Talk:Cornelius P. Rhoads

message: Please take a look on Chapter 6 of this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=aP2rD2wtmVMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Take a look at this link:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,743163,00.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.169.185 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter exists. That does not mean that Rhoads was literally "confessing" to the acts. No investigation has found any evidence that he did this.Parkwells (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The full letter appears in Truman Clark's history of US-Puerto Rico up until 1933. Source is in References.Parkwells (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I re-wrote much of the article it had obviously been written by several different people and was disjointed. Some of the previous authors seem not to have been native speakers of English and tilted the article in favor of the theory, contradicted by 3 investigations, that Rhodes actually killed some of his patients.
I added “According to his critics” to the sentence about him “establishing United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama” because this seems solely based on a book by one of his critics. He is NOT mentioned in the Wikipedia page about Fort Detrick nor in the extensive history of the facility linked below.
http://liveweb.waybackmachine.org/http://www.detrick.army.mil/cutting_edge/chapter04.cfm 
Lenbrazil (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: I have re-arranged the sections in the article, added an infobox and included more background information about the man. I did not include anything new about the supposed controversy that surrounds him, just biographical info to sketch out more of who he was.Royal Scottish (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits and information. 

message: There are some pictures of Rhoads at " the NIH National Library of Medicine. I suspect these are works of the US Army and therefore public domain but I can't confirm that. Andrevan@ 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portraits 

message: The reversion of sourced material and edit warring that is occuring on this page, has now been exported onto the Pedro Albizu Campos page. I placed a notice on the talk page of Pedro Albizu Campos and restored the original sourced material (over 1,400 bytes of information}. This really should stop. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that too much info was removed in the last series of edits. Andrevan@ 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is edit warring. Much of the discussion on this TAlk page has not referred to edits, but to discussion about the article. I added what I thought was relevant cited information to the Albizu Campos page: an extensive cited quote which had been in this article and did not appear to be controversial, as well as the result of the Puerto Rican investigation of his charges, to show they were taken seriously, including specific named Puerto Rican medical officials who had participated in the PR Attorney General's investigation, which was also new information, cited by the NY Times article. The reason I identified the nationality of the people was because much of the criticism about this case hd been directed at Americans. I thought it would be useful to show that Puerto Rican nationals ran their own investigation.Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that some of that belongs in that article and not this one, including the imperialism quote. Because I was doing the research on Rhoads and not Campos, I put most of it in here, but the move is reasonable. I do think that the Aponte Vazquez info is a valid POV which we should give its fair shot in the article as he is notable in the context of the story though not on his own. Andrevan@ 22:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Export of edit warring onto other pages

message: Mercy11, you say, Perhaps it came out to you as an attack on you, it was an attack on how those comments would violate policy. It might be useful for you to re-examine your responses to me in the section under "Balance", beginning Oct. 20. As examples, you wrote:
:You fail to set the stage for your first statement above; in the process, you appear to be not assuming good faith. - This seems accusatory in response to an attempt to discuss issues on the TAlk page. 
:Regardless, I find you are making statements here that, if I find them in the article without a citation, they will be immediately removed, per WP:OR: - You were attacking my effort to discuss issues on the Talk page; I had not added the comment to the article.
:So what's your point (which you so brilliantly fail to state)? - Excellent approach for collaboration, building community and encouraging participation.
:You failed to make your point. - More encouragement.  
:Rather than preaching to the rest of us, go ahead and make your edits. -I was not preaching but trying to address issues.
:Frankly, that idea appears quite ridiculous. - Another positive statement to build collaboration. 
Accusing an editor of failure three times in a first address to that editor does constitute a personal attack. I think editors should make an effort to keep comments addressed to the article. You have criticized me in numerous ways in both this and the Campos Talk page; let's both work on a more collaborative approach.Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that anyone is engaging in outright incivility or personal attacks but I do think accusing each other of failing or sophistry is unproductive. Let's focus on the topic at hand, please, and not our fellow contributors, and that goes for everyone. Andrevan@ 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks

