Ethics of Medical Innovation, Experimentation, and Enhancement in Military and Humanitarian Contexts. Introduction to the Volume

  • Daniel MesselkenEmail author
  • David Winkler
Part of the Military and Humanitarian Health Ethics book series (MHHE)


The topic of this volume, the Ethics of medical innovation, experimentation, and human enhancement in military and humanitarian contexts, is a vast subject area that gives rise to many ethical issues of very different kinds. The purpose of this introductory chapter is to give a panoramic overview and to provide points of reference together with an initial outline of the ethical questions that arise.



We could not have completed this book without the continued support of a number of people to whom we would like to express our gratitude.

Our first and profound thanks go to the contributors of this volume who wrote and revised their chapters with diligence and who were open enough to share their knowledge and own experiences with a broader audience.

We are thankful to Major General Dr. Andreas Stettbacher, Major General Dr. Roger van Hoof, and Prof. Peter Schaber under the patronage of whom the workshop was organized during which most of the chapters of this volume were first discussed. Financial support for the work on this volume was granted by the Centre of Competence for Military and Disaster Medicine of the Swiss Armed Forces to the Center for Military Medical Ethics at Zurich University.

Finally, we would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their feedback and constructive comments on the first manuscript, as well as Floor Oosting and Christopher Wilby from Springer for their advice and support throughout the conception and production of this volume.


