You can't possibly speak for all black people, as I can't. So saying all black people are suspicous because they know too much is a wild thought.

Poor scientific literacy is a whole population problem. The entire STEM community is concerned with it. I'm particularly concerned, because as a Black Scientist, I see the how being un- or under-informed interferes with people I know (family, friends, peers, etc) of all SES backgrounds ability to make informed decisions and be discerning. Many people (I know) make decisions concerning health care or voting on policy because of the word of a dear friend or family member who makes a very well presented argument based on emotional appeal or charismatic reaction of an unqualified, non-expert grand stander. Those feelings of untrust or uncertainty are understood, but to prey on people's fears and not inform them - truly educate -- them is a terrible thing. That's why I blog and it is my hope that you recognize that. But you keep on holding on to little snippets and razzing away like a rabid dog. Though presumably well-educated and well-read, your responses are quite devoid of real information or deep thought.

Keep reading, keep learning. But I also invite you to check out vetted sources of information concerning science and research -- SEED Magazine, Scientific American, or blog posts made by many of the other Bloggers here.
I also, encourage you to initiate and participate in an earnest dialogue about research and scientific processes and pass this on to the readers of your blog(s).

The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com

"poor scientific literacy"?

We Blacks aren't suspicious because we know too little. We're suspicious because we know too much.

"While it might arguably useful to prove through scientific study that whites and blacks were harmed in the same way by the disease, doing so against consent is beyond unethical, it borders on criminal." It is. The Tuskegee Experiment was bad. Things have changed big time. But telling you and others that doesn't necessarily pacify your fears. I get that. Poor people are vulnerable. That's why I blog and share science with people. They are equally vulnerable to misinformation and emotionally charged rantings like yours. They could be lead to believe that all things regarding science or research is scary and should be avoided. My intent is for people to be discerning. That happens when they fully comprehend the scientific process - including ethical issues and how science/research has several checks and self-correcting measures. You haven't addressed or asked about any of these processes in the entire thread.

"You scientists have bad bed-side manners. Go and convince them of your character." I also advise you to watch the 'you people' blanket statements. Lawyers aren't credited for being the most upright & ethical professionals. Generalizations like these aren't productive. This image you're promoting that all scientists are big bad (white) wolves out their to use people (poor people and people of color) as collateral damage in their quest for new knowledge is harmful and inaccurate. Scientists are people - all kinds, shapes, colors, and intentions. Scientific questions are born out of real world issues that affect people. Most scientists ask questions that are personally relevant to them, concerning things going on in their proximity. The Sewer study to reduce bioaccesible lead was one such study.

Fact check: The Study did NOT test people. People were not the subjects. Though you haven't directly said so, I assume your concern is that the compost may have contained some harmful agents. If that is your question, that is answered on the Study's fact sheet. It did not. It was treated so all pathogens were killed and it was safe. Also that same compost has and is used by the public and sold at garden stores. It's manure.
Does that mean that we shouldn't concern ourselves with possible down the line health issues? No. And that can easily be followed up on.

And to my original and most important question - What's the foul? Who has been harmed? Who has said that they weren't fully informed? I've read up on the story (and see comments on this study on NPR's News & Views), the only person saying something might be wrong is an alarmist mis-informing reporter and you (and others like you). You have no real information on the status of the participants in this study. Your suspicions aren't even based on whistle blowing just blowhearting.

Blogs are great for sharing information and vetting opinions and schools of thought. Yours isn't the authority - neither is mine. But between the 2 of us concerning this issue (a scientific one) I am the expert. Your conviction is noted, but it doesn't qualify you to explain what science is or is not to the public.

Another lesson in research and scientific process: Informed Consent - It is the law. And in Clinical Research there are entire offices that handle recruiting and working with potential subjects. It is not a cattle call. As a researcher, I can attest to how one struggles to get a diverse subject pool because of these fear and trust issues. The research is explained (in writing and in person). Subjects are screened several times before being asked to participate. If they agree the research is explained (again), not glossed over. People have the opportunity to ask questions, then they sign off. If they have ANY concern - health, ethics, etc. they are given contact information of the hospital/university administration and research oversight group. What's more a person can discontinue participations AT ANY TIME - before, during or after (refusing follow-up). They're personal information is encoded and kept secret and it is passed on to the Feds (oversight) in case any hanky-panky or concerns are discovered down the line so that they can be contacted and helped.

