Laspro et al. (2024) present an insightful survey of ethical issues emerging in first-in-human whole eye transplants (WET). Their discussion is applicable to a broad range of first-in-human surgica...

Matteo Laspro et al. (2024) provide a thought-provoking review of the ethical issues surrounding Whole-Eye Transplantation (WET). In this commentary, we expand on three of the concerns they raise i...

Given advances in microsurgical techniques, immunomodulation protocols, and neuro-regenerative therapies, there is a growing likelihood that first-in-human whole-eye transplantation (WET) may be at...

“Every surgeon carries within himself a small cemetery where from time to time he goes to pray—a place of bitterness and regret, where he must look for an explanation of his failures” René Leriche,...

Of all the five senses losing sight is the one that individuals fear the most. Worldwide blindness has afflicted tens of millions of people each year. Historically, this has inspired researchers an...

Laspro et al. (2024) contemplate the first whole eye transplant (WET) procedure in humans. They discuss the implications of such a procedure on the physical, social, and psychological well-being of...

In May 2023, the world’s first whole-eye and partial-face transplant was performed, representing the first known whole-eye transplant in history and the “only successful combined transplant case of...

Transplantation is a field of perpetual innovation. In the last 15 years, novel surgical interventions include uterine, tracheal, hand, face, and penile allotransplantation, as well as cardiac xeno...

I have at least four close friends who seem to be ideal qualified recipients of WET. My friends have a variety of eyes: some prosthetic, some wandering, some misaligned, some absent, some shrouded...

The purpose of a first-in-human (FIH) clinical trial is to gather information about how the drug or device affects and interacts with the human body: its safety, side effects, and (potential) dosage. As such, the primary goal of a FIH trial is not participant benefit but to gain knowledge of drug or device efficacy, i.e., baseline human safety knowledge. Some FIH clinical trials carry _significant_ foreseeable risk to participants with little to no foreseeable participant benefit. Participation in such trials would (...) be a bad deal for participants, and the research is considered justifiable because of the promise of significant potential social benefit. I argue that there is an ethical tension inherent in risky FIH research and that researchers should fairly compensate risky FIH trial participants. This does not make the risk–benefit outcome more favorable for participants; rather, it amounts to a collective reckoning with the ethical tension inherent in the research. (shrink)