Healthy people try poison! Britain's new crown "human challenge trial" behind

, Feb. 20 (Xinhua) -- After about a year of controversy, the world's first "human challenge trial" of the new coronavirus has finally landed in the United Kingdom, has been recognized by the country's ethics agencies.
year, the new crown epidemic has swept the globe, infecting more than 110 million people and killing 2.45 million. Since this "human challenge test" requires healthy volunteers to "test the drug", whether the test should be activated quickly sparked debate around the world.
supporters argue that the trials have a positive effect on understanding viruses, vaccine development, and others argue that they pose ethical and practical problems that could hurt not only volunteers but also the public's confidence in existing vaccines.
, the trial will further sting nerves after it was introduced into a long and arduous war. What are the risks and pitfalls of the experiment? Can researchers weigh the balance between volunteer safety and virus research? Can the sacrifice of volunteers be in exchange for the desired result? Too many questions to answer.17, 2021, Imperial College said the country's ethics agency had endorsed a new "human challenge trial" program. The project, which has been funded by the British government, will be carried out in collaboration with Imperial College, healthcare firm HVIVO and the Royal Free NHS Trust in London.
news came out, the world's attention. One of the biggest controversies is that healthy volunteers need to "test them for drugs" in order to do research. During the study, the new coronavirus will be dropped into the volunteers' nasal cavity, the British media said. After that, they will be quarantined in the hospital for 14 days. During this period, the medical team will be closely monitored.
in this way, subjects are 'challenged' by the virus,' he said. This is different from standard clinical trials of vaccines, where vaccines are given to people who are naturally infected with the virus. The Indian Express reported on February 18th.
the first phase of the study will analyse the minimum amount of viruses that cause new coronavirus infections. At this stage, it is planned to recruit no more than 90 healthy young people between the ages of 18 and 30. "Should scientists infect healthy people with new crowns to test the vaccine?" march 2020 in the international authoritative journal Nature. Choosing younger, healthier people can significantly reduce the risk of trials, according to the article.
the future, British media said, a small percentage of volunteers may be vaccinated first and then exposed to the mutant virus to help find the most effective new coronavirus - although studies at this stage have not yet been approved." my team has safely conducted more than 10 years of human challenge research with other respiratory viruses. None of the studies were completely risk-free." Chris Qiu, director of the new Crown Human Challenge Trials, said.
a February 17, 2021, bulletin from Imperial College, Imperial College said the trial would be conducted in a safe and controlled environment.Given limited awareness of the mutated new coronavirus, the trial will use the virus, which spread in the UK in March 2020, while volunteers will be exposed to the virus in specialized isolation facilities, and researchers will closely monitor the safety of volunteers and medical staff will be available for treatment, the
bulletin said.
, after the trial, volunteers were tested for the virus twice, and only those with negative results were able to leave.
In May 2020, WHO issued guidance on such trials, ingesting that under certain conditions they are "ethically acceptable, but carefully designed and tested" to minimize harm to volunteers, and that trials should be conducted to "higher standards" when "higher risks, higher uncertainties, and public trust in research is of great importance".the debate surrounding the new crown's "human challenge trials" has sounded, people seem to have stepped into uncharted ethical territory with one foot.
facing ethical dilemmas, not just in the UK. Prior to this, in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and so on, there have been "pro-test" voices, including
, ethicists and even Nobel Laureates.
The Guardian has reported that endorsers point out that "human challenge trials" are "still valuable" despite new vaccine data. Global vaccine supplies are tight, and rich countries have ordered most of them. "The 'human challenge trial' of the next generation of vaccine candidates will help ensure that there are enough vaccines around the world."
", the study of human challenges has been successfully applied, dating back to the end of the 18th century. "Such trials play a crucial role in driving the development of treatments for a variety of diseases, including malaria, typhoid fever, cholera and influenza, " the analysis said.
, however, unlike previous "human challenge trials," the U.S.
analysis says there is still no definitive cure for the new coronavirus. "For malaria, volunteers put their arms in rooms full of mosquitoes, allowing them to bite and get infected, but there are so-called rescue drugs to treat patients."
The
newspaper further noted in November 2020 that the core proposition of "trial or accelerated vaccine development" was flawed;
, is it reasonable to expect young people to participate in trials on the premise of significant sacrifices that could cost their lives? Francois Bayliss, a professor of research at Dalhousie University in Canada, points out that volunteers themselves and their families may also be in "psychological distress" for a long time after contracting the new crown or suffering from complications.
"When I think about the human challenge pattern, I think, 'Can I get this information in other ways?' Beth Kirkpatrick, a professor of microbiology and molecular genetics at the University of Vermont, said, "But we don't usually choose this path if we can find another way." In
, the researchers are already calling on volunteers to take part in the new "human challenge trial." As for the results of this study of healthy young people, can it represent a wider population? How much can trials contribute to vaccine development? If the experiment fails, will it endanger the life and safety of the volunteers, thus falling into a greater ethical and moral dilemma?
face of doubt, still in the "eye of the storm" test, the road ahead is difficult.