On the other hand, if someone wants to experiment on themselves, why not let them? Nobody is harmed if it doesn't work, and we can make quick breakthroughs that might be otherwise impossible due to ethics/etc.
Of course people might get competitive about their careers and feel pressured to stay on top. But the discovery of one researcher should not be to the detriment of others.
If (big if, but it is the topic of the discussion at hand) self-experimentation is increasingly normalized, and through normalization attracts funding, one can imagine the competition for said funds incentivizing researchers and labs to take extreme measures to garner attention and acquire support.
Money, the same motivation that pushes athletes to extremes, is not something scientists are immune to, even if the ultimate utility of the money serves different purposes.
Yep, I think the realities of allowing such a thing are quite clear: You can't skip the rats and go straight to a human, but you could skip the rats and go straight to yourself. Having human data at an early stage would be a huge advantage for getting funding, and there would only be one way to get it.
That's not the reason.
Athletes do unsafe things all the time, with the blessing of their sport. Boxing is unsafe, American football is unsafe, skateboarding is unsafe, skiing is unsafe, extreme sports are unsafe, etc...
The prohibition on steroid use has more to do with fairness and ensuring a level playing field, so no athlete has an unfair advantage over another.
Such considerations are irrelevant when one's goal is not fair competition but advancement of science.
This is somewhat circular logic - it's only 'unfair' because you've defined it that way. IMO the idea that there is a level playing field is somewhat of a myth to begin with, there are plenty of other ways to gain "fair" advantage like better training and nutrition, and access to those things is clearly not equal across all competitors. I think you could probably argue the current situation is less fair than just allowing them considering how many top athletes likely use steroids anyway and just haven't been caught.
That's not to say that I think we should allow steroids in sports, just that "a level playing field" doesn't seem like much of a justification to me. I think the simpler reason is that lots of sports already have rules to make the sport safer for their athletes, and banning steroids/drugs simply falls into that same category because it has a clear risk of spiraling out of control. Yes, sports are unsafe, but they're also generally designed to not be so unsafe that competitors are dying all the time due to going to extreme lengths to try and win.
I think your take is overly zealous, if you are really worried you could make it a requirement for grants. Which it already is.
edit: Maybe for a different framing, picture it more like climbing a mountain. You do it because its there, it is that simple. All the rest (sponsorships and the like) is just ways to get funding to get you up there. You were already going to go, more funding just makes it saver. And as unhealthy as it is, i think society should not get involved further as me not dragging anyone else in with me. After all, how is this any worse then eating or drinking myself to death. Or giving myself a heart attack (to come back to professional athletes)