
New paper sheds light on experience of Black prisoners in infamous Stateville prison malaria experiments
Much has been said and written over the years about controversial malaria research conducted on inmates at Illinois' Stateville Penitentiary starting in the 1940s.
But at least one part of that story has been largely ignored until now: the role of Black prisoners in that research, which helped lead to the modern practice of using genetic testing to understand how individual patients will react to certain medications, according to the authors of a newly published paper out of the University of Utah.
'We want to highlight the stories of Black prisoners that participated in this prison research in the 1950s onward and give them their due,' said Hannah Allen, a medical ethicist and assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, and first author of the paper, which was published as an opinion piece Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
'They haven't been properly acknowledged in the past, and their participation in these studies was really foundational in launching the field of pharmacogenetics and, later on, precision medicine,' said Allen, who recently completed her doctorate at the University of Utah.
Starting in the 1940s, researchers infected inmates at the Joliet-area prison with malaria to test the effectiveness of drugs to treat the illness as part of a U.S. military-funded effort to protect American troops overseas, according to the paper. A University of Chicago doctor was the principal investigator. The inmates consented to being part of the studies and were paid for their participation.
At first, the research was greeted with enthusiasm. In 1945, Life magazine ran a spread about it, featuring a photo of a Stateville inmate with cups containing malaria-carrying mosquitoes pressed against his bare chest. The first line of the story reads, 'In three U.S. penitentiaries men who have been imprisoned as enemies of society are now helping science fight another enemy of society.'
But as the years passed, attitudes began to shift. Questions arose about whether inmates could truly, freely consent to participate in medical experiments or whether they felt coerced into them because of their often dire circumstances.
At the Nuremberg trials, defense attorneys for Nazi doctors introduced text and images from the Life article about Stateville prison, though an Illinois physician argued at the trials that the prisoners in Stateville consented to being part of medical research whereas Nazi prisoners did not, according to the JAMA paper.
In the mid-1970s, news broke about a study at Tuskegee, in which Black men with syphilis went untreated for years — news that raised awareness of ethical problems in medical research.
News outlets also began publishing more stories about prison research, according to the JAMA article. The Chicago Tribune published an article in 1973, in which an inmate participating in the Stateville malaria research said: 'I've been coerced into the project — for the money. Being here has nothing to do with 'doing good for mankind' … I didn't want to keep taking money from my family.'
The experiments at Stateville came to a halt in the 1970s. A number of protections and regulations are now in place when it comes to research involving prisoners.
Since the 1970s, the Stateville research has often been discussed and analyzed but little attention has been paid to its Black participants, said James Tabery, a medical ethicist and philosophy professor at the University of Utah who led the new research, which was funded by the federal National Institutes of Health.
For a time, Black prisoners were excluded from the studies because of a myth that Black people were immune to malaria, Tabery said. Later on, once scientists had pinpointed the drug primaquine as an effective medication for malaria, they turned their attention to the question of why 5% to 10% of Black men experienced a violent reaction to the drug, according to the paper.
Ultimately, the scientists were successful, finding that the adverse reaction was related to a specific genetic deficiency.
'There are people all over Chicago today that are getting tested, that clinicians are recommending they get a genetic test before they get prescribed a drug because they want to make sure that their patient isn't going to have an adverse reaction to the drug,' Tabery said. 'It's really sort of powerful and interesting that you can trace that approach to doing good clinical medicine right back to this particular moment and place and population.'
But Tabery and Allen also found that the Black prisoners were not treated the same as the white prisoners who participated in research at Stateville.
For one, they weren't paid as much as the white prisoners, the rationale being that the white prisoners were infected with malaria, whereas the Black prisoners were given the drug but not infected with the disease — though some of the Black prisoners got very ill after taking the medication, according to the paper.
Also, researchers didn't protect the Black participants' privacy as well as they did for other participants. They published certain identifying information about the Black participants, such as initials, ages, heights and weights, whereas participants in the previous research were represented with case numbers, according to the paper.
