The Exploitation of Inmates: Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Experiment

By Katelyn Kalata Western Illinois University

Testing on humans for the advancement of science took off during the 1940s, particularly in the United States and Europe. While German concentration camps were becoming known worldwide by the mid-1940s, they were not the only location where human testing occurred during that time period. Following World War II, the defense team in the Nuremberg Trials pointed its attention to the United States. Stateville Correctional Center, located in Crest Hill,

Illinois, was one of the many institutions that used an imprisoned population to research diseases and to experiment with different forms of medical treatments and vaccines. Stateville was mentioned during the Nuremberg Trials to justify Nazi experimentation, and the ethical issues related to the “Malaria Project” are still analyzed by researchers today.1 Given the title of a

“project” because of its prolonged nature and unforeseen end-date, Nathaniel Comfort is one of the several scholars who examine how this experiment was different than a typical research study.2

Another critical person mentioned throughout this essay is infamous inmate Nathan

Leopold. Leopold served as a participant and as a lab assistant. He wrote an autobiography describing the experience, thus, providing scholars with an inside look of what the project looked like. Considering his perspective through reading his autobiography and while analyzing the ethics behind the experiment, it becomes clear that the impact the environment has on a person’s psyche can be profound. A significant source for the research of this essay relies on Leopold’s perspective; however, a variety of primary and secondary sources used throughout this essay

1 “On October 18, 1945, twenty-two of Nazi Germany's political, military, and economic leaders were brought to trial in Nuremberg for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. For the first time in history, an international tribunal composed of the Allied countries and representatives of Nazi-occupied countries would punish the leaders of a regime and an army who were responsible for crimes committed.” “The Nuremberg Trials,” United States Holocaust Museum, https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/nuremberg-trials 2 Nathaniel Comfort, “The Prisoner as a Model Organism: Malaria Research at Stateville Penitentiary,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40, no. 3 (September 2009), 9. 10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.06.007

1

further support the notion that these inmates were heavily swayed to participate due to their unique circumstances. While the experiment proved to be successful in finding a cure for the

Chesson strain of malaria, the project cannot be deemed ethical with the data gathered because of the context in which consent was obtained. Although the Malaria Project was not as horrendous as the Nazi medical experiments since the inmates at Stateville were not forced into participating, the level of consent in a prison setting is compromised due to prison conditions, mental state of the inmates, and the overall unethical aspects surrounding medical experimentation on humans.

WHY DID THESE EXPERIMENTS OCCUR?

Records dating back to 2000 B.C. confirm that Malaria has affected a multitude of civilizations around the world with its ravaging effects on the human body. The disease is transmitted by a female mosquito that carries and injects "sporozoites" into humans and is detrimental to those who do not receive care once symptomatic.3 The invasion of this foreign species begins by invading the liver, multiplying, and “resulting in the production of many uninucleate merozoites… [that] flood… into the blood and invade [healthy] red [blood] cells.”4

The parasite quickly multiplies within the body, and an individual will begin to show symptoms a week following the initial infection. The symptoms typically include “fever with chills, headache, muscle pain, nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, and arthralgia (joint pain).”5 Severe cases of infection include having “impaired consciousness, respiratory distress, multiple convulsions,

3 Francis E.G. Cox, “History of the Discovery of the Malaria Parasites and their Vectors,” Parasites & Vectors 3, (February 2010), 2. 10.1186/1756-3305-3-5 4 Cox, “History of the Discovery,” 2. 5 “Symptoms and Severity,” Manta Ray Media, accessed March 22, 2020. https://www.vivaxmalaria.org/p-vivax/symptoms-severity

2

prostration, shock, pulmonary oedema [sic] (radiological), abnormal bleeding, and jaundice."6

The carrier of this parasite was not discovered until the 1880s which left millions of people clueless without any preventative measures and few effective treatments.

