
New paper sheds light on experience of Black prisoners in infamous Stateville prison malaria experiments
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


Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
This Isn't A Safe Space: How Professionals Can Create Internal Safety
Johan Khalilian is a speaker, author and leadership coach who inspires individuals to defy limitations and live with bold purpose. We're often told to make things safer. But what if the real power is learning to carry safety within? A few weeks ago, I was coaching one of my pro athletes—a baseball player navigating the emotional whiplash of life on the edge of the roster. One day they tell him he's going to play. The next, he's scratched. One day he's scheduled for one inning, then it becomes two. One day his role is clear. Next, it's as cloudy as a Midwest storm. He paused during our session, visibly unsettled. I asked, 'Can I call something out?' 'Of course,' he said. 'It sounds like you don't feel safe there.' He went quiet. Then came the words: 'Yeah … that's exactly how I feel.' That moment wasn't just about baseball. It was about being human. What many people don't realize is that safety—real, felt safety—isn't a luxury. It's a basic need. I reminded him of that: You're not crazy. Your body is asking for safety. The nervous system isn't irrational—it's intelligent. But here's the deeper issue: What happens when the world can't give you the safety you need? That's where our conversation went next. I told him he could wait around for the team to regulate his emotions—or he could learn how to do it himself. Because waiting for safety to show up can be a losing strategy. So I asked him the real question: "What do you do to create internal safety in a world that won't always offer it?" It's not just sports, is it? It's business. It's leadership. It's life. We live in a time when 'safe spaces' are more than a buzzword—they're viewed as essential. And rightly so. Environments where people feel respected, heard and emotionally secure are environments where innovation can thrive. Google's internal research backs this up: Psychological safety is the number-one predictor of high-performing teams. But here's the paradox most leaders miss: Safety nurtures creativity, but discomfort creates growth. Psychologists refer to this as desirable difficulty, those challenges that feel hard in the short term but drive deeper learning and long-term success. Think of it like strength training for your inner world: Resistance builds resilience. Consider that roughly 35% of American entrepreneurs are dyslexic, which is far higher than the average. Many of them say the early challenge of navigating a system not built for them honed their creativity and grit. Similarly, more than half of trauma survivors report gaining new strengths they didn't know they had. Discomfort, when met with courage, becomes a forge. This doesn't mean we throw people into chaos and expect greatness. It means we expand our capacity. We breathe instead of bracing. We set boundaries instead of bending. We shift our story from this is unsafe to this is unfamiliar, but I can handle it. Picture yourself walking into a boardroom, a performance review or a high-stakes negotiation, not from fear or defensiveness, but from grounded clarity. Sometimes, strength means leaving what violates your peace. Other times, it means staying and becoming the calm in the chaos. This is the leadership paradox: We need environments safe enough for vulnerability. And we need leaders strong enough to stay steady when safety disappears. So here's the question: How do you develop that inner safety? When: Before stepping into any space that demands your presence. How: Assume the hero stance: shoulders back, chin up, feet firm. Visualize yourself stepping into your higher self. Silently affirm: 'I don't shrink. I show up.' Why: I've found the body shapes more than posture—it shapes possibility. When you shift your stance, you can shift your state. This is your physical cue to lead. When: When your body tightens and the inner alarm bells start to ring. How: Catch the voice of fear. Counter it with: 'This isn't a threat, it's training.' Anchor the thought somewhere visible: a note on your desk, a mantra on your phone. Why: Neuroscience shows that reinterpreting threat as challenge rewires your brain for focus, resilience and high-pressure performance. When: At the first sign of tension, resistance or defensiveness. How: Pause and take one full breath. Lead with: 'Help me understand …' or 'What's most important for you here?' Listen to learn. Resist the reflex to counter or defend. Why: Replacing defense with genuine inquiry can transform conflict into co-creation. It expands everyone's sense of safety and influence. The 30-Day 'Carried Safety' Challenge By day 30, these won't just be rituals, they'll be reflexes. That's the invitation. What if, over the next month, you trained yourself to respond to pressure with presence? To walk into any room—not because it's safe, but because you are grounded? This 30-day challenge is your chance to build that internal safety system. Not theory, but practice. Not perfection, but progress. Step by step, you can develop the habits that turn fear into focus and tension into clarity. Ready to start? Let's train. Week 1—Embody: For 60 seconds each morning, right out of bed or while brushing your teeth, embody the hero. Stand tall, breathe deep and silently affirm: 'I don't shrink. I show up.' Week 2—Reframe: Throughout the day, when pressure surfaces, rename the game. Take 30 seconds to pause, reframe the moment as training and anchor it with a sticky note or lock screen mantra. Week 3—Pivot: In any tense exchange, curiosity pivot within the first 90 seconds. Breathe. Lead with: 'Help me understand …' Listen fully before responding. Week 4—Integrate: Practice all three tools in real conversations. Create a five-minute morning routine or evening wind-down. Journal one moment where you carried your own safety instead of outsourcing it. Safe spaces aren't guaranteed. They're rare. So when you find yourself thinking, 'This isn't a safe space,' know this: You've built the capacity to be safe. That's the heart of resilient leadership—and the hidden edge that defines you. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?


