In 1885, Louis Pasteur famously tested his rabies vaccine on a 9-year-old boy, saving his life but bypassing any formal approval process. Banting, Macleod and Collip’s discovery of insulin in 1922—though revolutionary—was built on top of animal experimentation that by any moral standards is exceedingly appalling. In 1984, Barry Marshall drank a flask of Helicobacter pylori to prove that they were the causative agent behind peptic ulcers and that led him to receive the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. These breakthroughs changed the world, but they came from deeply personal decisions—and sometimes, leaps of faith.

Now, Dr. Beata Halassy’s story is adding a new chapter to this legacy. Diagnosed with recurring breast cancer, she used measles and vesicular stomatitis viruses in order to target tumour cells for treatment. The treatment worked: her tumor shrank, surgery succeeded, and she’s been cancer-free for four years.

It is certainly an exciting result, thus imagine the surprise people felt when it was revealed that multiple journals refused to publish the results until “Vaccines” (an open access journal). This is due to the fact that the team did not have any prior approval from an ethics committee for human experimentation.

But here’s the thing; people are only chastising ‘ethics committees’ and leveling blame against them for the glacial pace of scientific progress only because the treatment worked. If it had been any other result, the conversation would certainly be on the contrary. There are many factors that go into medical experimentation, especially on living systems as complex as human beings. Dr. Halassy, being an expert, was well aware of accompanying factors in regards to the proposed treatment and thus made a calculated risk. In the paper, she and her team also discuss the potential neurological risks of the treatment on mice, which is often treated as fine-print that people are quick to sweep under the rug in order to celebrate the bold risk paying off. That makes for a good story of the individual’s triumph. But it may potentially set a dangerous precedent for others, people who decidedly lack Dr. Halassy’s expertise, to replicate homegrown miracles of their own. This reading of the event, which is entirely lacking in nuance, is what a lot of scientifically trained people are worried about, especially in an age when people’s trust in institutions is waning alarmingly.

However, there are also those who wish to do science entirely by committee. That is an affectation at the other end of the spectrum. Science is a deeply personal thing and I wonder if it is even possible to decouple personal stakes or biases from the very act of discovery. Every unproved discovery is merely an unfounded belief, even one that is well justified by fact and statistics (Funnily, there are so many examples of Nobel laureates who embrace unscientific beliefs later on in their lives, that it has its own Wikipedia page.). Every researcher has their own set of biases that colour the way they see the world. Empowering each without providing unreasonable carte blanche is a delicate balance and a recipe for great leaps in scientific advancements. As with most things, it is a balance that requires a multitude of voices to be heard. Dr. Halassy’s case is a reminder that science thrives on risk, but also sets expectations as to why guardrails are needed.