Quinine became a commonly used treatment for malaria; however, its availability was limited during and World War II because the United States no longer had access to the East Indies where it naturally grew.7 Scientists at this time were on the search for a synthetic form of quinine because it could be created within a lab. Malaria drastically increased the death toll during WWII; there were reportedly “eight-million man-days [lost] to the disease” in the

Pacific theater of war from the deadly malaria virus.8 The University of Chicago was one of the many institutions that began searching for an antimalarial drug that could be readily available, effective, and safe. The “Malaria Project,” led by likeable and competent Doctor Alf Alving, would begin at Illinois’ Stateville Penitentiary in 1944.9 However, this was not the only institution that would employ a captive population as test subjects within the Malaria Project.

Researchers used mentally ill patients at the Manteno State Hospital, Illinois, and included patients who had schizophrenia and other mental disorders as their test subjects. These individuals could not and should not have been able to consent to these experiments because they lacked the mental capacity to make decisions of that magnitude. Yet, they were the first individuals used within the Malaria Project. Karen M. Masterson, the author of The Malaria

Project, suggests that the “research triangle,” featuring top-rated labs and researchers, inmates at

6 “Symptoms and Severity,” https://www.vivaxmalaria.org/p-vivax/symptoms-severity

7 Comfort, “The Prisoner as a Model Organism,” 2. 8 Barbara E. McDermott, “Coercion in Research: Are Prisoners the Only Vulnerable Population?” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 41 no.1, (2013), 8. 9 Alf S. Alving, Craige Branch Jr., Theodore Pullman, Merrill Whorton, Ralph Jones Jr, and Lillian Eichelberger, “Procedures Used at Stateville Penitentiary for the Testing of Potential Antimalarial Agents,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 1948), 2.

3

Stateville Penitentiary, and patients at Manteno State Hospital, would “produce the most important malaria-related drug studies of the war.”10 She acknowledges their inability to consent while recognizing the successes within the project.

Stateville Penitentiary provided researchers with the optimal situation in a scientific experiment; scientists had a definite control group. According to the Malarial Research Unit from the University of Chicago’s original research plan, the test consisted of "white, male inmate volunteers in good physical health… [who were between the ages] of twenty-one to forty… whose stay in the institution was ascertained to be eighteen months or longer…"11 Following infection, Alving would be able to properly monitor and observe the results through the panopticon structure of the prison.12 After an individual was infected and received treatment, he received surveillance for at least a year.13 This situation proved to be ideal because researchers had the ability to monitor changes within their patient’s conditions. Other sources from the time period determined that using inmates did not affect the wartime economy because inmates were incarcerated and could not contribute. Comfort describes the prison population as being

“indebted” to society.14 While the ethics of the Malaria Project are questionable, the experiment makes sense when considering the context of American society in the 1940s because World War

II was such an important event in American culture and society. The determination to find effective preventative measures and effective treatments led to ignoring ethical “red flags.”

10 Karen M. Masterson, The Malaria Project (New York: Penguin Group, 2014), 269. 11 Alving, “Procedures Used at Stateville Penitentiary,” 2. 12 A Panopticon is “a building, as a prison or library, so arranged that all parts of the interior are visible from a single point.” “Panopticon,” Farlex, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/panopticon 13 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 329. 14 Comfort, "The Prisoner as a Model Organism,” 7.

4

THE EXPERIMENT

The experiment began by selecting six inmates who were influential among the population of the prison. This was done to maximize the number of participants and to receive helpful insight and advice from those who understood the social dynamics within Stateville.15

Alving asked these inmates their thoughts regarding the experiment to help estimate the number of participants. Leopold assured Alving that he would receive enough volunteers to conduct his research. Leopold became an outstanding figure within the group as he worked alongside researchers by infecting inmates, and he would later become a test subject to try to receive a shortened prison sentence. No sources suggest that Leopold forced inmates to participate in the experiment, but his influential role in the prison may have impacted the number of men who volunteered. The claim that men participated solely off intrinsic motivation becomes compromised when analyzing the actions of Leopold during the project because Leopold used his work in the project to manipulate sex out of men.16 Dr. Alving was knowledgeable of

Leopold’s manipulative behavior within the Malaria Project, but he was dismissive of accusations against Leopold. One could argue that Leopold’s involvement should have been disqualified due to his unprofessionalism within the experiment, but he continued to work alongside researchers as an essential contributor.