message: Apparently Lederer criticized Rhoads for using the phrase: "constitution of oxen". This seems absurd, as there have long been metaphors and similes in most cultures based on characteristics of animals. I always understood this particular one to be positive, implying strength - "constitution of an ox." Others are "Heart of a lion." "Speed of a gazelle/horse/antelope."Parkwells (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow down - perhaps it is time to return to the article, rather than discussions that are not covered or documented at all in the article. Noting he used the phrase "constitution of an oxen" does not mean he administered anything at levels related to the weight of an oxen. There is no RS or content in the article that such an experiment was done. The Puerto Rican investigation by its own top-ranking medical personnel found no evidence of mistreatment of patients by Rhoads and the Rockefeller Project.Parkwells (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with the oxen phrase was that he was trying to experimentally induce the conditions in his patients rather than cure them when those conditions were already present. The first part of the oxen sentence was something like if they don't develop the diseases, then they surely must have the constitutions of oxen, meaning if they don't get sick they must be hardy like an ox. Andrevan@ 17:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but then you seemed to interpret it to mean, since an ox weighs many more times than a human, he gave some high dosage of some material. That is not sourced. It is also not clear that the patients were not voluntarily participating in this. There is no RS for that statement.Parkwells (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sophistry is rather tiresome, Parkwells. If you think people will "volunteer" to have themselves injected with levels of disease that will sicken an ox, then it is manifestly impossible to reason with you. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the personal attack. You still have not provided sourced documentation of Rhoads experimenting in the way you describe. The Puerto Rican medical investigation did not find grounds for any charges of medical misconduct against him or the Rockefeller Project. Parkwells (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not called the Project, it has several names, but that isn't one of them. Now, I'm not saying I agree with Nelsondenis. Rhoads' patients were sick - poor jibaros who went to him voluntarily to be helped. They probably did not realize he was trying to induce sprue. Rhoads was working at a hospital; he also did work "in the field" with volunteers. His patients in the hospital were certainly there voluntarily as they were sick, usually with hookworm, sprue, anemia, etc. The work "in the field" was considered to be educational and I think it consisted of giving patients iron pills and things like that, but again, there's no evidence it was involuntary. Andrevan@ 22:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Unindent, the main point is, Nelsondenis is misinterpreting the quote to mean that the dose would be high, what it actually means is that he was /trying to make them sick/ and if they /didn't get sick/, they must be /super strong/ like an ox. Nonetheless - this is unethical! Andrevan@ 22:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Similes and metaphors