Researchers also recruited the Black prisoners' family members for the study, which they didn't do with earlier participants, according to the paper.
'You see them just doing things with the Black prisoners that they're not doing with the white prisoners,' Tabery said.
Also, though scientists made an important discovery through the research on Black prisoners, the episode also highlights the difficulty that can occur in translating discoveries into real life help for patients. Though the World Health Organization now recommends genetic testing to protect people who are sensitive to antimalarials, many of the people who would benefit most from such testing still don't receive it because of financial barriers, supply chain issues and a lack of training, according to the paper.
'What we found is when you sort of shift to what was happening to the Black prisoners, these other lessons you hadn't thought of as being derivable from Stateville suddenly do become apparent,' Tabery said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Maria Ansari, MD, FACC, named to Modern Healthcare's list of 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
Co-CEO of The Permanente Federation and leader of multiple Permanente Medical Groups at Kaiser Permanente, recognized for advancing AI technology, improving care access, and advocating for value-based care measures OAKLAND, Calif., June 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Maria Ansari, MD, FACC, co-CEO of The Permanente Federation at Kaiser Permanente, has been named to Modern Healthcare's list of 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives for 2025. Dr. Ansari was recognized for her strategic leadership of the Permanente Medical Groups, supporting extensive deployment of AI listening technology, improving access to care, reducing health disparities, and advocating on Capitol Hill for value-based care. Modern Healthcare honors physicians and clinicians in executive roles for their exceptional achievements in driving innovation, improving outcomes, serving their communities, and demonstrating exemplary leadership both within and beyond their organizations. "This recognition honors the dedication of our Permanente physicians, clinicians, nurses, and staff who bring Permanente Medicine to life every day — delivering care that is compassionate, patient-centered, and seamlessly coordinated," said Dr. Ansari. "Physician leadership is key to earning our patients' trust and ensuring clinical autonomy, allowing us to make decisions in the best interests of those we serve. The result is high-quality, high-value care within an integrated system — improving lives and shaping the future of health care." Alongside Federation co-CEO Ramin Davidoff, MD, Dr. Ansari leads the Permanente Medical Groups, where more than 25,000 physicians deliver value-based care to 12.6 million Kaiser Permanente members in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Dr. Ansari is also CEO and executive director of The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG), president and CEO of the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group, and CEO of Northwest Permanente, three of the largest and most accomplished medical groups in the country. Kaiser Permanente is comprised of the Permanente Medical Groups and Kaiser Foundation Health Plans and Hospitals. Examples of Dr. Ansari's leadership in physician wellness, patient outcomes, care experience, and more include: Overseeing deployment of ambient AI listening technology to 25,000 Permanente physicians — an innovation that improves the patient experience and reduces clerical work and physician burnout. Improving access in adult and family medicine at TPMG by reducing appointment booking times by more than 33%. Reducing disparities in hypertension control between white and Black patients by 33% and in diabetes control between white and Latino patients by 25% at TPMG. Advocating for value-based care on Capitol Hill, including measures to support the physician pipeline, improve health care quality, health IT, and coordinated care. Advancing the highest quality specialty care. All 3 Northern California Kaiser Permanente cardiac surgery hubs — Sacramento, San Francisco, and Santa Clara — earned the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' highest quality rating for positive patient outcomes resulting from isolated coronary artery bypass graft procedures. Improving physician wellness. 6 Permanente Medical Groups have been recognized in the past 2 years by the American Medical Association's Joy in Medicine Award for their ongoing commitment to improve physician well-being and reducing burnout In addition to these achievements, Dr. Ansari oversees the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research (DOR), whose investigators, along with clinician-researchers, form one of the largest research facilities in the nation. Their work supports medical advancements by publishing close to 1,000 research papers annually. The DOR also launched the Augmented Intelligence in Medicine and Healthcare Initiative Coordinating Center to fund research projects that deploy AI and machine learning algorithms to enhance diagnostic decision-making. The complete list of honorees and their profiles are