It was a participating inmate’s job to infect participants and care for them once symptomatic. By holding the mosquito over a fellow inmate’s skin, it was the inmate’s responsibility to make sure the mosquito drew blood from the test subject. Each participant was bitten by ten mosquitos.17 During this time, inmates were removed from their cells and placed

15 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 277. 16 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 330. 17Nathan Leopold Jr., Life Plus 99 Years (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1958), 310.

5

into the care of the doctors, nurses, and other inmates. Once infected, inmates experienced a warzone within their own bodies. When infamous prisoner Nathan Leopold participated, he had a fever that reached 105 degrees Fahrenheit, lost fourteen pounds in six days, and had a headache that made him feel like his "head was going to split."18 Leopold said test subjects would shake

“the bed with [their] chills [while] saturating the mattress with the sweat of a 107-degree temperature.” 19 Despite the suffering, Leopold and other inmates did not complain about side effects of the infection. He claimed that he enjoyed the experience and said it was a pleasure of his to be able to participate. Other inmates reacted similarly with their strong desire to help.

Governor Dwight Green's statement was read during the Nuremberg Trials and said that "their only complaint [had] been 'I volunteered; why haven't I been called'."20

One could argue that the worst part of the experiment was not the infection of Malaria but the experimentation of medications. Doctors were experimenting with unknown drugs and engaging in a lot of “trial-and-error.” Sometimes inmates would turn yellow and experience uncontrollable bouts of vomiting with low heart rates and bright red rashes covering their skin.

Often, the drug used was ineffective, thus, making their stay in the hospital even longer.21 The drug known as “Sontochin Analogue” gave subjects awful headaches, hives, along with induced nausea, perfuse vomiting, and sometimes even a bleached head of hair.22 Researchers continued to experiment with the combination of Sontochin and the German drug Plasmochin. By reducing dose levels initially in half and then in half again, doctors found the drug to be just as effective in

18 Leopold, Life Plus 99 Years, 321. 19Leopold, Life Plus 99 Years, 307. 20 “Transcript for Nuremberg Trials 1: Medical Case,” Harvard Law School: Nuremberg Trials Project., ed. 2016, 9, 127. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/transcripts/1-transcript-for-nmt-1-medical- case?seq=9274&q=Stateville 21Masterson, The Malaria Project, 278. 22 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 304.

6

small doses with no unwarranted side-effects.23 This discovery was a monumental breakthrough in the Malaria Project because it could treat men returning to the states following the war. The

Chesson strain, found in the Pacific, was tested at Stateville. Being one of the most aggressive strains because it had such high relapse rates, Sontonchin was the only drug that was able to ward off relapses for this strain successfully. Without questioning the ethics, one could point out how successful the project was for finding a synthetic form of treatment for malaria.

Healthcare professionals found that using prisoners for the experiment was better than using those from the mental ward. The Manteno State Hospital had quick turnover rates for nurses working within the experiment; they often questioned if it was as important in the war efforts as initially claimed.24 The conditions at Manteno were subpar for patients prior to the project, so being involved in an operation that aimed to get patients sicker was something most nurses could not handle. However, this was not the case at Stateville. The facility employed several women who were happy to be there, and according to Leopold, made prisoners feel at home.25 Comparing the reaction of nurses at both facilities shows that there was a "lesser of evils." However, it still does not justify using inmates as "lab rats" in the malaria studies. While the Nuremberg Code originally intended to protect those who were mentally ill, the final published version lacked any rules against testing on mentally ill individuals.26 Regardless, using inmates who were consciously participating in the experiments makes the situation somewhat more justifiable.

23 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 304. 24 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 272. 25 Leopold, Life Plus 99 Years, 309. 26 Paul Weindling, “The Origins of Informed Consent: The International Scientific Commission on Medical War Crimes, and the Nuremberg Code,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (Spring 2001), 66.

