Baltimore Lead Paint Study facts for kids

The Baltimore Lead Paint Study was a research project that caused a lot of debate. It was done by the Kennedy Krieger Institute (KKI) in Baltimore during the 1990s.

The study wanted to learn how lead paint affected children's health. It also looked at cheaper ways to remove lead from homes. The study ended around the year 2000. It faced a lot of criticism. People were concerned about who was chosen for the study. Many of the children were African American. There were also worries about how parents gave permission for their children to join. People questioned if it was right to expose children to health risks. This led to lawsuits against KKI.

What is Lead Paint and Why is it Dangerous?

Lead was used in paint for a long time. It made colors last and paint stronger. But lead is very harmful if swallowed or breathed in. It can make people sick.

In the early 1900s, doctors learned how dangerous lead was. They started public health efforts to deal with it. Baltimore was the first city to ban lead paint in new homes in 1951. Then, in 1978, the United States banned lead-based paint for homes across the country.

The Kennedy Krieger Institute is part of Johns Hopkins. It helps children with learning and physical problems. Lead can hurt the brain and nervous system. This can make it hard for children to learn. Even after lead paint was banned, many old homes still had it. In Baltimore, old lead paint could chip or turn into dust. This made it easy for people, especially children, to swallow it. So, researchers wanted to find safe and affordable ways to remove lead from homes.

How Did the Study Work?

The KKI study wanted to see how well different ways of removing lead worked. They wanted to know if these methods could stop lead poisoning in children.

Researchers treated homes with different lead removal methods. They then watched how much lead built up in young children living in these homes. Starting in 1993, KKI helped landlords fix apartments. They used different levels of lead removal, from partial fixes to less expensive methods.

In total, 107 homes were part of the study. They were put into five groups based on how much repair was done. KKI also helped new families find homes in these apartments. About 140 children were part of the study. KKI even offered gifts to families who joined.

To see if the repairs worked, researchers measured lead in the homes. They also took blood tests from the children regularly for two years. If the repairs were good, lead levels in homes would be lower. Also, lead in the children's blood would not go up much, or at all. They planned to check on the children every few years after the study.

What Happened After the Study?

After the study, some children, mostly poor and African American, had lasting health problems. These problems often affected their brains and bodies. So, the study did not help the children's health.

Parents also felt tricked by the KKI team. They felt they were not told all the details about the lead treatment in the homes. People said the study took advantage of both the children and their parents. Some compared it to the Tuskegee Study. That was another study where people of color were treated unfairly in research. Both studies involved similar groups of people. Both had issues with clear permission and providing good care. Both also had long-term, bad effects on the people involved.

KKI faced serious consequences. A lawsuit was filed against KKI in 2001. People said KKI had knowingly put children at risk and was careless. The Johns Hopkins Internal Review Board was also criticized. This board is supposed to make sure studies are safe. People wondered why they allowed this study to happen, especially since it involved children.

KKI's defense argued that the study did not actually put children at risk. They said researchers only reduced lead and took blood samples. They did not try to cause lead poisoning. They also said parents could have chosen to live somewhere else.

Some argued that the study did have some good points. It helped people understand that the condition of lead paint (like if it was chipping) was more dangerous than just the amount of lead in the paint. This is because chipping paint is easier to swallow.

The debate also raised an important question. If research always needed zero risk, then many public health problems could not be studied. This could leave many people at risk in the long run. The defense argued that the children in the study were already likely to be exposed to lead poisoning. So, any cheap and effective ways to remove lead would help more people in the future. This led to new discussions about how much risk is okay in research. It also led to changes in rules for studies, like making sure parents know more about the study their children are in.