Why Testing Pesticides on People is Wrong, Part One: Unwitting College Students

After reading our post on Dow AgroSciences' use of human guinea pigs to demonstrate that a potent neurotoxin was safe for pesticidal use, reader John thoughtfully disagreed:

Paying people to expose themselves to potential toxins or carcinogens is controversial, but to call the subjects "half-witting" seems patronizing: is there reason to think that they didn't know what they were consuming and what the risks might be?

Now, even in the best of circumstances, I'd stick with my description. Even when they're not being paid, college kids are famously bad at making decisions about the ingestion of potentially harmful chemicals.

But as it happens, there's good reason to think that the subjects in that trial -- University of Nebraska students paid $460 apiece -- didn't know the risks of what they were doing.

The seven-page consent form used in the study allegedly said that "Low doses of these agents have been shown to improve performance on numerous tests of mental function."

I say "allegedly" because I don't have a copy of the form myself, but I've heard that phrase reported by people whom I trust, such as SUNY-Buffalo neurology professor and
Physicians for Social Responsibility member Alan Lockwood, quoted in
this article. The allegation also passed the requirements of factcheckers at the Village Voice.
I've also read that the consent forms specifically failed to mention that earlier research had found chlorpyrifos to be neurologically damaging, but don't have reliable sources for this.

At the time, the Omaha World-Herald described the outcome:

According to results from the MDS Harris study, volunteers who swallowed the pesticide capsules reported developing one incident each of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, shortness of breath, impairment of sensation and chest pain. Those symptoms were possibly or probably related to ingesting the pesticide, according to the study.

It was no small surprise, then, that in 2003 the state of New York fined Dow $2 million for making misleading safety claims. An Associated
Press article quoted Mount Sinai Medical Center public health expert
Philip Landrigan:

"Excellent studies conducted by independent scientists have clearly shown that chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in Dursban, is toxic to the human brain and nervous system and is especially dangerous to the developing brain of infants," Landrigan said.

Image: Anne Siegel