7

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT

The experiment, from the outset, was not without controversy. The Nuremberg Trials began in 1945 and the defense legal team used the Malaria Project at Stateville to defend experiments at the camp of Dachau. In contrast, however, the experiments conducted at

Stateville and Dachau had completely different results. While medical researchers at both sites studied malaria by infecting their test subjects, Dachau's operations left many dead or disabled.27

There were not any deaths directly associated with the Malaria Project, but the synthetic materials used in the drugs have been linked to heart failure long-term.28 Nolan Milam was the only death during the project, but his death was not written into the official report because doctors claimed he had a preexisting heart condition that led to his heart’s arrest.29

The publicity of the Malaria Project was amplified by the Nuremberg Trials but was not the focus of the media’s attention in the U.S. during the 1940s. However, it received some publicity when Life Magazine featured an article about the experiment and included interviews and pictures of participants. There were also interviews conducted with radio hosts and inmates about their experiences; these broadcasts allowed inmates to explain that their participation was

“in order to help their buddies who were sick with malaria.”30 Although the project can be seen as unethical, the Nuremberg Trials solidified Stateville’s case that inmates knew what they were

27 “Nazi Medical Experiments: Malaria Experiments,” Jewish Virtual Library: A Project of Aige, American- Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2019. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/malaria-experiments\ 28 Comfort, “The Prisoner as a Model Organism,” 447. 29 Comfort, “The Prisoner as a Model Organism,” 447. 30 “Transcript for Nuremberg Trials,” Harvard, 9128.

8

signing up for. It was stated that inmates could only participate following their signature of the statement that read:

I hereby assume all risks of such tests and, acting for myself, my heirs, personal representatives and assigns, do hereby release the University of Chicago, all technicians and assistants assisting in said work, the United States Government, the State of Illinois, the Director of the Department for Public Safety of the State of Illinois, the warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary, and all employees connected with the above institutions, from all liability, including claims and suits at law or in equity, for any injury or illness, fatal or otherwise, which may result from these tests. This is to certify that this application is made voluntarily and under no duress.31 When mentioned through the media outside of its connection to the Nuremberg trials, it highlighted its effectiveness in contributing to the war effort. Because it was able to save millions of lives overseas, the experiment was applauded by many during that time. The New

York Times said that the project proved that “war accelerates the progress of science and technology.”32 Multiple sources during that time do not analyze the definition of consent as the war efforts overruled any moral obligations. The public perception and individual opinions of the experiments has changed drastically over the course of time. Because inmates had stated their willingness to participate and were given full disclosure of what the risks were, the experiment was not criticized before the “Protection of Human Test Subjects” was created in 1978.33

ETHICAL QUESTIONS

To understand whether the experiments were ethical or not, one must analyze the experiment from the perspective of the inmates as well as from the researchers who were conducting these experiments because despite the successes achieved, people’s lives were altered

31 “Transcript for Nuremberg Trials,” Harvard, 9, 128. 32 Bernard Harcourt, “Making Willing Bodies: The University of Chicago Human Experiments at Stateville Penitentiary,” Social Research 78, no. 2 (Summer 2011), 443-78. 33 Joel Sparks, “Timeline of Laws Created to the Protection of Human Test Subjects,” National Institutes of Health (2002), https://history.nih.gov/about/timelines_laws_human.html.

9

following the project. The discussion of whether an inmate can give consent given his circumstances is what makes the Malaria Project so controversial. It is obvious that what occurred at Manteno State Hospital was morally wrong; Alving profusely questioned his involvement at the facility. In order to counteract Alving’s ethical concerns, Doctor George

Carden used the justification that malaria could potentially be used as a treatment for mental health disorders.34 “Fever therapy” was rhetoric fed to patients that increased the chances of their subjection to the test.35 The tactic used by doctors demonstrates their lack of ethics because their concerns for their patients’ best interest was not prioritized. Doctors put the scientific experiment before their patient’s needs, which was unacceptable and is what jades the experiment.