message: (Added break because of long texts.Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my analysis of the Cidra study, which is original research and should not appear in the article, but makes me feel there was a cover-up here: Aside from the censored second letter, the trial comprehensively examined all the records of patients admitted to the Presbyterian Hospital, and all of the official Rockefeller Foundation records. However, Rhoads did not explicitly mention the hospital in his letter, and he had performed one research study outside of the hospital which the investigation did not examine.  Earlier in 1931, Castle approached Payne about funding a parallel research project he wished to undertake in conjunction with Dr. Donald H. Cook of the Department of Chemistry of the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine, and a Puerto Rican social worker, Celia Núñez. The research would take place “in the field,” primarily at Núñez’ home, in Cidra. 50 As mentioned earlier, Rhoads was at a social worker’s house in Cidra when he “made a disturbance” about his car: this was Núñez, with whom Rhoads had a working friendship. 51 Although at first Payne was enthusiastic about the idea, he decided to reject funding the Cidra study. Writing to Dr. Howard, Payne explained he had rejected Castle’s request for funding for a number of reasons: it was not approved by the Puerto Rican commissioner of education, the supervision would have been inadequate, facilities were not available for adequate 50 51 measurements, there was not a proper definition of the relationship to the other institution under which the studies were started (the University), and he considered it “premature.” 52 Castle considered his arguments invalid and incomprehensible, and proceeded anyway, using Harvard money to fund the research and keeping Núñez on a volunteer basis, later returning to ask for Rockefeller funding once again. 53 “In spite of my disapproval and without my knowledge, Dr.  Castle entered upon the experiment...,” Payne wrote to Howard, “He argues that the support should now come from the Rockefeller Foundation, since it would be unethical [otherwise]....  In my opinion, the unethical act was performed when he began the work.” 54 It is not clear exactly what Castle or Payne thought would be unethical about the source of funding, though this could also be a code word for “too expensive,” not experimentation on humans. Reviewing the memorandum containing the proposal for the Cidra study reveals nothing unusual, except how closely it resembles the other anemia studies that were performed back at the hospital. 55 Aside from the inclusion of the outside social worker, the study is very similar to many others conducted by the Foundation in Puerto Rico, except not performed on hospital patients. 56 Why, then, did Payne insist so strongly that it was unethical? “It will be seen that the most important reason for avoiding the Cidra experiment were those affecting external relations and it is in this respect that the danger is still present,” he explained to Howard cryptically later in February. 57 Perhaps Howard referred obliquely to the Rhoads affair. Initial communications from Payne to Howard arguing repeatedly against funding the Cidra study begin in early February, as the trial of Rhoads was still in progress, so this is one possible explanation for Payne’s “still- present danger” comment. That comment also references “external relations,” and certainly the Rhoads trial was the largest issue of public relations occupying everyone at the time; it is difficult to imagine that another study could attract attention in 1932 simply for methodological details like the ones offered by Payne. 58 The only explicit link between the Rhoads affair and the Cidra study was that Rhoads had been visiting Núñez, ostensibly for a social engagement, when he “made a disturbance.” 59 This event was cited as the “moment of anger” that drove Rhoads to write his letter.  Although on paper, the Cidra study appears to have been isolated from the Rhoads scandal, “There are a few things about this affair which cannot be put into correspondence,” Payne wrote. 60 Núñez also appears to have withheld some kind of information, at least according to the police officer who took her statement. “Miss. Núñez can give a more ample statement than the present one; she was willing to inform something else, but it seems that somebody insinuated to her that she abstain from extending herself with other details she knows pertaining to the doctor of reference.” 61 Of course, these missing details could be almost anything, and are more likely to be further racism than proof of cancer experiments. The timing of a simple funding dispute could be also explained by Castle’s pending departure from Puerto Rico, and a desire to resolve a loose end and move on. If the cancer portion of the letter was purely a fantasy, it does make Rhoads’ subsequent career in cancer a strange string of coincidences, or at least reveals the deep significance that particular fantasy had for him. “Ferdie,” the addressee of the first letter, was identified as Fred W. Stewart, another Rockefeller alumnus and researcher at the New York Memorial Sloan- Kettering Hospital, an institution which focuses on cancer. 62 Rhoads would join Stewart at Sloan-Kettering and became its director in 1945. Andrevan@ 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rhoads article already mentions Fred Stewart as a colleague from one of Rhoads' first papers on a tuberculin study. John D Rockefeller donated land in 1936 as the site for the new Memorial Hospital (and Center for Cancer and Allied Diseases), so by 1932 or 33, that new building was probably already being talked about, as big projects are in development for a while. It would have been clear that a lot of money was going into cancer research, which would have been an opportunity for Rhoads and others.Parkwells (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Your material above is really interesting but, as you said, you can't use it here. (Maybe you should write an article for a history journal on this.) In addition, without knowing the political/administrative set-up of the medical research and funding (approval of the Puerto Rican Commissioner of Education is referred to, so that suggests another line of political involvement), it is impossible to understand some of the references. Yes, they could simply have been referring to the Rhoads' scandal, and they would have wanted to keep major donors happy. There might also have been US political pressures on something related to Congress. Too hard to say without more info. The more you learn, the more complexity. You have some great material. Parkwells (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You're right, I can't use this material. If you are interested in this check out of some Aponte-Vazquez's blog posts and stuff, I have even seem him post scans of some of the original documents that I have cross-checked with archival sources to verify they are legit (though, again, not RS). While he is definitely off the deep end on thinking Rhoads was running around killing children for no good reason, and has a flair for the dramatic in describing the case which hurts his argument IMO, his anger at the unwillingness of the Puerto Rican establishment to reopen the investigation is somewhat justified based on the material that I've found, which is why I like that quote of his that says they didn't exhume the bodies. I don't think of "the bodies" as the idea that Rhoads was a murderer, but that he probably performed unethical experiments in Cidra that haven't actually been reviewed. Whether those experiments actually involved fatalities or what seems more likely if they were somehow cancer-related, the Cidra study is a loose end that hasn't been investigated by anyone. It's also strange that Rhoads' career between Puerto Rico and World War II is kind of a black box; it's known that he was involved in the radiation experiments which were basically classified until 1994 I think. P.S. if you know any history journals that would be interested in amateur work by a software engineer (actually, I have a B.A. in History from CMU, but I don't practice :)), I would love to.Andrevan@ 16:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a few things from other sources in this period- in the mid-1930s, Rhoads was made head of a special section at the Rockefeller Institute that continued to do research on anemia and tropical sprue and published on this topic. When he went to Memorial Hospital in 1940, he was then acting as an administrator for the entire operation relatively soon after its move to a new building: a large operation that was both providing patient treatment and doing clinical and lab research. That would keep anyone busy - new issues of personnel, budget, staffing, fundraising, etc.Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cidra study

