Explore what are the legality and ethical issues in the Monster Study, a controversial 1939 psychological experiment in ethical dilemmas and legal debates.
If you’ve ever delved into some of the terrible history regarding psychological experiments, you have to have heard about the so-called “Monster Study.” This study, conducted by Wendell Johnson and Mary Tudor at the University of Iowa back in 1939, has to be an interesting yet disturbing tale of research history.
The very name is one thing, while the real-life story behind that name is muddied up in ambition, ethical missteps, and murky legal debates, which even a non-attorney can find unsettling and thought-provoking.
Let’s take a journey through the legalities and ethical dilemmas of this controversial study, unraveling its implications and reflecting on what it teaches us about human experimentation.
Hints of Content
Setting the Scene: What was the Monster Study?
First, let me give you the quick rundown. What is known as the Monster Study was an experiment designed to investigate the causes of stuttering. The prominent speech pathologist Wendell Johnson presumed that labeling a child as a stutterer might eventually cause them to develop speech impediments. To test his hypothesis, he and his graduate student Mary Tudor conducted their experiment on 22 orphans in Davenport, Iowa.
Half were labeled as stutterers and received negative reinforcement about their speech, while the other half received positive. Spoiler alert: none of these children were speech impediment-prone to begin with. The results that came out were just as disturbing as one could have expected. Many of those labeled stutterers developed speech problems, along with psychological scars that haunted them for years.
Now, with that in the background, let’s now dive into its legality.
Legal Issues: Was the Monster Study Illegal?
One of the most interesting questions about the Monster Study is if it was illegal. The simple answer? Not at the time it was performed. The longer answer is a great deal different.
1. Lack of Informed Consent
Today, of course, informed consent is required in any experiment involving human subjects. Nevertheless, in 1939, the age of research ethics was in its diapers. The orphans in the Monster Study were never told what was happening to them and did not consent to it, and neither did their guardians. Technically, it wasn’t against the law because there were no laws or regulations controlling human experimentation in the United States before the middle of the 20th century.
The Nuremberg Code would not be written until 1947-eight years after the Monster Study-hence laying the groundwork for modern research ethics. However, although lack of informed consent was not on the books as illegal, it was most certainly unethical, even for that time period.
2. Laws on child welfare
Here’s where things get murky. While there were no specific laws governing research ethics, child welfare laws did exist. Orphans were considered wards of the state, which meant the state had a responsibility to protect their well-being. Critics argue that subjecting vulnerable children to psychological harm violated their basic rights, even if there wasn’t a specific statute addressing research misconduct.
3. Psychological Harm
Legal scholars have argued that the researchers were negligent, even abusive. No lawsuits were filed at the time, but decades later some participants would come forward to tell what trauma and lasting harm they had endured. In 2001, the University of Iowa issued a formal apology and settled a lawsuit with several of the surviving participants for close to $1 million. This acknowledgment of wrongdoing, though decades late, underlines the study’s legal and moral failures. The legal response to these events reflects the deep mistakes that were made.
But what are the legality in the monster study?
Ethical Dilemmas: Where Did It All Go So Wrong?
At one reading about the so-called Monster Study, I somehow couldn’t stop picturing myself as just one of those children. I mean, envision this: an orphaned little kid, getting by and seeking some progress from all that life and the orphanage can give-then comes your loved and admired authority figures and rips apart literally every word one says. Now, that indeed is heart-to-heart sad; isn’t it? It was because of just this emotional connectedness that some forms of studies bear blindingly open ethical failings.
1. Exploitation of Vulnerable Populations
It was a clear abuse of power to use orphans as test subjects. Such children had no advocates for their protection and thus were easy targets for unethical experimentation. This exploitation is a vivid reminder of why modern research guidelines put forth the need to protect vulnerable populations.
2. Deception and Psychological Harm
The children were deceived over the nature of the study; in itself, that is a betrayal of the first principles of ethics. However, the harm endured was worse because it was lasting: some participants later developed lifelong speech impediments and emotional trauma. Imagine constantly being told there is something essentially wrong with you. It is not surprising that the outcome was to prove so damaging.
3. Absence of Oversight
One of the conditions that made such a study-The Monster Study-theoretically possible was that at the time there was not IRB as such, to say nothing about an oversight scheme. Nowadays reviews by IRBs-one of the recent names for such committees-are highly important in stopping unethical research ventures because proposed programs are put under a very scrutiny before they got approved. End.
But what are the legality in the monster study?
Personal Reflection
I am being honest, the Monster Study shook me. A person who is passionate about research and its potential to make lives better, it’s sobering to think about how that very same pursuit can cause harm when ethics are ignored. It further made me reflect on the importance of empathy in research: behind every data point is a human being with feelings, vulnerabilities, and rights; forgetting that is where things go wrong.
Let me tell you a rather short story. I volunteered for a psychology study during college. The researchers were warm, transparent, and made me feel valued. They explained every step and answered all my questions. In retrospect, that experience reinforced in me that research can indeed be both ethical and impactful. The Monster Study, in contrast, shows what happens when empathy is absent.
Lessons Learned: How the Monster Study Shaped Modern Research
If there is a silver lining associated with the Monster Study, it’s that it really has shaped modern research ethics. A few key takeaways include:
1. The Rise of Ethical Guidelines
The public outcry that arose both from the Monster Study and from other such unethical studies, including the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study, ultimately led to the establishment of formal standards for the conduct of human research. The principles guiding human research reinforced by the Belmont Report (1979) include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
2. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
Today, any research that involves human subjects requires IRB approval. That is how all proposed research studies are reviewed for possible risks and ethical issues before the study is conducted.
3. Informed Consent
The principle of informed consent has become the foundation of ethical research. One should expect that participants be fully informed about the purposes, risks, and benefits of a study and freely give consent to participating in the study.
But what are the legality in the monster study?
Takeaways
- So you have understand that what are the legality in the monster study and the Monster Study is more than a footnote in history; it’s a sobering reminder that there are things more important than the pursuit of knowledge.
- It forces us to confront some very uncomfortable questions about the balance between scientific curiosity and human dignity.
- So, where does this leave us? For me, it’s a call to action. Whether we’re researchers, educators, or simply curious minds, we have a responsibility to make sure our pursuit of knowledge never comes at the expense of others’ well-being.
- Let’s learn from the past, hold ourselves accountable, and strive for a future where research uplifts rather than harms.
- Now, what do you think about the Monster Study? Does this alter your ideas about psychological research? Let’s discuss!
Additional Resources:
- The Monster Study by Franklin H. Silverman: This article, published in the Journal of Fluency Disorders, provides an in-depth analysis of the study’s methodology and ethical implications.
- The Tudor Study Data and Ethics: This document examines the data and ethical considerations of Mary Tudor’s 1939 thesis project, later known as the “Monster Study.”
- The Monster Study of 1939 Unraveling the Dark Legacy of Speech Pathology: This article delves into the controversial history and ethical implications of the Monster Study, highlighting its impact on the field of speech pathology.
- The Ethical Implications of the Monster Study: This piece discusses the ethical violations of the study and its lasting impact on research ethics.
