A few points on the messages below: (1) Stephen Black must have a definition of "goodies" that I am unfamiliar with (then again, it's been years since I was an undergraduate and perhaps my sense of humor has changed over time). Were these studies identified because they're kind of like the scientific equivalent of fart jokes? Or to provide examples for teaching moments?
(2) It may just be me but I think that Stephen could have provided some useful commentary on the stories that he referred to (especially for Tipsters who are disinclined to investigate "goodies" about an elephant on acid or vomit drinking idiots). For example, the "Look of Eugh" which superficially was on facial expressions in reaction to decapitating rats, could be much usefully used to illustrate obedience to authority (students had to do the decapitation -- with two-thirds cooperating, roughly the same percentage that Milgram found). A comment on how it is a good thing that such incredibly stupid activities can no longer be done (let alone getting published) as well as how such dumb acts would readily activate the local Peta chapter (if they weren't protesting the use of animals in research already) might be in order. (3) I don't want to spend too much time on the "vomit doctor" but it is important to note that the point he wanted to make, that yellow-fever wasn't based on germs was wrong (contrast with Goldberger). Though he didn't get sick, thus supporting his assertion that it wasn't contagious, he was wrong because the pathogen has to be injected directly into the bloodstream (as done by mosquito bites). (4) I can see how Jim Clark's presentation of Goldberger's testing might cause disgust in students (or most ordinary people). When he presents: |> *Filth parties*: Goldberger, wife, and assistants injected with |> blood from affected people and later ate scrapings from scabs, |> urine, and runny feces of ill; did not get ill This is a pretty messy picture but I wonder where this description came from? Lawrence K Altman, science/medical writer for the NY Times wrote a 1999 book entitled "Who Goes First? The Story of Self-Experimentation in Medicine" also describes Goldberger's research. Although there were injections of blood from people with pellegra, whether scrapings of stuff were eaten is subject to interpretation. Altman writes: |...Goldberger swallowed capsules contrining urine, feces, and skin |taken from patients with severe cases of pellagra. ... |On May 7, again in Spartanburg, he repeated the swallowing experimetn |on himself and five other volunteers, including his wife, Mary, the |mother of their four children, who had insisted on the privilege of |representing women as a volunteer in the experiments. ... |None of the volunteers developed pellagra. (p243-244) Mental imagery is a subjective thing but I think that swallowing a capsule with disgusting stuff might be easier to handle than, say, taking in spoonfuls of gloppy gook. Altman's book is available on books.google.com with limited preview. See: (search for "filth parties") http://books.google.com/books?id=eJdPZH3B2eMC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=pellegra+%22filth+parties%22&source=bl&ots=spLBEzBJL4&sig=ExZbuI5L9FmRhuhi3xlJkr3OfsI&hl=en&ei=spPDSbHiJcKDtgeTqvDHCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA244,M1 or http://tinyurl.com/cwvblf Also, it seems to me that Goldberger's research has less to do with the other studies which seem to have been selected for the incredibly bad judgment used in doing them. In contrast to the vomit doctor, Goldberger's research allowed one to reach a practical and ultimately acceptable conclusion. This research has more in common with Warren and Marshall's research on whether H. pylori is a possible cause of gastric ulcers (see: http://tinyurl.com/cwvblf ). If one needs a "grossness factor", Marshall drank a beaker of H. pylori in order to show it would make him sick and could be treated with antibiotics. In 2005, Warren and Marshall got the Nobel prize in medicine for this work. So, maybe I need a "goodies" update. On not. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:39:55 -0500, Jim Clark wrote: > Hi > > I'm surprised Goldberger isn't in the list of researchers experimenting > on themselves. I use this as one of my examples of the benefits of > experiments (even poorly controlled ones in some cases). > > Here's the slide from correlation (nonexperiment) (apologies for the > ill formatting) > > Pellegra: disease that once killed many poor southerners; 10,000 people > died in USA in 1915 alone > Correlation in South between pellegra and presence of indoor > sanitation > Dominant explanation became *germ theory* > Would improved sanitary conditions / practices reduce incidence of > pellegra? > More on pellegra shortly! > > And later when talking about experiments (note the "filth" parties at > the end ... always gets disgusted sounds and facial expressions from > class): > > Goldberger > Did not think that *germ theory* was correct or that sanitation was > causal factor > In institutions he observed that inmates got pellegra, but not staff > Pellegra dietary rather than infectious disease? > Series of simple but compelling experiments > Better diet cured and prevented disease > 11 inmates volunteered for corn diet; 6 became ill > *Filth parties*: Goldberger, wife, and assistants injected with > blood from affected people and later ate scrapings from scabs, urine, > and runny feces of ill; did not get ill > > > Early researchers on the effects of altitude also merit mention ... > some of them died when they passed out as their balloons reached certain > altitudes (and kept on going). > > Take care > Jim > > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]> 19-Mar-09 9:29:25 PM >>> > Two goodies from _New Scientist_, which I feel compelled to share. The > > newer, just published, led me to the older. Note that the term > "experiment" is used here in its looser sense as systematic inquiry > (although some of the "experiments" on these two lists barely qualify). > > This is not the sense it is sometimes taught in psychology, which > requires an investigation with randomized control and experimental > groups. > > First the older: > Top 10 bizarre experiments (November 2007) > http://tinyurl.com/bohgx6 > > Some notes on the entries: > > 1) Elephants on Acid > > Their header is a bit misleading because it was only one elephant. I > also remember a follow-up letter-to-the-editor (Harwood, 1963) which > termed this misadventure with drugs an "elephantine fallacy". Harwood > > argued that the perpetrators had made a grievous error in using body > weight in scaling up the dose for an elephant from that appropriate for > a > small mammal. This is because metabolic rate varies, not with body > weight, but with surface area (of which elephants have a lot). > > There is enough weirdness surrounding this experiment to take up at > least > the top five places by itself. For more on the elephant on acid, see: > > http://tinyurl.com/36tk8w > > West LJ, Pierce CM, Thomas WD. (1962). Lysergic acid diethylamide: Its > > effects on a male Asiatic elephant. Science, 138, 1100-1102. > > Harwood, P. (1963). Therapeutic dosage in small and large mammals. > Science, 139, 684-685. > > 2) Terror in the Skies > > Imagine the reaction of an institutional review board (IRB) if it > received a proposal for this experiment. But the United States Army > don't > need no stinkin' IRBs (or else they didn't exist yet). > > 4) The Look of Eugh, and come to think of it, 5) Reversing Death, and > 8) > Two-headed Dogs > > Same thought about the IRBs. We've come a long way (I think). > > 9) The Vomit Drinking Doctor > > Absolutely the most disgusting experiment ever carried out. Nothing > even > comes close. For more revulsion from this one (if you can stand it), > go > to the newer essay in _New Scientist_ > > Eight scientists who became their own guinea pigs (March 11, 2009) > http://tinyurl.com/alwp3n > > The one with more on the vomit drinking doctor is the first one, headed > > "The vomit sauna" > > Don't you just love lists? --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