Inmates suffered immensely during this time, but they were willing to participate in the experiment for the illusion of having somewhat of a normal life. While the rewards given to inmates would not be enough for someone on the outside of prison walls – as civilians already have access to these necessities – an inmate is going to show an overexaggerated sense of gratitude for anything out of his ordinary reach within the prison. Leopold’s perspective demonstrates that the benefits of participating outweighed any negatives associated with the side- effects of the illness and of the medication. The high levels of participation within the experiment were driven by their desire for luxuries. Conditions were poor in the prison in the first place, so inmates had very little to lose when offered an opportunity such as this one.

Participants could now play “cards and dominoes, [live] in the hospital away from the birdcage,

[wear] hospital ward whites and, at night, [wear] comfy pajamas and robes rather than prison

34 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 271. 35 Joel T. Braslow, “The Influence of a Biological Therapy on Physicians’ Narratives and Interrogations: The Case of General Paralysis of the Insane and Malaria Fever Therapy, 1910-1950,” John Hopkins University Press 70 no. 4 (Winter 1996), 578-9.

10

jumpsuits.”36 Inmates were provided with a new environment; this environment allowed them to spend more time with friends and gave them a temporary illusion that they were no longer in prison. As the “Stateville prisoners left the cellblocks to stay in the hospital wing, where most volunteers remained for the duration of their tenure on the malaria project, they entered a world of control and power far more subtle than anything the prison designers could have imagined” as

Comfort argues in his article “The Prisoner as the Model Organism.”37 He takes an extreme stance on the subject as he thinks inmates were driven to participate not only based off of the rewards but for the power associated with these rewards.

In addition to the improvement of the environment, inmates were paid between “ten and one-hundred dollars” for their participation and could use this money for commissary.38 For those without an influx of money coming into the prison, this experiment offered a way for inmates to receive items they would not have had access to before. If one used Comfort’s perspective when analyzing the desire for money within a prison, it may also be argued that it was another way that inmates could establish their power within the social structure through their heightened material status. Because prisons revolve around a social hierarchy, inmates could use this project as an opportunity to achieve a higher social standing.

The project provided inmates with a purpose; they felt that they were able to repay their debts to society by finding the cure to a disease that had taken millions of lives in the world. In his autobiography, Leopold said the experiment provided him with a way to “get in a payment on

[his] debt” and said that it was a way for him to “expiate some part of [his] guilt.”39 Many of the

36 Masterson, The Malaria Project, 302. 37 Comfort, “The Prisoner as a Model Organism,” 3. 38 Bernard Harcourt, “Making Willing Bodies: The University of Chicago Human Experiments at Stateville Penitentiary,” Social Research 78, no. 2 (2011), 12. 39 Leopold, Life Plus 99 years, 331.

11

inmates participating in this experiment were murderers, so their willingness to participate could have been driven by their need to fulfill their personal moral obligations. They may have also felt guilt for not being able to contribute overseas to the war effort. The rhetoric driving this experiment featured a strong motivating factor to inmates to help their “brothers,” so it is clear that wartime in the U.S. only exacerbated the interest of inmates because they could not help otherwise. Many inmates may have had family members serving in WWII, and because WWI had occurred about twenty-years prior, inmates may have felt an inclination to serve as their fathers likely did. While these ideas are somewhat speculative, they should be considered when analyzing the factors that drive motivation.

In addition, inmates were motivated to participate in shortening their prison sentences. In

February 1947, Governor Green "announced that the 445 convicts that participated in the wartime malaria experiments would be 'given special consideration for paroles or executive clemency'." Governor Green's proclamation allowed the release of twenty-four men accused of murder and one accused of rape.40 The shortened sentences were a huge driving force behind their participation and is the reason why inmates were so anxious to get called for the experiment. Leopold participated on both ends of the experiment because he wanted to shorten his 99-year sentence; he wanted the governor to see that his name was listed under both sides to show his contributions. This was similar for several other inmates as well.

SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES

The United States saw a significant increase in medical experimentation and testing with human subjects over the course of the twentieth century. The Malaria Project was one of the

40 Harcourt, “Making Willing Bodies,” 6.

12

many experiments that used inmates as the test subjects for their low cost and high availability.

