Research on lead hazards is solution, not problem

 

                    By Don Ryan
                    Originally published August 28, 2001

Source:  Baltimore Sun

 

                    WASHINGTON - The Maryland Court of Appeals' harsh criticism of the
                    Kennedy Krieger Institute's lead poisoning research has created the
                    impression that researchers sacrificed children's health for the good of
                    science.

 

                    The outrage expressed in news reports is rooted in the false premise that
                    this study placed children in harm's way. The reality is that this research
                    made homes safer, not only for the children in Baltimore but for hundreds
                    of thousands of others across the nation.

 

                    Children do not live in lead-burdened houses because researchers want to
                    "experiment" on them but because so much of our housing is contaminated
                    by lead. According to the most recent national survey, 40 percent of all
                    U.S. housing contains some lead-based paint.

 

                    The only way to prevent lead poisoning is to make properties safe from
                    lead hazards before a child is poisoned. The only way to accomplish this
                    is to figure out "what works."

 

                    Ironically, Dr. Julian Chisholm and Dr. Mark Farfel, the very researchers
                    now being vilified, directed the pioneering study that proved traditional,
                    haphazard abatement methods actually increase children's lead exposure.

 

                    As a result, conventional dusty paint removal methods, which were
                    commonly required in the past, since have been banned by local, state and
                    federal agencies. By highlighting the danger of lead dust and validating
                    affordable measures for protecting children on a broad scale, their
                    research helped shift the national approach to prevention and laid the
                    foundation for science-based national standards.

 

                    Just as important, the greater good from the Chisholm/Farfel research did
                    not come at the expense of families in Baltimore.

 

                    In contrast to the picture portrayed in the news media and by the court,
                    their study was purposefully designed to provide lead safety treatments to
                    families' homes that far exceeded state and local requirements and made
                    these homes safer than they had been and safer than typical neighboring
                    properties.

 

                    At the time of this study, from 1993 to 1995, most low-income families in
                    Baltimore City had great difficulty finding lead-safe housing - and many
                    still do. Because of the same ethical concerns later raised by the court, the
                    study did not include families living in housing with unattended lead
                    hazards as a control group.

 

                    The court's analogy to the notorious Tuskegee, Ala., experiments dealing
                    with syphilis from 1932 to 1972 is sadly misplaced. The outrage of
                    childhood lead poisoning is blasé acceptance that 5 million American
                    preschool children - primarily low-income children - still live in homes with
                    significant lead hazards.

 

                    In the Tuskegee experiment, researchers deliberately misled and withheld
                    treatment from African-American men afflicted with syphilis in order to
                    watch the progression of the disease.

 

                    Protecting all of our children requires committing the resources needed to
                    make high-risk housing permanently lead-safe by apportioning
                    responsibility among property owners, taxpayers and the paint companies
                    that marketed a poisonous product for decades after the dangers were
                    clear.

 

                    While the Maryland courts will determine whether the Kennedy Krieger
                    Institute bears legal responsibility to anyone involved in this study, the
                    urgent need remains for research to develop practical solutions to the
                    vexing problems posed by lead-based paint in older, high-risk housing.

 

                    Of course research projects must meet the highest standards, including the
                    ethical treatment of all individuals involved. But halting research designed
                    to verify how to make houses safe would be a tragic disservice to the
                    children who are still exposed to lead hazards in their homes.

 

                    Don Ryan is executive director of the Alliance To End Childhood Lead
                    Poisoning, an advocacy group based in Washington.