message: Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, TIME, Rockefeller Institute, anemia, leukemia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Army, chemical weapons, chemotherapy, mustard gas, Pedro Albizu Campos, Puerto Rican nationalism, whitewashing, AACR, racism. Note I added back in nationalism and whitewashing. Two big ones for the big idea picture of the Rhoads story. Andrevan@ 22:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen any documentation that there was a trial related to the controversy, but there was an investigation, and testimony taken, as well as records reviewed. If the Lead is to use "trial," it has to be cited, and that also has to be part of the content. "Trial" is not part of anything I've read and it has not been part of this article before. Parkwells (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  let me check, I think Lederer probably talks about it. Andrevan@ 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

text:  you're right, Lederer just calls it an investigation. I'm not sure it actually did go to trial, perhaps we should simply reference that testimony was taken. Andrevan@ 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my notes, it did go to trial. However I don't know that any of the sources picked up on this. I think it was in a letter written by George C. Payne (doctor) who worked with Rhoads. Andrevan@ 23:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can say that from your notes from archives. Sounds as if you had a really interesting time researching this.Parkwells (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here are the main points we need to hit in the lead section 

message: Rereading Lederer's article reveals a fuller account of Rhoads' efforts to induce experimental sprue during his research. At this time, researchers suspected that diet was implicated in causing the condition. They also had recently developed treatment, namely, liver extract. I added that liver extract had been found, and also the number of subjects Castle and Rhoads started working with.
There was speculation on this page that Rhoads had injected bacteria in subjects to try to induce this disease. That is not the case - he worked with diet, which was reversible, and he had the means to treat the disease if it developed. For that reason, I have added before this section that doctors knew that liver extract could be given to treat the disease. In addition, I propose the paragraph on this subject to read:
<<Historian and ethicist Susan E. Lederer notes that Rhoads was enthusiastic about his research in the early months. In September 1931 he wrote to his boss Flexner that he was working with some subjects to see if he could induce experimental tropical sprue by limiting their nutrition to a “characteristic native diet,” consisting of very low protein (30 grams a day) and “almost no vitamins.” He wrote to Flexner, “If they don’t develop something they certainly have the constitutions of oxen." If his subjects developed the disease, he could treat it with liver extract.>> 
This provides a fuller account of what was going on; there was no injecting of subjects with bacteria, as was previously suggested on this page (and never sourced.)Parkwells (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another issue, as there is material quoted in this section of the article that does not appear in the Lederer article. An editor may have seen a fuller version of Rhoads' letter somewhere else, but it can't be used or quoted without a secondary source. Here is the material: [Rhoads described] <<this research as “the production of the experimental disease in animals.” For example, he wrote: "The exciting experiment now is the attempt to cause experimental sprue in humans.">> These two quotes do not appear in the Lederer article.Parkwells (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears in the Flexner-Rhoads correspondence but if it doesn't appear anywhere else, we can't use the primary source reference. Andrevan@ 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought that might be the case. We would need to take those two quotes out. But, I do think it gives needed perspective to understanding what the project was about to provide more background for insight into the fact that Castle/Rhoads and others thought that diet was implicated in the disorder, which resulted in anemia; and tried to observe what took place on the restricted diet, and had a treatment for the disorder if he did induce it. Parkwells (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhoads' work on tropical sprue

message: Since there has been so much attention to this study, I think it would be useful to better describe what Castle and Rhoads were doing in their study, and the condition of patients they saw. The Lederer article has facts: 
"The commission ultimately studied 257 subjects with severe anemia; 164 of these “patients” were hospitalized at the foundation’s expense. Among the 257 anemia sufferers, 100 suffered from tropical sprue." There is more, but this shows how much sprue affected development of anemia. Lederer continues: "The researchers performed a series of tests on 92 sprue subjects, ranging in age from 10 to 80. Seeking to establish the cause of sprue, the
investigators conducted a detailed dietary history of each individual. Although they found that that “the monotony of the fare of the Puerto Rican peasants” was useful for limiting the dietary possibilities, they reached no conclusions about the cause of the disorder."(Castel et al.656) Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Add material on study

