The article critically examines the arguments denying the constitutional admissibility of experimental legal regimes. On the basis of a systematic interpretation of current legislation, doctrinal positions, and historical experience, the authors demonstrate the fallacy of the theses regarding the fundamental incompatibility of experiment and law, the identity of legal experiments with Nazi medical experiments, the violation of constitutional rights, and the fictitious nature of voluntariness. It is substantiated that experimental legal regimes are an effective law-making instrument, possessing a constitutional foundation, provided that clear limits and controls are established.