Yes, they certainly do. We've listened to them, taken their opinions seriously. We've done research on the advantages and disadvantages, and we've determined that there are rarely any problems with human experimentation. It's now time to place those hand-wringing individuals on the sidelines, and further ignore anything they have to say on the subject.
no, if a person is opposed to other humans being used in studies, it is only because they feel like it is against the rights of humans to be treated like this. They are not trying to hold up productiion, they are just trying to save people from some harm.
I think opposing human experimentation is a valid view, there are still lots of people who are very uncomfortable with the idea that we are testing products and vaccines on humans willing or not, I think overall their concerns need to be addressed and listen to seriously and actions taken.
I just wrote a response against human experimentation, so obviously I don't believe that I deserve to be marginalized for holding antiquated and counter-productive beliefs. My opposition is grounded in a concern for human dignity and health, and if that's an antiquated belief, then we're all in trouble. As for the charge of being counter-productive, if progress is being made at the expense of human dignity and health, then that progress comes at too high a cost.
More fundamentally, no one deserves to be marginalized for principled opposition to any position, whether it's human experimentation or anything else. Reasoned debate should never be discouraged.
Society has come too far for people to get caught up in discriminating against people for their belief systems. Beliefs are like bathroom visits, they should be private, and when they do happen out in the open they should be respected. Why choose to illuminate conflicting opinions if it is not productive?