message: From testimony - A couple of days after learning that his letter had been circulated, Rhoads publicly apologized to all the staff and doctors of the Anemia Commission. This is according to Lederer. I think that his public apology should be noted in the article. The next month, in December, he returned to New York.Parkwells (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Add -Rhoads made public apology

message: Some more dates from Lederer would be useful. Rhoads left in December to return to NY. Baldoni resigned in late December and gave the letter to Albizu in January 1932 - Albizu publicized it and that was when the scandal broke. I think a few more of these steps could be included, or at least summarized.Parkwells (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted Rhoads' public apology in Nov and return to NY in Dec; Baldoni's giving letter to Albizu in Jan. 1932.Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Add more dates

message: This was included at the end of the "Scandal" section: In 1950, however, when Puerto Rican pro-independence activists Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola tried to assassinate President Truman, one of them cited Rhoads' letter as motivation for becoming a militant. 
:Andrevan has explained to me more about the symbolic power of this story as a recurring symbol in Puerto Rican life. I think that point could be more powerfully made if we were to put this section in the "Postwar years" part of Rhoads life in the appropriate timeframe, to show that the scandal and mistrust generated by it continued to influence relations between Puerto Rican and the US, because of its power in Puerto Rico. Went back to Lederer to learn that Collazo was the one who claimed the 1932 incident as influential (He heard Albizu speak about Rhoads), so have added that to both his article and also the one on the Truman assassination attempt, to show the long influence from the Rhoads scandal. Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement of 1950 assassination attempt of Truman

message: Rhoads published on the successful use of liver extract as therapy for tropical sprue, and this was recognized in 1936 as contributing to effective treatment of the disorder - added this.Parkwells (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Published results

message: Mercy11 said the whitewashing campaign (I added US) was to "glorify his name", referring to Rhoads. He noted in his edit summary: removed the ambiguity - the statement did not make clear which side was doing the whitewashing - it was by TIME and NYT editors paid with hard cash for the sole purpose of making Rhoads look good. Eric Rosenthal's article,The Rhoads Not Given: The Tainting of the Cornelius P. Rhoads Memorial Award. Rosenthal, Eric T. Oncology Times. 10 September 2003. Volume 25. Issue 17. pp. 19-20] which was the source for the cite, says nothing about "glorifying" Rhoads, nor about TIME and NYT editors being paid to make him look good.Parkwells (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I wasn't picky about the wording; was just seeking to remove potential confusion. Good choice of words. Mercy11 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Parkwells (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitewashing

message: Lederer's earlier book in 1997 was the first about concerns about human experimentation on humans from the late 19th c. to WWII. As it had a relevant portion related to the Rockefeller Institute in the early 1930s, I added the following to the section related to Ivy Lee's role and press monitoring by the Institute: and avoid problems with critics of human experimentation in the US. (During the early 1930s, there was a revival of the anti-vivisectionist movement in the US, which also was concerned about the use of vulnerable populations: children (especially orphans), prisoners, and soldiers, as subjects of experimentation. As Lederer observed, "some members of the medical community...monitored the popular and medical press."Susan E. Lederer, Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America Before the Second World War, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997 paperback, pp. 103-104, 109 Francis Peyton Roux of the Rockefeller Institute was editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine. Although it accepted few articles on clinical research, he was careful about their wording in an effort to avoid criticism by the anti-vivisectionists.)Lederer (1997), Subjected to Science, p.109 I think it provides context.Parkwells (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the book but there's not much in there on Rhoads. Noguchi does appear. The idea of the anti-vivisectionists as a movement is still somewhat problematic to me; in the postwar period it seems to be mostly about animal rights, so maybe the backlash against eugenics through World War II made the movement unnecessary? Or do scientists and administrators of the interwar period consider the non-white peoples of the colonies to actually be animals, a la the justification for slavery and Rhoads' "experimental 'animals'"? Noguchi is definitely the parallel case to look at, as they both worked for Flexner at Rockefeller. I think Noguchi also did work abroad in South America. There are files at the Rockefeller Archive Center for a variety of tropical locales. Andrevan@ 23:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression from Lederer and another writer was that the animal groups extended their interest from animals to vulnerable human populations, including children, orphans, poor, patients, prisoners, soldiers, etc. - I think along the lines of, if we let them experiment on animals, next they'll experiment on human beings. The ASPCA was founded before the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; it was just the way it developed in response to issues of the time. The animal welfare focus was also related to conditions at the time, and as medical experimentation began to expand later in the century, they began to look at what science was doing with humans.Parkwells (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Public relations on clinical studies

message: Andrevan pointed out Noguchi to me, and I've come across him in other reading. He was a researcher who was criticized for his use of orphans in a 1911 clinical study, but was acquitted of any charges. It may be worthwhile to follow that article in terms of structure, as it has an overview of the life and work together. In Rhoads case, we could mention of the letter and outcome of investigations, then have a later section devoted in more detail to that and the 2002 investigation. I think the biography article is getting quite unbalanced in terms of the amount of content devoted to the 1931-32 events compared to the rest of his life and work. In terms of other additions, I agree with Andrevan that the RS do have conclusions.Parkwells (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think this article is better structurally. I would sooner see a deeper treatment of the scandal in the proper context and chronological order than burying it at the bottom as the Noguchi article does for some reason. Andrevan@ 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please look at [[Hideyo Noguchi]]

message: I have to say the article is looking much better. Andrevan@ 17:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking much better 

message: I've added content on Albizu Campos' complaints about the US at the time of the Rhoads' letter, plus info on its being fully published in two other papers in Jan and Feb (have access to the full text, which might be worth putting in the article, since we've given so much space to it), and Beverley's assessment of Rhoads (as well as a historian noting this was Beverley's first crisis as acting governor. Beverley provoked outrage of his own later that year when his promotion of birth control was strongly objected to by Catholic groups in the US, per Truman Clark's book. So, added the following:
<<Albizu Campos... saying that its governors in Puerto Rico encouraged labor emigration rather than improving employment, and birth control, which was offensive to many Catholics. 
A photograph of the letter was published on January 27, 1932 in La Democracia, the Unionist newspaper of Barceló, with a translation in Spanish of the entire letter. On February 13, El Mundo published the entire letter, in both Spanish and English.Truman R. Clark. 1975. Puerto Rico and the United States, 1917-1933, University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 151-154
The Rhoads' letter created one of the first crises for James Beverley, newly appointed as the acting Governor of Puerto Rico. He said the letter was a "confession of murder" and "a libel against the people of Puerto Rico", and ordered an investigation, one of his first acts. Beverley said of Rhoads that "he was just a damned fool, ... a good doctor, but not very strong mentally on anything else.">>Parkwells (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find it, another quote in the vein of Beverley's was the official statement, something like "Rhoads was merely mentally ill or lacked scruples." Andrevan@ 13:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I think putting the full text in the article is a great idea. Andrevan@ 17:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added the full text of the letter.Parkwells (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Added content

message: "He concluded there was no evidence of unethical human experimentation, but the letter was so offensive that the prize should be renamed. AACR concurred and stripped the honor from Rhoads because of his racism."  "The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) established the Cornelius P. Rhoads Memorial Award posthumously in his honor in 1979. (In 2002, it renamed the award due to Rhoads' racism expressed in his 1932 letter.)"  "In 2003 the AACR renamed the award, stripping the honor from Rhoads posthumously. The AACR indicated that the new name would be retroactive and past awardees would receive updated plaques."
And the new name is...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.40.58 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. We'd have to contact the [www.aacr.org/professionals/research/scientific-achievement-awards-and-lecturships/awards-and-lectureships/ AACR] to find out. The source in this wiki article only says the award name would be changed. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a search on their website (https://www.aacr.org/?s=rhoads+award&search_type=global) results with a few researchers getting the "Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research (Rhoads Award)" and similar, as well as most directly "The inaugural Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research (formerly the Rhoads Award) is presented to Malcolm A.S. Moore." at (https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/aacr-narrative-history/1964-1981/) MartinezMD (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Awesome. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhoads Award