May 2- 8, 2002

hall monitor

Philadelphia Experiment

This Tuesday, City Council’s law and government committee, at the urging of Councilman David Cohen, will hold hearings on a disturbing chapter in Philadelphia’s history. Between 1949 and 1974, Dr. Albert Kligman, a dermatology professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, conducted medical experiments on inmates in the city’s prisons. A group of nearly 300 former inmates who participated in the skin experiments are suing Dr. Kligman, the city and the University of Pennsylvania, as well as two companies, Dow Chemical Co. and Johnson & Johnson, whose products were tested in the experiments.

Prisoners were paid for participating in the tests, though they claim that Penn scientists did not fully explain the risks of taking part. In their lawsuit, the former inmates claim that many of the health problems they suffer from today were caused by the chemicals they were exposed to during the experiments.

According to Leodus Jones, a leader of the former inmates, "We're suing for pain and suffering. Really, for reparations."

But so far the suit has been unsuccessful. Jones and his fellow inmates have already lost their case once on the grounds that a two-year statute of limitations applies to such claims. Thomas Nocella, the prisoners' attorney, challenges the validity of the two-year limit, since he contends that the inmates signed "dubious waivers" which misled them into believing they had no right to sue.

The lawsuit is currently pending before a federal appeals court.

In the eyes of Councilman Cohen, the city, the University of Pennsylvania and the chemical companies are hiding behind a legal technicality when they should be taking responsibility for their actions. "We [the City of Philadelphia] did something wrong," Cohen says, "and we ought to be ready to apologize for doing it. ... It seems to me that, between the University of Pennsylvania and the chemical companies that profited from all the activities, there ought to be ample means to provide ample restitution."

Dow Chemical spokesman Scot Wheeler acknowledges that "looking through 2002 eyes, this is a population that shouldn't be used for research in this manner, [but] it was fairly common practice in the '50s and '60s." For this reason, Wheeler says it is "hard to apply culpability."

Rebecca Harmon, a University of Pennsylvania medical school spokeswoman, echoes that sentiment and adds, "the [Cohen] resolution is neither a full nor accurate representation of the situation." Harmon notes that the university has offered free medical evaluations to the former prisoners and free treatment to those it determines were injured by the tests.

Cohen responds, "I'm not sure they can be trusted in their evaluation. If you think somebody has caused you an injury, do you let that person decide if they caused you that injury?"

Cohen says Penn has been "invited to tell their story," though Harmon says it is unlikely any Penn representatives will testify.

Dr. Kligman, now world-famous in his field for inventing the anti-wrinkle cream Retin-A, declined through his secretary to make any comment to City Paper and is not expected to testify at the council hearings.

Johnson & Johnson did not return a call for comment.

Mayor Street's spokesman Frank Keel was tight-lipped as well, saying, "We really are not at liberty to discuss any of the details since there is pending litigation." But Keel adds, "We find it a bit odd" that City Council would hold hearings to publicize a lawsuit against their own city.

Cohen calls that a "shameful position," arguing that "the legislature has its own responsibility to see that this never happens again, to make sure people are treated like human beings ... not experimental animals."

The councilman says he hopes an administration representative will testify at the hearings. "I think they'll have a lot to answer for, and I'd appreciate them coming out," he says.

By holding hearings, Cohen may publicly embarrass the administration and the institutions involved, but it remains to be seen whether the publicity will have any effect on the legal case.

Angus Love, the top attorney at the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, says Cohen's calling for hearings would have been more effective earlier in the litigation process. With sufficient public pressure, some of the PR-conscious defendants might have settled out of court to spare the embarrassment of public hearings.

Now with the case having already been lost once, Love says, "I feel strongly that they [the inmates] got screwed, but I also feel strongly there is no legal solution."