[mr__y]

>Some scientists are self-administering an untested product. Is it ethical?

Depends, if the self-administering scientist is the only person at risk then I don't see any reason to believe it is not ethical. Assuming they are adult, sane persons it is ethical to take personal risk, at least in my book. Now, depending on what is being injected you could imagine a situation where this could pose risk to other people as well - for example a vaccination containing an active virus (through a design or mistake) that could spread outside the lab and infect others. This would NOT be ethical.

tldr: if the self-administering person does not put anyone else at risk it should be considered ethical

[_qwfv]

What if they are a well educated, critical scientist who loses their life to the untested vaccine? The world may be missing out on decades of their future work. If they have a family who has to mourn their passing?

Not saying that makes it unethical, but the calculus is more complex than just whether they put others in direct risk.

[leetcrew]

is the world entitled to the future work of a bright mind, before it is even done? imo, this is a worrying line of thought if you follow the thread further.

[raducu]

This is not ethical, regardless!

It creates a precedent and expectation from other scientists to do the same, which, down the road will lead to laxed testing standards in the future -- this isn't the wild west!

What does self administering a vaccine actually accomplished in the end?

Guys, read the article, they are not doing it to speed things up for everybody, they are doing it because they think their survival of the pandemic is a net positive for science!