Chapter 6 - Research ethics and the Grimes court case

Abstract

In 2001, the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision, declaring that a lead paint research study in Baltimore had been done unethically. The ruling was made with no facts in evidence (i.e., as a matter of law) and stated the research was similar to Nazi research and the Tuskegee syphilis study where the rights of the study participants had not been protected. Yet the historical record shows that the rights of the human subjects in the Baltimore lead paint study in fact were protected and that the Appeals Court failed to grasp key scientific principles. All juries that later weighed the evidence found the researchers were not negligent to the study participants and that the children received benefits in reduced lead exposure that they would have otherwise not received. No other court made a similar ruling. Government agencies also investigated, finding no significant violations. The history of research ethics, how they were enforced, the nature of scientific versus legal evidence, a review of the study design by the National Academy of Sciences, other accounts of the case and how the case is taught in law schools are presented through an environmental justice lens to understand how the community participated in and benefitted from the research. The consequence of the Appeals Court decision was that the most enduring legal decisions are those that are based not on incendiary headlines but rooted in scientific contextual evidence made understandable by skilled lawyers and scientists to enable it to be grasped by juries who can rule on both the scientific and legal evidence. The Appeals Court thought researchers were the problem, but other accounts found that research was part of the solution. One account stated “The study [did not come] within a country mile of serious ethical lapses…. Far more offensive is the social indifference that has let generations of children suffer the insidious menace of lead poisoning. If a judge’s irresponsible comments impair helpful research in this area or mire it in opportunistic lawsuits, that will be the real moral outrage.”