available at 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives – 2025 | Modern Healthcare and in the June 9 issue of Modern Healthcare magazine. A digital subscription is required to view the online profiles. To learn more about Permanente Medicine, visit About the Permanente Medical GroupsThe Permanente Medical Groups are self-governed, physician-led, prepaid, multispecialty medical groups composed of more than 25,000 physicians. We are dedicated to the mission of improving the health of our patients and communities. Together with the Kaiser Foundation Health Plans and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, we are Kaiser Permanente — an award-winning health care system that delivers Permanente Medicine, care that is person- and family-centered, compassionate, evidence-based, technology-enabled, culturally responsive, team-delivered and physician-led, to 12.6 million Kaiser Permanente members. We work collaboratively, enabled by state-of-the art facilities and technology, to provide world-class preventive and complex care centered in eight states — from Hawaii to Maryland — and the District of Columbia. About The Permanente FederationThe Permanente Federation LLC is the national leadership and consulting organization for the Permanente Medical Groups, which, together with the Kaiser Foundation Health Plans and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, comprise Kaiser Permanente. The Federation works on behalf of the Permanente Medical Groups to optimize care delivery and spread Permanente Medicine — care that is person- and family-centered, compassionate, evidence-based, technology-enabled, culturally responsive, team-delivered and physician-led. The Federation, based in Oakland, California, fosters an open learning environment and accelerates research, innovation, and performance improvements across the Permanente Medical Groups to expand the reach of Kaiser Permanente's integrated care delivery model and to lead the nation in transforming health care delivery. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE The Permanente Federation

an hour ago
Exposure to 'forever chemicals' before birth linked to higher blood pressure in kids
Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- toxic chemicals found in products like nonstick pans and personal care items -- can linger in the body for up to 20 years, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals," professor and lead study author Mingyu Zhang of Harvard Medical School told ABC News. Forever chemicals have come under growing scrutiny in recent years because they build up in the body and may trigger health problems, according to a growing body of research. In this new study, Zhang and his team found that when babies were exposed in the womb to specific types of forever chemicals -- PFDeA, PFNA, and PFUnA -- they had higher systolic blood pressure (the top number in a blood pressure reading) later in life, possibly because these chemicals can cross the placenta during pregnancy and affect early development. "PFAS exposure in the womb can affect fetal growth. There may be potential mechanisms that involve inflammation and oxidative stress that can cause PFAS' long-term health-related changes to blood pressure," Zhang said. The risk does not affect all children equally. The association was stronger for teens, boys and Black children. In boys, higher exposure to the forever chemical PFDeA was linked to a 9% greater risk of high blood pressure from ages 6 to 12, and a 17% greater risk during the teen years. Zhang cites previous studies showing that boys could be more sensitive to environmental pollutants due to slower removal rates of toxins from the body and higher rates of buildup. When it comes to the effect on older children, Zhang speculated that because PFAS stay in the body for so long, it may take longer for their effects to take hold. Children of Black mothers showed stronger links between PFAS exposure and high blood pressure, which the authors feel may reflect the combined impact of systemic racism, housing segregation and greater environmental exposure. "We know that due to historic reasons, Black and Hispanic communities face a higher burden of environmental pollutants," he says. Some of the forever chemicals -- including PFHpS, PFOS, and PFOA -- were linked to lower diastolic blood pressure in early childhood, the study found. That's the lower number in a blood pressure reading reflecting when the heart rests between beats. But as kids got older, the effect faded and may have even reversed -- these same chemicals were possibly tied to higher diastolic pressure in adolescence. Zhang said that these findings matter because children with high blood pressure are much more likely to carry it into adulthood, raising their long-term risk for heart disease, stroke, and kidney problems. Early-life blood pressure patterns can set the stage for serious health issues later on, he noted. He called for more research into the health effects of forever chemicals as well as policies that focus on reducing their use. "Meaningful change to reduce PFAS exposure in our daily life requires policy-level change on the state and federal levels," he said. "This will really help the health of children for generations to come."