Monsters Used to Test Children

Human experimentation studies an array of human responses to experimental stimuli—the psychological effects of experimental situations, the physical effects of new medications or therapies, etc. Such experimentation often aims to study unprecedented procedures and therefore often requires risk. However, risky experimentation quickly becomes unethical when it subjects unwitting participants to harm, especially when such harm has lasting effects. This sort of experimentation is exemplified in the “Monster Study.”

In 1939, a pathologist named Dr. Wendell Johnson posed a hypothesis stating that stuttering is an acquired trait that people can generate in children. In order to test this hypothesis, Wendell went to Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home and used twenty-two of the orphans in his research. Without their knowledge of the study, Wendell and his fellow researchers set eleven of the students aside as a control group and treated them with common respect. With the other eleven, the adults would be quick to criticize the children and were intentionally belittling and unkind to them. In doing so, they were testing to see if the children would begin to stutter. The researchers' actions likely seemed petrifying the children, which is why the experiment became known as the "Monster Study."

None of the terrorized orphans developed stuttering problems, but they were left with many lasting psychological problems, problems so trying that in their older age they sued the university at which Johnson had been experimenting. Johnson tested these young children without their understanding or consent, but even if they had known about the experiment, it would not have protected their sensitive emotions and malleable minds. Children’s minds are still forming, so constant bitter and belittling remarks can leave scars on their impressionable minds. Considering all this, one can conclude that it was extremely unethical for Johnson and his fellow researchers to subject these vulnerable children to psychologically detrimental treatment due to the lasting psychological harm on the children that was wittingly induced.

The procedure was indeed mentally harmful for the children, so why would Johnson and his fellow researchers find it necessary to perform such a procedure? What gain would anyone have from knowing that, yes, terrorizing children does in fact make them stutter? Perhaps one could claim that by investigating the cause of stuttering, stuttering can be prevented. In response to such a claim, I would say that it is acceptable to try to discover the cause of stuttering, but it is never acceptable to subject anyone to any form of harm, whether it be physical harm or mental. Perhaps if an adult knowledgably consented to be subjected to such stress, such treatment could possibly be considered acceptable, but children, who make up a vulnerable and impressionable population, should never be exposed to such consistent belittlement. In an experiment, when someone is subjected to any form of harm, and if they are exposed to such treatment by force or without enough knowledge, as these orphans in the “Monster Study” were, the experimental procedures should be deemed unethical.

Sites used:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/health/main566882.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20327467/

http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/