also make us able to bring ourselves to the next specie; whatever it might be.

But alas, mutation, like cloning is reminiscent of the days of WWII, Hiroshima to be precise.



Besides, there is absolutely no way any medical board will allow this to happen

3) BRAIN SAMPLING : Donating live brain cells for analysis
You might donate blood or hair for scientific
research, but how about a tiny slice of your
brain—while you’re still alive? Medical ethics
wouldn’t let you consent to that even if you
wanted to, and for good reason: It’s an
invasive surgery with serious risks. But if
enough healthy patients agreed, it could
help answer a huge question: How does
nurture affect nature, and vice versa?
Although scientists recognize in principle
that our environment can alter our DNA, they
have few documented examples of how
these so-called epigenetic changes happen
and with what consequences.
Animal studies suggest the consequences
could be profound. A 2004 McGill University
study of lab rats found that certain maternal
behaviors can silence a gene in the
hippocampi of their pups, leaving them less
able to handle stress hormones. In 2009, a
McGill-led team got a hint of a similar effect
in humans: In the brains of dead people
who had been abused as children and then
committed suicide, the analogous gene was
largely inhibited. But what about in living
brains? When does the shift happen? With
brain sampling, we might come to
understand the real neurologic toll of child
abuse and potentially a great deal more than
that.

The process is really quite simple: Researchers would obtain brain cells just as
a surgeon does when conducting a biopsy:
After lightly sedating the patient, they would
attach a head ring with four pins, using local
anesthetic to numb the skin. A surgeon
would make an incision a few millimeters
wide in the scalp, drill a small hole through
the skull, and insert a biopsy needle to grab
a tiny bit of tissue. A thin slice would be
sufficient, since you need only a few
micrograms of DNA. Assuming no infection
or surgical error, damage to the brain would
be minimal.

The advantage?:
Such an experiment might answer some
deep questions about how we learn. Does
reading turn on genes in the prefrontal
cortex, the site of higher-order cognition?
Does spending lots of time at a batting cage
alter the epigenetic status of genes in the
motor cortex? Does watching Nollywood filmtricks alter genes in whatever brain
you have left? By correlating experiences
with the DNA in our heads, we could better
understand how the whole correlation works; and we're a step closer to understand the mind.


But alas, Medical Ethics says NO WAY.

4) HUMAN INTERSPECIES-BREEDING (crossing a human with a chimpanzee)

Of all unethical experiments, this would probably be the one that no scientists would dare come close to. Any paper published on the results would be shut down, rejected, denied and even burnt. What a shame. What a shame.

Stephen Jay Gould, the staunch evolutionist, called
it “the most potentially interesting and
ethically unacceptable experiment I can
imagine.” The idea? Mating a human with a
chimpanzee!
His interest in this monstrosity grew
out of his work with snails, closely related
species of which can display wide variation
in shell architecture. Gould attributed this
diversity to a few master genes, which turn
on and off the shared genes responsible for
constructing the shells. Perhaps, he
hypothesized, the large visible differences
between humans and apes were also a
factor of developmental timing. He pointed
out that adult humans have physical traits,
such as larger craniums and wide-set eyes,
that resemble infant chimpanzees, a
phenomenon known as neoteny—the
retention of juvenile traits in adults. Gould
theorized that over the course of evolution,
a tendency toward neoteny might have
helped give rise to human beings.


By watching the development of a half-human,
half-chimp, researchers could explore this
theory in a firsthand (and truly disgusting) way.

How it works:
It would probably be frighteningly easy: The
same techniques used for in vitro
fertilization would likely yield a viable hybrid
human-chimp embryo. (Researchers have
already spanned a comparable genetic gap
in breeding a rhesus monkey with a
baboon.) Chimps have 24 pairs of
chromosomes, and humans 23, but this is
not an absolute barrier to breeding. The
offspring would likely have an odd number
of chromosomes, though, which might
make them unable to reproduce themselves.
As for the gestation and birth, it could be
done the natural way. Chimpanzees are born
slightly smaller than humans, on average—
around 4 pounds—and so comparative
anatomy would argue for growing the
embryo in a human uterus.

The advantage(s) :
Gould’s idea about neoteny remains
controversial, to say the least. (some claim it has racist undertones). This
forbidden experiment would help to resolve
that debate and, in a broader sense,
illuminate how two species with such
similar genomes could be so different. Its
outcome would take biologists deep into
the origin of the species we care about
most: ourselves.



Oh, and it will also explain why OBJ ...............never mind

5) HEAD TO BODY TRANSPLANT (attaching a man's head to another man's body): This is one of the main bane for sci-fi novels from the 1900's to now the 21st Century. Last year, an Italian Doctor, Dr Canevaro, proposed that he had found the solution to the head to body transplant problem. His theory is batshit crazy but let us for the sake of argument accept it actually works. The advantage involved in such transplant is simple : Immortality.

6) Seperating IDENTICAL TWINS: In the quest to to discern the difference between
nature and nurture, researchers have one
obvious resource: identical twins, two
people whose genes are nearly 100 percent
the same.
But twins almost always grow up
together, in essentially the same
environment. A few studies have been able
to track twins separated at a young age,
usually by adoption. But it’s impossible to
control retroactively for all the ways that the
lives of even separated twins are still related.

If scientists could control the siblings from
the start, they could construct a rigorously
designed study. It would be one of the least
ethical studies imaginable, but it might be
the only way (short of cloning humans for research)
that we’d ever solve some big questions
about genetics and upbringing.



How it works:
Expectant mothers of twins would need to
be recruited ahead of time so the
environments of each sibling could differ
from the moment of birth. After choosing
what factors to investigate, researchers
could construct test homes for the children,
ensuring that every aspect of their
upbringing, from diet to climate, was
controlled and measured.

The advantages:

Several disciplines would benefit
enormously, but none more than
psychology, in which the role of upbringing
has long been particularly hazy.
Developmental psychologists could arrive at
some unprecedented insights into
personality—finally explaining, for example,
why twins raised together can turn out
completely different, while those raised
apart can wind up very alike

Fascinating Kudos

fvck ethics they should try no 4

taurus25:
fvck ethics they should try no 4

would u volunteer

Timothy3113:
would u volunteer

LOL... there are sperm donors now

7) Add yours...................................

i smell frontpage

surrogatesng:
i smell frontpage

yes o......fp material

hmmmm

bump

No 5 tho

Politicians will have access to immortality




No 2 tho, very risky.

Wot if they end up creating a monster or anoda disease

I'm very sure the US and some other countries would be working on at least two of this secretly....that head transplant dosen't mean immortality, the brain will still get old and the cells will die.....and brain cells don't regenerate

sinaj:
No 5 tho

Politicians will have access to immortality




No 2 tho, very risky.

Wot if they end up creating a monster or anoda disease

Progress has its risks.