Medscape
30 minutes ago
- Medscape
AHA's ‘Life's Simple 7' Show Broad Health Benefits
'The findings in this review study indicate that these healthy lifestyle metrics are also a path to improving health and well-being across the board, from head to toe,' said Stacey E. Rosen, MD, volunteer president of the American Heart Association and senior vice president of women's health and executive director of the Katz Institute for Women's Health of Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, New York, in a press release. 'Preventing cardiovascular disease and reducing cardiovascular disease risk, the centerpieces for Life's Essential 8, are the core of the American Heart Association's mission to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives.' SOURCE: The study was led by Liliana Aguayo, MPH, PhD, of the Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing at Emory University, in Atlanta. It was published online on July 16 in the Journal of the American Heart Association . LIMITATIONS: Publication bias and overrepresentation of studies reporting significant associations cannot be excluded from this systematic review. The researchers noted that knowledge gaps exist regarding cardiovascular health among children and diverse populations, as well as the benefits of modest improvements in cardiovascular health metrics. DISCLOSURES: Aguayo was supported by the American Heart Association, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health and is currently supported by the American Heart Association and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. Lead image: The American Heart Association


Time Magazine
31 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's War on Education Is Driving Academics Like Me Abroad
On a recent flight back to the U.S., I wondered if I would be stopped at passport control. It was at this moment when I thought it may be time to consider leaving America. I was returning from Marseille, France after participating in a workshop in March that I co-organized at the Iméra research institute on climate change and religious conflict during the Little Ice Age. The topic is now effectively banned from federal funding after the Trump Administration stripped support for scientific research that mentions the word 'climate,' amid a broader purge of 'woke' keywords in the federal government. Iméra leaders had asked me to attend a meeting with university administrators and government ministers on the broad crisis in research and provide an American perspective. The event was much bigger than I had imagined, and there was a press conference, where I shared my criticisms of the Trump Administration's assault on research and higher education. For months, I have watched coordinated attacks on the National Endowment for the Humanities, Smithsonian Institution, Institute for Museum and Library Services, Fulbright Program, Woodrow Wilson Institute, U.S. Institute of Peace, Kennedy Center, USAID, Department of Education, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies that support academic research and education. Read More: Inside the Chaos of Trump's Foreign-Aid Freeze I personally know many colleagues and former students who have had research funds and grants frozen or terminated, while others have lost jobs or contracts. Academic grant competitions and peer review processes are being politicized and disrupted, effectively censoring the types of research that can be pursued. When politicians—rather than professionals—can select which types of research can be funded and how that money can be spent based on their own preferences, the entire pursuit of knowledge is corrupted. So when Aix-Marseille Université (amU) decided to launch a 'Safe Place for Science' program, I became one of the 298 researchers who applied. After all, I was already due to spend one year there as a visiting professor, and the initiative promises three years of research funding. The university has invested €15 million for the program and is lobbying the French government to match that amount, so it can double its planned hires to 39 people. The program comes amid a wider European push to attract American and international researchers who are based in the U.S. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has unveiled a €500 million program to make the continent a 'safe haven' for researchers, and France has committed another €100 million. There is certainly interest state-side, as the surge in applicants for amU's program showed. Data analyzed by Nature also found that the number of applicants in the U.S. looking for jobs in Canada has climbed by 41%, in Europe by 32%, and in China by 20% compared to a year earlier. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has even called the Trump Administration's attacks on research a 'once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity.' It's a stunning development, considering that the U.S. has long been a place of refuge for researchers and academics. In 1933, when Adolf Hitler consolidated power in Germany, leading scientists such as Albert Einstein fled the country. Later, during the Second World War, other intellectuals and artists fled occupied Europe, including Hannah Arendt, who notably escaped through Marseille with the help of American journalist Varian Fry. Ever since, American research universities and laboratories have relied on an open system of international recruitment of the best and brightest from across the globe. The federal government has supported the development of this system by providing visas for faculty and students, as well as billions in funding through competitive, peer reviewed grants. Read More: The Trump Administration Is Pausing Student Visa Interviews at Embassies That approach helped turn the U.S. system of higher education into a model of excellence for the entire world. These research universities have been informally linked with a broader network of regional state universities and small private colleges that often provide higher education to the public at relatively low cost for middle- and working-class Americans. The GI Bill of 1944, the expansion of regional state universities in the 1960s, and the evolution of community colleges since the 1970s have dramatically boosted access to higher education, becoming a key form of upward social mobility for millions of Americans. These institutions have also served as a key plank in the civil rights movement and other forms of protest, meaning an assault on them will undermine free speech and assembly, as well as other democratic principles. For now, I am on the shortlist at amU's 'Safe Place for Science.' Whether I am ultimately selected for a position or not, I foresee conducting research collaborations with French academics with French or E.U. funding in the coming years, considering that the entire U.S. sector has been thrown into disarray. Packing up and relocating to France, or any other country, will be an adjustment. But it is clear that an era of U.S. brain drain is beginning, as researchers and scientists seek opportunities in places where academic freedom and research are still valued.