While analyzing the past and comparing Stateville to other experiments, it is apparent that it was not the worst to have occurred because its long-term effects were not as severe as others. For example, the Holmesburg Prison in purposely exposed inmates to cancer-causing and radioactive chemicals between 1951 and 1974.41 Even if the medication experimented with did cause heart problems in a handful of inmates long-term, these effects were not purposely induced as the experiments that occurred in Holmesburg were. The purpose of the malaria experiment was to get inmates sick with malaria, but once malaria was treated it is not likely to return and be a persistent problem within an individual's life. The project worked in developing a vaccine and an effective cure, and overall, the general focus was not to see how detrimental malaria could be on the human body. Scientists already knew how malaria was dangerous if left untreated because of its significant fatality rates. The experiment was focused on improved medicinal practices instead of examining the effects of malaria on individuals.

In human experiments within an institution, there is a persistent theme of “exploitation, profit and expediency… [lacking any] benefit of prisoners.”42 While the overall goal of medicine is to improve the quality of life for humans, testing within the walls of a prison ignores these ideals and focuses on the public’s quality of life over the prisoner’s life because researchers prioritize the advancement of medicine and lack sympathy for the prison population. The well- being of an inmate is more likely to be ignored to further research than if the test subject was an ordinary civilian, thus, making the study in a prison setting unethical because inmates’ lives maybe viewed as expendable in comparison to the rest of the population. This is apparent in

41 “Should Prisoners Participate in Medical Research Trials?” Massachusetts’s General Hospital, Proto, 2007. http://protomag.com/articles/should-prisoners-participate-in-medical-research-trials 42 “Should Prisoners Participate in Medical Research Trials?” Proto, 2007.

13

other medical experiments outside of the scope of prisons in the cases that used minorities as test subjects. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment is one example of medical experimentation that benefited from using a minority group to push the limits of what would be acceptable in contrast to other social groups. Doctors used “600 African-American sharecroppers from Alabama, [and had] 399 infected with syphilis before the study began and 201 noninfected [that were intentionally exposed to syphilis].”43 While a cure for syphilis was available, this was withheld from test subjects so doctors could see long-term effects of syphilis on the human body. Over

128 men would die because they did not receive penicillin.44 This scenario shows the dangers of human testing with those in a minority group or those who are considered part of a vulnerable population. Even if regulations are closely followed, using inmates or other disadvantaged test subjects has a high potential for abuse.

CONCLUSION

Eventually, the Malaria Project halted as the legalities behind testing on inmates became a question of concern. Although the focus throughout the paper is on the 1940s, the Malaria

Project at Stateville had continued its operations for twenty-nine years.45 Because there are no clear and enforceable regulations, the experimentation on vulnerable populations cannot be justified. While testing on inmates is easier for those on the outside, it capitalizes on those who have very little to lose. There are numerous concerns that were not mentioned above or in other scholarly articles. The variances in family involvement with each individual can affect the experiment. Should something go wrong, doctors are less likely to be held accountable in

43 McDermott, “Coercion in Research,” 8. 44 McDermott, “Coercion in Research,” 8. 45 Dana Dovey, “The And 2 Other Inhumane American Experiments Carried Out in The Name Of Science,” Medical Daily, 2017. https://www.medicaldaily.com/tuskegee-syphilis-study-and-2-other- inhumane-american-experiments-carried-out-417280

14

instances where families have cut ties with the inmates. The difference in the number of years serving can also greatly sway the odds of an individual participating in the experiment. In addition, the inclination of doctors to do the right thing and not use the experiment as a form of further punishment is another factor to consider within the prison setting. While the Malaria

Project did not result in any direct deaths, it is an unsettling thought for a doctor to be gambling with a person's life as he may lack a moral compass to do the right thing. Should the experiment result in an avoidable death or permanent harm to an inmate, the doctor may not be held to the same standards as he would in the outside world. While these statements may be speculative, they are important factors to take into consideration when conducting tests such as these because they are what makes the experiment unethical.

