Another Dark Secret from the Past
by MikeGeneFrom here:
The state has agreed to pay $925,000 to unwitting subjects of an infamous 1930s stuttering experiment "” orphans who were badgered and belittled as children by University of Iowa researchers trying to induce speech impediments.
["¦.]
The 1939 experiment has come to be known as "The Monster Study" because of its methods and the theory researchers set out to prove "” that stuttering is a learned behavior that can be induced in children.
Over a six-month period, Dr. Wendell Johnson, a nationally renowned pioneer in the field of speech pathology, and his staff tested his theory on 22 children who were in the care of the state-run Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home. Some were subjected to steady harassment, badgering and other negative therapy in an attempt to get them to stutter; the rest served as a control group.
According to the study, none became stutterers, but some became reluctant to speak or self-conscious about their speech.
["¦]
The university kept the experiment and its methods from the former subjects for decades. It was not until 2001 when the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News published an investigative story about the study and its methods did the former subjects learn about the experiment's true purpose.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:29 am
That is really sad. Scientists abusing orphans in the name of science. I thought science was the source of moral light and truth.
Comment by Jehu — August 21, 2007 @ 3:29 am
August 21st, 2007 at 8:41 am
Hi Jehu,
You wrote…
Why did you think that?
Science is about searching for knowledge, not Truth.
This was an obvious unethical situation considering the hidden nature of the experiment. Science should be about spreading knowledge, not hiding it.
As for religion being the moral light. I was reminded recently of the practice of Imprecatory prayers. Here is a recent article from a pro-christian news source…
"In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer. Especially against Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I made an attempt to go to them via Matt 18:15 but they refused to talk to me. Specifically target Joe Conn or Jeremy Learing. They are those who lead the attack."
This makes for an interesting paradox.
Are such prayers forgivable because they are unscientific and should be considered meaningless?
Yes, there are unethical people in the world. Scientists aren't exempt from the disease. I suggest the religious are especially susceptible to it. But I realize I am biased on this.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 21, 2007 @ 8:41 am
August 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I am creating a web site that deals with "Questions about Materialism".
Today I posted question 20. "How much coerscion is justified in pursuit of scientific research". Maybe we should console ourselves with the thought that science is less arrogant today than it was in the past.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — August 21, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
TP,
Why would their being unscientific have any bearing? Wishing ill is wishing ill.
I'd agree, though I think 'religious' extends to quite a number of atheists, and not always to - oddly enough - people who are religious. There's a danger the moment anyone has an extraordinarily firm belief in one thing or another.
That said, it's worth reminding ourselves what scientists are capable of. I think you'd agree that it's as dangerous to enshrine scientists as being above or immune to terrible acts as it is to do the same with clergy, or politicians.
Comment by nullasalus — August 21, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Hi, Bertvan! Glad to see you've been busy, have bookmarked your site. §:o)
Comment by Joy — August 21, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 am
Hi TP,
Most scientists would affiliate themselves as being realists. And those that don't certainly act in a manner consistent with actually being realists.
Science is a human discipline - scientists are the practioners of that discipline.
So I would disagree with you claim - science (for the most part) is about finding truth.
Comment by Doug — August 22, 2007 @ 11:03 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 am
Wouldn't moral ground be more fitting?
Also, traditional Christianity believes that there is general revelation and specific. So, one doesn't need to affiliate himself with a denomination of Christianity in order to see that there are certain 'rights' and 'wrongs' embedded in reality (an argument usually advanced by Hitchens) - but if anything, this doesn't support Hitchens' atheistic assumptions, but does support an objective reality of a moral structure of the universe that is (or should be) apparent to all.
Comment by Doug — August 22, 2007 @ 11:09 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 am
This post is responding to comments by Mike in the Understanding Science thread, but are actually about this thread, so (following Bradford's rquest) I am postng here. Sorry if the context is lost.
I thought it was related to ID because it was posted on an ID blog.
Can you explain what stereotyping you think I am doing here?
I read the article, and I was appalled. Am I then obliged to comment on the blog to validate my disgust? Would my posting change what happened one jot? Of course, in hindsight, I see I should have posted just so I was seen to have posted.
By the way, I notice Thought Provoker, nullasalus, Joy and Doug posted on this thread without expressing any disquiet about the article. Indeed, the amount of disgust expressed on this thread is minimal. Jehu's comment sounds like sarcasm, a comment from bert and that is about it. What is it with their moral compasses?
Calm down Mike. I never said there was anything wrong with posting under a pseudonym, I just said you had reasons to do so. I was under the impression (from threads at ARN mostly) that you were a biologist, and that you used the name "Mike Gene" because you did not want to be labelled as an IDist at work. I apologise if I got that wrong.
What makes you think I am "awfully upset" about it? If I was "awfully upset" about it I would have posted on this thread when I first read it. I merely thought this thread illustrated the point I was trying to make on the other thread.
Agreed.
I am glad to hear that that was not your objective. I suspect some people will nevertheless read the story, think less of scientists in general (if you like, they will modify their scientist stereotype to include this), and so be less inclined to trust scientists about science.
Comment by The Pixie — August 23, 2007 @ 5:14 am
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hi Pixie,
I just noticed you posted a reply here, so even though it's late, let me reply to an old Arnie.
Actually, this is "an independent blog about intelligent design." If this post was supposed to be related to ID, I would have categorized it as such.
There are a couple of facts you might want to consider to help prevent such confusion in the future. First, I do happen to have a significant interest in bioethics (and topics other than ID), but since I don't have the time to start up and maintain a Bioethics Blog, I file some of those postings in the only blog I do contribute to (not counting the book blog, that is). Secondly, there is the mechanics of blogging. To keep a blog afloat, I think you have to update it daily. Yet it is not easy to daily update a blog around one particular issue. This often means that one keeps an eye out for other topics that might be of some interest to the readers of the blog. If you doubt me, simply take some time to read some Science Blogs at "scienceblog.com" to hear all the latest news on"¦..social issues, religion, and politics.
You immediately assumed, in a knee-jerk fashion, that this bit of news was posted to help ID in some way.
Yes, you were so appalled that you immediately attacked me for quoting some excerpts from the news story and linking to it.
You decided it was more important to psychologize me than express your disgust. The time you used to pyschologize me could have been used to condemn a true injustice.
None of them seem bothered by the fact that I linked to this news story. You are the one who chose to psychologize me.
From those threads on the ARN forum, I explained several times why I posted under a pseudonym "“ the same reasons you and 95% others use a pseudonym.
Obviously, it did not. As a scientist, did it ever occur to you to first ask (i.e., gather data) instead of making assumptions rooted in stereotype?
Is this a reason to sweep the story under the rug? If that is a problem (and I'd like to see your scientific data that indicates your musings are something more than paranoia), perhaps the blame should be placed on the researchers who did this experiment and the way the university tried to keep it secret.
Comment by MikeGene — September 3, 2007 @ 2:06 pm