Aside from the notorious David Reimer case, other notable hiccups for Johns Hopkins’ questionable research ethics include its participation in the following:
TUSKEGEE: “When the results revealed that 36% of the Macon County African-Americans had syphilis, which was far higher than the national rate, the Rosenwald Fund, concerned about the racial implications of this finding, refused requests to support a follow-up project. The discovery of the fact that the incidence of the disease was higher among African-Americans than among whites was attributed by some to social and economic factors, but by others to a possible difference in susceptibility between whites and non-whites. Indeed one Public Health Service consultant, Dr Joseph E. Moore of Johns Hopkins University School of medicine proposed that Syphylis in the negro is in many respects a different disease from syphilis in whites.” [Just as we are told HIV/AIDS is “different” in Africa, when those causes have not been fully explored.]
GUATEMALA: “Back in the United States, leading scientists were also hopeful, at first. Inoculation studies earlier in the century had caused much controversy, and after the 1910s most of it proceeded on animals, not humans. 56 Mahoney told Cutler in October 1946 that “your show is already attracting rather wide and favorable attention up here. We are frequently asked as to the progress of the work. Doctor T. B. Turner at Johns Hopkins wants us to check on the pathogenicity in man of the rabbit spirochete; Doctor Neurath of Duke would like to have us follow patients with his verification procedures; Doctor Parran [the surgeon general] and probably Doctor Moore [the leading syphilologist at Hopkins] might drop in for a visit after the first of the year.””
BALTIMORE: “The institute, a research and patient care facility for children that is affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, periodically tested the children’s blood to determine lead levels.
But, the lawsuit said, Kennedy Krieger provided no medical treatment to the children, who ranged in age from 12 months to 5 years old. Lead exposure was a significant cause of permanent neurological injuries in some of the children, according to the suit. Johns Hopkins, which approved the study, is not a defendant in the lawsuit.
“Children were enticed into living in lead-tainted housing and subjected to a research program which intentionally exposed them to lead poisoning in order for the extent of the contamination of these children’s blood to be used by scientific researchers to assess the success of lead paint or lead dust abatement measures,” said the suit, filed in state court in Baltimore. “Nothing about the research was designed to treat the subject children for lead poisoning.””
RAKAI: Look at the “interpretation” carefully. Even though circumcision was associated with HIGHER risk for women, it was still recommended. HUH?
I’m sure wonderful work IS being done at your prestigious institution. Why don’t you get back to it, publicize things with REAL, rather than hoped-for merit, and spare yourselves yet another shameful episode of exploitation for “science?”