Despite his dedication to the Malaria Project, Leopold would die in prison from heart failure in 1974; he was rejected from any pardons and was not given a significant break on his sentencing.46 Leopold had suffered two heart attacks and died within prison walls; this may have been from the use of artificial quinine in the experiment. Since participants were not followed long-term, there may have been many similar occurrences. Heart issues were linked to the medicine doctors used during the Malaria Project; however, they cannot fully prove this theory due to a lack of evidence. Today, research on prisoners is limited to “minimal risk” which means that there cannot be any foreseen “psychical or psychological harm that is normally encountered in the daily lives, or in the routine medical, dental, or psychological examination of healthy persons.”47 Moving forward, the Malaria Project was extremely beneficial to advancing modern day medicine, but anything of a similar nature should not and will not occur again.

46 Comfort, “Making Willing Bodies,” 447. 47 Keramet Reiter, “Experimentation on Prisoners: Persistent Dilemmas in Rights and Regulations,” California Law Review 97 (2009), 551.

15

Bibliography Primary Sources: Alving Alf S., Craige Branch Jr., Theodore Pullman, Merrill Whorton, Ralph Jones Jr, and Lillian Eichelberger. “Procedures Used at Stateville Penitentiary for the Testing of Potential Antimalarial Agents.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 1948)

Leopald, Nathan. Life Plus 99 Years. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1958. “Prison Official in Illinois Halts Malaria Research on Humans.” New York Times. April 28, 1984. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/28/archives/prison-official-in-illinois-halts-malaria- research-on-inmates.html Reiter, Keramet. “Experimentation on Prisoners: Persistent Dilemmas in Rights and Regulations.” California Law Review 97 (2009): 501-566. “Transcript for Nuremberg Trials 1: Medical Case.” Harvard Law School: Nuremberg Trials Project., ed. 2016. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/transcripts/1-transcript-for-nmt-1- medical-case?seq=9274&q=Stateville Weindling, Paul. “The Origins of Informed Consent: The International Scientific Commission on Medical War Crimes, and the Nuremberg Code.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 75 (spring 2001): 37-71.

Secondary Sources: Braslow, Joel T. “The Influence of a Biological Therapy on Physicians’ Narratives and Interrogations: The Case of General Paralysis of the Insane and Malaria Fever Therapy, 1910-1950.” John Hopkins University Press 70, no. 4 (Winter 1996): 577-608. Comfort, Nathaniel. “The Prisoner as a Model Organism: Malaria Research at Stateville Penitentiary.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40 no. 3 (September 2009): 190-203.10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.06.007. Cox, Francis E.G. “History of the Discovery of the Malaria Parasites and their Vectors.” Parasites & Vectors 3 (2010): 1-9.

Dovey, Dana. “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study And 2 Other Inhumane American Experiments Carried Out in The Name Of Science,” Medical Daily, 2017. https://www.medicaldaily.com/tuskegee-syphilis-study-and-2-other-inhumane-american- experiments-carried-out-417280

Harcourt, Bernard E. “Making Willing Bodies: The University of Chicago Human Experiments at Stateville Penitentiary.” Social Research 78, no. 2 (Summer 2011):443-78.

16

Masterson, Karen M. The Malaria Project: The U.S. Government’s Secret Mission to Find a Cure. New York: New American Library, 2014. McDermott, Barbara E. “Coercion in Research: Are Prisoners the Only Vulnerable Population?” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 41, no.1, (2013): 8-13. “Nazi Medical Experiments: Malaria Experiments.” Jewish Virtual Library: A Project of Aige. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2019. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/malaria-experiments\ “Should Prisoners Participate in Medical Research Trials?” Massachusetts’s General Hospital. Proto, 2007. http://protomag.com/articles/should-prisoners-participate-in-medical- research-trials Sparks, Joel. “Timeline of Laws Created to the Protection of Human Test Subjects.” National Institutes of Health: 2002, https://history.nih.gov/about/timelines_laws_human.html

17