Not at all. I wouldn't consider using animals either as subjects in laboratory experiments. Everybody has the right to live and be healthy and sacrificing ones life and health for research seems not fair to me. I also consider that some of the researches might be done without using all sort of subjects. If the persons are offering themselves as volunteers than it is not my business but to use people for tests as I've heard of without their consent is outrageous. The same way I feel for laboratories that use animals such as hamsters and rabbits to test cosmetic products. It's not ethical and such practices should definitely be banned. Especially for cosmetics. If there is a treatment that might need more research and there is the need for subjects I would opt for asking for people suffering for the disease that is meant to be treated if they are willing to test on themselves the treatment and have the chance of get better. But only with their consent. I don't know if nowadays there are still places where people are being used as they would be in Frankenstein's laboratory but it's surely not ethical. From me, definitely a big NO for this type of practices for both humans and animals.
I think this largely depends on the kind of experiment being conducted. Experiments involving psychological or philosophical evaluation of humans might get clearance from the ethical committee of a region provided the subjects are willing volunteers and there are no significant negative consequences.
Laboratory experiments involving drug testing might also get ethical clearance from the respective authority provided the drug has been tested on lower animals several time and there were no harmful consequences. Also, the subjects must be willing to participate in this one and are usually evaluated to be sure they know what they are going into.
There have been news of secret research laboratories by government agencies if certain countries where humans are the main subjects of their different experimental testing. If this news were to be true, it simply means the researchers are 100% sure that their research would never get ethical clearance and hence, have to resort to a secret testing laboratory where I am sure that the humans being used as subject are most likely being coerced into it.
There are many kinds of laboratory experiments. Laboratories are simply special rooms where experiments are made and the equipment needed are kept. Am I interpreting your question correctly if I assume that you're talking about drug testing in particular? Yes, I think it ethical to use humans as subjects in drug testing but only with their informed consent if they are competent adults. In the final stages of drug testing human trials are often needed. If everything is done to eliminate all needless risks, then why not.
First of all, there is one point that should be clarified: if you are almost convinced that the passage to essays on man can not be avoided (an expression I find more accurate than "human experimentation", which is biased).
No drug is tested on humans without having tested extensively its effects on the animal (and in general several species) but this is not enough. We have to test the man under very strict conditions before flooding the market.
Unfortunately none of these methods offer an absolute guarantee. For example some drugs (or some toxic) produce autoimmune reactions in some very rare cases (of the order of 1 / 10,000). They have never been detected in the preliminary tests because it is impossible to do enough tests. however, it is quite unfortunate because these reactions can lead to the complete destruction of liver or kidney cells (depending on the substance).
Is it because it is impossible to eliminate any risk that we must condemn the methods used?
As for cell culture assays, they are used whenever it may be useful, but in many cases it is inapplicable. Indeed when a chemical circulates in the human body it passes through the various organs and each contributes to its metabolism in a different way. The transformations it undergoes in medically inactive products, or in toxic products are therefore the result of a very complex process. On the contrary, in a cell culture there is only one type of cell. Metabolism is therefore very different from what happens in an entire organism and only limited information can be drawn (but this is not without interest in some cases).
And then there are all the cases where the cell cultures will give no answer: have you sometimes seen a cell culture answer that such medication relieves his headache?
There is therefore no serious argument against human trials. On the other hand, you may be interested in the conditions in which these tests may be acceptable or unacceptable on the ethical level (problem of informed consent, problem of double blind trials where half of patients are simply given a placebo, is someone voluntary if we promise him a financial reward and we speak to poor or poor people ...).
Finally, if I leave the medical field to go to that of toxicology (because the exposure of patients to plutonium had no medical purpose), the only cases where it is acceptable, is to test products of which it is known that they will have no irreversible effects (in particular not carcinogenic), and that the effects that one will seek to highlight are very limited in intensity or in time. For example, I remember tests for the study of the irritancy of various solvents applied with patches on the skin of volunteers, using very low doses and with limited exposure in time.