The 'Monster Study'

   In the 1930's, University of Iowa researchers took children from state orphanages for use in experiments being conducted in speech pathology. The head of these studies, Wendell Jonhson, was trying to prove his assertion that stuttering is brought about by the environment and more specifically parents of stutterers and not an inborn trait.

   To prove this, the orphans were divided into two groups. One group was labeled 'normal' and given positive therapy and the other group was badgered, intimidated and harassed in order to MAKE them stutter. Those children stuttered for the rest of their lives.

   Recently, a research assistant came forward with details of the so called 'Monster Study' and when the still-living subjects found out what had happened to them as children - they brought a suit seeking damages from the State of Iowa for pain and suffering.

   The State of Iowa contends that it is shielded by immunity from such civil actions.

   The suit is being pursued on behalf of 3 living subjects,now in their 80s and 3 who have died.

   If the State of Iowa had falsely imprisoned these people, it would be liable for restitution and rightfully so. Is there any difference between wrongly keeping a man behind bars for years and destroying a man's ability to communicate with others?

                                                 I think not.

.

Court Keeps Alive Lawsuit Over 1930s Stuttering Study by University of Iowa

by Todd Dvorak

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday kept alive a lawsuit filed by orphans who claimed lifelong psychological suffering after unwittingly becoming subjects of a University of Iowa stuttering experiment in the 1930s.

Ruling 4-3, the justices agreed with a lower court in rejecting the state's claim of immunity and petition for dismissal.

The attorney general's office was deciding whether to ask the court to reconsider, spokesman Bob Brammer said.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for emotional and psychological damage caused by what came to be known as the "Monster Study." The suit was brought by three former test subjects and by representatives of three others who have died.

The children, taken from a state orphanage, were badgered and harangued by researchers in an attempt to make them stutter. Some became chronic stutterers; others had other lingering psychological effects.

Only in recent years, when a former researcher revealed details of the study, did the orphans - now elderly adults - learn of their role in the experiment. They sued in 2003.

The study was coordinated by pioneering speech pathologist Wendell Johnson, who theorized that stuttering was not an inborn condition but something children learned from parents who seized on minor speech imperfections, making the children self-conscious when they spoke.

According to an investigation by the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News, published in 2001, the children were divided into two groups of 11, with one group labeled normal speakers and given positive speech therapy, and the other group induced to stutter.   AP

Comments

[Phoenix]

>Some became chronic stutterers; others had other lingering psychological effects.<

So, the 'some' disproved Mr. Johnson's theory. That the others had lingering psychological effects is not a surprise. Pretty bad story, though. I wonder if the 'stutter' control kids were abused 24 hours a day or just in specific situations.

I had a student, a senior, who stuttered so badly that I hesitated to call on him for fear of embarrassing him simply by having him talk and for fear I never had enough time in the classroom. (He was a terrible stutterer.) (He was also one of the best looking guys I ever saw in my life.) Anyway, I always had my students give a lot of speeches, and this guy gave a speech one day. I dreaded it. Turns out, he spoke flawlessly and beautifully for five minutes without one stutter. When he was done, the class went wild with cheering and clapping. He grinned big time and we all then got into a generalized discussion of stuttering which this student participated willingly. I like to think we helped him. He continued to stutter while seated in his desk, and I often wondered if some teacher when he was very young hassled him about some minor speech difficulties thus leading to his serious problem. Anyway, at least in my class, he did improve because we all acknowledge no longer as a painful embarrassment but kind of as a joke to gently tease this neat guy with. Whenever he'd start to stutter, someone would invariably yell out - "Go to the podium, Steve!" Lots of laughs and he always laughed,too. No doubt, it was the first time in his life he ever was able to laugh about it.

[imp]

Mel Tillis.

[*flo*]

Is there any difference between wrongly keeping a man behind bars for years and destroying a man's ability to communicate with others?
I think not.
September 30, 2005 in News | Permalink

Back to the good ole government experiments....there should not be any statue of limitations on such cases involving humans, thinking back to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Codename Artichoke—the Secret Human Experiments of the CIA to name a few.
I have a child with mild asperger syndrome, one of the generation babies who received mercury laced vaccines, mercury used as a preservative. Mercury (thimerosal) has been link to pervasive disorders, we're dealing with the gov't/pharma and a statue of limitation being placed on such cases, many advocates and state representives are working to have mercury removed from such vaccines. Just a quick tip to expecting mothers or mothers of young infants, request non-mercury vaccines for you child, find a clinic/pediatrician which carries them.
Laws protecting mammal or animal experiments, just not strict enough, IMO. For reptile lovers, sorry.....

[Steel]

I am old enough to remember the thalydimide debaucle. I agree ... no statute of limitations when humans are used as test subjects UNLESS they give consent and it is not THEIR children affected.

Ever read a book called 'Geek Love'?

The use of animals for testing is an absolute neccesity.

PETA is so very wrong on this issue.

[*flo*]

Posted by: Steel | Sep 30, 2005 11:07:30 PM

Haven't read the book, reviewed the commentary from the author, seems the imagination came from Hitler's third Reich and others...

regarding animals.... http://skewsme.com/
close the the geocities window, scroll down to the bottom center of the pic, you will "enter" in tiny print, (btw,a disgusting pic of a kitten)

[Steel]

ACK!!!

I posted that photo on a 'cat blogging' Friday awhile back.

Katherine Dunne, if memory serves, wrote Geek Love. She is the 'boxing editor' of the Willamette Weekly in Portland OR.

She covers the sport (sick) of BOXING.

I have not seen that author review. I DO know that the NAZIs were the last thing that came to mind when I read the book.

I was thinking more in terms of the movie FREAKS.

[*flo*]

Posted by: Steel | Oct 1, 2005 2:17:41 AM
I was thinking more on the lines of genetic master race, yet, in "Geek Love", they are producing deformities thru ingesting chemicals...Bizarre stuff!
"Freaks" ideas from greek meth? would give reason to abnormal genetics ...

On Skews site, there were pics of Siamese Twins and other animals...disturbing IMO...

[Steel]

Honestly, I refrain from viewing images that are disturbing.

Took me months to shake seeing FREAKS.

I saw it in a double billing with ERASERHEAD.

Yikes!

[*flo*]

Posted by: Steel | Oct 1, 2005 5:38:25 PM
LOL...when we were younger my brother would catch every horror flick available, he loved his comics too;) The Exorcist was the 1st & last for me:o

[Phoenix]

I gave up 'horror' flicks after Wait Until Dark. I know it is not part of the genre of 'horror' flicks, but that movie was enough for me. I remember during the major scary part where the audience literally levitates up out of their seats and screams without shame - or control, for that matter, that after everyone kind of settled down - though with hearts still racing and pants still wet - that some screaming continued very loudly behind me. It was uncontrolled screaming. I turned around and two rows behind me sat a guy by himself, and all I could see were his tonsils. The volume of his prolonged scream was frightening. Finally he stopped and I glanced around once again only to see he'd left. I actually saw the movie twice in order to drag a friend, and even knowing what was coming, I still lost it. I remember reading Sister Carrie by Stephen King... TOO scary. Oh, now I remember - the most scared I've ever been reading a book was reading Helter Skelter.