  1. Allhoff, Fritz, et al. 2010. Ethics of human enhancement: 25 questions & answers. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4 (1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoroso, Paul J., and Lynn L. Wenger. 2003. The human volunteer in military biomedical research. In Military medical ethics, ed. Thomas E. Beam and Linette R. Sparacino, vol. 2, 563–603. Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General, United States Army.Google Scholar
  3. Annas, Catherine L., and George J. Annas. 2008. Enhancing the fighting force: Medical research on American soldiers. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 25: 283.Google Scholar
  4. Annas, George J., and Michael A. Grodin, eds. 1992. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code human rights in human experimentation. Vol. XXII, 371 S. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2008. The Nuremberg code. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, 136–140. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, Tom L. 2008. The Belmont report. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, 21–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blackbourne, Lorne H., et al. 2012. Military medical revolution: Military trauma system. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 73 (6): S388–SS94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonham, Valerie H., and Jonathan D. Moreno. 2008. Research with captive populations: Prisoners, students, and soldiers. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 461–474. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bostrom, Nick, and Rebecca Roache. 2008. Ethical issues in human enhancement. In New waves in applied ethics, ed. Jesper Ryberg, Thomas Petersen, and Clark Wolf, 120–152. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Bower, Eric A., and James R. Phelan. 2003. Use of amphetamines in the military environment. The Lancet 362: s18–s19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, Vincent, et al. 2008. Research in complex humanitarian emergencies: The Médecins Sans Frontières/epicentre experience. PLoS Medicine 5 (4): e89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calain, Philippe. 2016. The Ebola clinical trials: A precedent for research ethics in disasters. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (1): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calain, Philippe, et al. 2009. Research ethics and international epidemic response: The case of Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers. Public Health Ethics 2 (1): 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caldwell, John A., and J. Lynn Caldwell. 2005. Fatigue in military aviation: An overview of US military-approved pharmacological countermeasures. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 76 (7): C39–C51.Google Scholar
  16. Council of Europe. 2005. Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research, Council of Europe treaty series–no. 195. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  17. Daniels, Norman. 2000. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (3): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Lorenzo, Robert A. 2004. Emergency medicine research on the front lines. Annals of Emergency Medicine 44 (2): 128–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., et al. 2004. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Diseases 189 (5): 930–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2008. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fabre, C. 2009. Guns, food, and liability to attack in war. Ethics 120 (1): 36–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford, N., et al. 2009. Ethics of conducting research in conflict settings. Conflict and Health 3: 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friedl, Karl E. 2015. US Army research on pharmacological enhancement of soldier performance: Stimulants, anabolic hormones, and blood doping. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 29: S71–S76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frisina, Michael E. 1990. The offensive-defensive distinction in military biological research. Hastings Center Report 20 (3): 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2003. Medical ethics in military biomedical research. In Military medical ethics, ed. Thomas E. Beam and Linette R. Sparacino, vol. 2, 533–561. Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General, United States Army.Google Scholar
  26. Gilman, Robert H., and Hector H. Garcia. 2004. Ethics review procedures for research in developing countries: A basic presumption of guilt. Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 (3): 248–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Givens, Melissa, Andrew E. Muck, and Craig Goolsby. 2017. Battlefield to bedside: Translating wartime innovations to civilian emergency medicine. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 35 (11): 1746–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene, Marsha, and Zubin Master. 2018. Ethical issues of using CRISPR technologies for research on military enhancement. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15 (3): 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gross, Michael L. 2006. Bioethics and armed conflict. Moral dilemmas of medicine and war, xv, 384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Haider, Adil H., et al. 2015. Military-to-civilian translation of battlefield innovations in operative trauma care. Surgery 158 (6): 1686–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris, Sheldon H. 2003. Japanese biomedical experimentation during the World-War-II era. In Military medical ethics, ed. Thomas E. Beam and Linette R. Sparacino, vol. 2, 463–506. Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General, United States Army.Google Scholar
  32. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck. 2005. Customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hodgetts, Timothy J. 2014. A roadmap for innovation. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps 160 (2): 86–91. (British Medical Journal Publishing Group).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), et al. 2015. Ethical principles of health care in times of armed conflict and other emergencies. Geneva: ICRC.Google Scholar
  35. Juengst, Eric, and Daniel Moseley. 2016. Human enhancement. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  36. Kitchen, Lynn W., and David W. Vaughn. 2007. Role of US military research programs in the development of US-licensed vaccines for naturally occurring infectious diseases. Vaccine 25 (41): 7017–7030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ko, Henry, et al. 2018. A systematic review of performance-enhancing pharmacologicals and biotechnologies in the Army. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps 164 (3): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leaning, Jennifer. 2001. Ethics of research in refugee populations. The Lancet 357 (9266): 1432–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lederer, Susan E. 2003. The cold war and beyond: Covert and deceptive American medical experimentation. In Military medical ethics, ed. Thomas E. Beam and Linette R. Sparacino, vol. 2, 507–533. Washington, DC: Office of The Surgeon General, United States Army.Google Scholar
  40. Liivoja, Rain. 2017. Biomedical enhancement of warfighters and the legal protection of military medical personnel in armed conflict. Medical Law Review 26 (3): 421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ling, Geoffrey S.F., Peter Rhee, and James M. Ecklund. 2010. Surgical innovations arising from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Annual Review of Medicine 61: 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McManus, John, et al. 2005. Informed consent and ethical issues in military medical research. Academic Emergency Medicine 12 (11): 1120–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Messelken, Daniel. 2017. Medical care during war: A remainder and prospect of peace. In The nature of peace and the morality of armed conflict, ed. Florian Demont-Biaggi. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Messelken, Daniel, and David T. Winkler, eds. 2018. Ethical challenges for military health care personnel: Dealing with epidemics, Military and defence ethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.Google Scholar
  46. Rasmussen, Nicolas. 2011. Medical science and the military: The Allies’ use of amphetamine during World War II. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 42 (2): 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ratto-Kim, Silvia, et al. 2018. The US military commitment to vaccine development: A century of successes and challenges. Frontiers in Immunology 9: 1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reade, Michael C. 2013. Military contributions to modern trauma care. Current Opinion in Critical Care 19 (6): 567–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rid, A., and E.J. Emanuel. 2014. Ethical considerations of experimental interventions in the Ebola outbreak. Lancet 384 (9957): 1896–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schopper, D., et al. 2009. Research ethics review in humanitarian contexts: The experience of the independent ethics review board of Médecins Sans Frontières. PLoS Medicine 6 (7): e1000115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schrager, Jason J., Richard D. Branson, and Jay A. Johannigman. 2012. Lessons from the tip of the spear: Medical advancements from Iraq and Afghanistan. Respiratory Care 57 (8): 1305–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences. 2015. Research with human subjects. A manual for practitioners. Bern: Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 2017. Distinguishing between standard treatment and experimental treatment in individual cases. Bern: Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.Google Scholar
  54. Wolfendale, Jessica. 2008. Performance-enhancing technologies and moral responsibility in the military. The American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2): 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. World Health Organization. 2011. Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  56. World Medical Association. 2013 (1964). WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Geneva: World Medical Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zurich Center for Military Medical Ethics, Center for EthicsUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Center of Reference for Education on IHL & EthicsInternational Committee of Military MedicineBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations