The experiments were widely publicized, though in a controlled manner. In 1944,
Life magazine documented the experiments with a photo series. Accounts of prisoner subjects were included, though these were allegedly scripted.
Andrew Ivy, a physician from Chicago, testified as an expert witness in the trials. He was asked to differentiate Nazi malaria experiments at the
Dachau concentration camp and the Stateville Penitentiary malaria experiments. There were key distinctions, such as a higher rate of subject fatalities and lack of voluntary consent in the Nazi experiments. However, the procedures, motives and premise of the studies were arguably similar. The U.S. supported Ivy's claims of fundamental differences and publicized them as a justification for continuing the Stateville experiments. The international
Nuremberg Code of human experimentation ethics, which resulted from the trials, contained clauses directly violated by the Stateville experiments. The U.S. never formally ratified the code, however, calling into question the ethics of prisoner experimentation and the Stateville Penitentiary malaria experiments in particular.
Effect on prisoner experimentation Public opposition to medical experimentation on prisoners was scant during the war. The
Green Report was published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association and opened the door for legal, ethical experimentation on prisoners in the United States. Until later in the century, the medical community in the United States largely regarded the Nuremberg Code to be applicable to war criminals and not to the practices of U.S. researchers. ==See also==