By Keegan Hamilton
By Albert Samaha
By Village Voice staff
By Tessa Stuart
By Albert Samaha
By Steve Weinstein
By Devon Maloney
By Tessa Stuart
Researchers did not tell parents the whole truth about medical experiments they were conducting on their children, documents obtained by the Voice show. They also indicate that the researchers, who were looking for predictors of aggression, originally planned to study only black and Hispanic children.
This new information adds more controversy to a research project already under fire. The furor erupted earlier this month when the New York Post reported that researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University gave 34 boysall black or Hispanicone dose of a drug called fenfluramine, best known for being half of the "fen-phen" diet combination pulled from the market last year because it damages heart valves. The NYSPI study was completed before the drug was banned, and the institute insists that a single dose of fenfluramine causes no significant side effects. But the study, which was partly funded with federal money, is under investigation by the national Office for Protection from Research Risks.
The fenfluramine procedure was just one element of a larger study, conducted by eminent researchers such as Gail Wasserman, Daniel Pine, and Michael Liebowitz. The study as a whole examined 126 younger brothers of convicted delinquents, ages six to 10, who were deemed "at risk" of following in their older siblings' footsteps.
In applying for grants and publishing their findings, the researchers state unequivocally that they were seeking biological and environmental predictors of "antisocial behavior," "aggression," and "delinquency." But when they went looking for research subjects, the description changed. "With so many children getting into trouble," the researchers wrote in a recruitment letter to parents of potential subjects, "we are interested in learning about what keeps children out of trouble [emphasis in the original]."
In explaining the purpose of the study, the informed-consent formwhich is supposed to fully and accurately describe the researchsays only that the researchers are examining "the physical and emotional well-being of children whose families have been involved in the court system." The fenfluramine procedure is described as follows: "This test will evaluate the responsiveness of a natural brain chemical called serotonin. Fenfluramine causes the release of serotonin, and its effects are measured in this test." In fact, researchers wanted to see if levels of this brain chemical could predict aggressive behavior.
"Sugarcoated" and "misleading" is how Alvin Poussaint, a prominent psychiatrist from Harvard, describes the recruitment letter. The consent forms, he adds, "don't really tell parents why their kids were being studied." Boston University's Leonard Glantz, an authority on experimentation on children, says, "If your child were in this study, and then you found out what they were really up to, would you feel you had been appropriately informed?"
In a written response to the Voice, the researchers call their language "neutral" and say they were trying not to stigmatize the children: "While it might have been most accurate to say, 'There is evidence that your younger child is at risk for developing the same problems as his older brother,' such a bald statement of probable risk could result in the type of detrimental labeling that weand the critics of the studyare most concerned about." Documents confirm that stigmatizing was a major concern.
But Poussaint counters, "If you want to give people full respect, honesty comes first. They didn't protect against stigmatizing anyway. They basically said, 'You're a troubled family, and that's why you've been selected.' If you say that much, why not say more? Maybe there was the feeling that if we tell them more about what we're doing, they may reject the study. So maybe it wasn't just protecting the patients, but protecting themselves."
Critics say that the partial information is particularly problematic, given other aspects of the study. The children were traced through court records, which ethicists say is a violation of privacy and may have created a coercive atmosphere in which parents felt pressured to enroll their children. In addition, the study paid parents$125 for the fenfluramine test aloneand since many of the families were poor, critics have questioned whether this also constitutes coercion. These factors are "even more of a problem if the study was not described the way it really is," says Poussaint.
The fenfluramine procedure required children to fast for 18 hours and have a catheter in their arms for six hours, and the drug itself involved possible side effects, including headache, nausea, and anxiety. The study's ethical oversight panelcalled an Institutional Review Board, or IRBconsidered the drug too dangerous to give to a control group of children whose siblings were not delinquent. Ultimately, the IRB did deem the drug safe enough for control groups, but largely because they had tried it on boys in the study.
"Why was it okay to do it on those boys?" asks Glantz. The procedure offered no possible benefit to the children; it was given only to test a hypothesis. The researchers note that none of the boys suffered significant side effects. But to Glantz, that misses the point. "You can't just say, 'No one was harmed so it can't be a bad thing.' Harm is one issue, but a separate issue is useis this a fair and legitimate use of children?"