The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com

While it might arguably useful to prove through scientific study that whites and blacks were harmed in the same way by the disease, doing so against consent is beyond unethical, it borders on criminal. They did not tell the participants they even had a sexually transmitted disease and therefore endangered their sexual partners and resulting children, some of whom were born with congenital syphilis. Also many in the community believe that this experiment included actively infecting members of the study not just watching its effects. People who are poor and without political power are preyed upon like it or not. Arguing that somehow the science community is now more enlightened doesn't change this fact or this fear.

As for "educated African Americans," I am plenty enlightened about science but I understand the push back. You think of the test subjects as those "who happen to be black." But they live and breath being black every day and have no reason at all to trust you and your experiments. You scientists have bad bed-side manners. Go and convince them of your character. After all, the community has been through why should they just take your word for it. You are dealing with people not lab animals. Sorry if they don't sit still and let you poke and prod.

Seems the big issue for you is the fact that this scientist works exclusively with Black subjects (or so it seems).

I agree that can look odd. But there are many scientists and research physicians who work with specific populations. I personally know a psychologists who only studies Black and Latino families. Why? Because she is interested in questions of family dynamics in these populations. But she is Black. And I've noticed that Black researchers doing research with subjects seems to arouse less suspicion. Is that your point?

If this researcher is primarily interested in the effects of lead poisoning, then it makes sense that most of his subjects are poor, black, live in urban neighborhoods and poor housing conditions. Lead poisoning is a BIG problem and primarily affects people whose live in old, poorly maintained buildings in former industrial areas in big cities.
Lead poisoning research is pretty much a poor black population issue. Do a search on this type of research and without trying, most subjects are persons of color, urban, and poor.

They are already exposed to those contaminants (lead in paint), the study wanted to know what is the impact of that exposure. The sewer sludge fertilizer met existing standards of fertilizer (akin to spreading manure on lawns) and the question was "will this fertilizer lower the concentration of lead subjects are already exposed to?"

Alarming people, specifically Black people, that here we go again with the Tuskegee Experiments, only interferes with the scientific and medical communties ability to resolve issues that affect people. In this case, the very people it tends to impact and harm the most - poor, marginalized citizens. Lead poisoning is a big problem - and it is pretty much a class issue.

The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com

I am not defending an unethical scientist. Your point that this particular scientist may be questionable is noted. I don't know his record. However, regarding the particular matter of the sewer study, what is the foul? Were people harmed? Were people duped into participating?

If either of these are your cases, then I follow you. But everyone is focusing on the subjects - being from a poor neighborhood, and everyone is assuming that the subjects were taken advantage of.
What is the evidence of that - real or anecdotal?

And Mr. Holland, I know that you are neither marginalized or under-educated....you're the well-educated person I was refering to... you responded to the wrong zing.

And yes, I realize that poor scientific literacy is an epidemic among most people, but it has been my personal experience, that scientific and clinical research is a sore subject among most black people. People pre-emptively fight about the issue whenever the subject comes up. That has prevented so many people from really learning about new discoveries and understanding science.

The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com

My name is Francis L. Holland, Esq. and I am the author of the American Journal of Color Arousal (AMJCA), cited above.

You said,

"The need to increase scientific literacy among people is not just limited to the marginalized and under-educated, specifically black people. I keep discovering that even presumably well-educated black people are still prone to get keyed up emotionally and are largely ignorant about science and how it proceeds."

First of all, I am not "marginalized and under-educated." I'm a Black lawyer, and the Blacks who are angry about this are lawyers, accountants, professors and professional journalists of the AfroSpear, among others.

This same scientist engaged in "research" that was compared to Nazi experiments by a court in Maryland, because he experimented exclusively on Black people in an that should be considered unethical regardless of the color of the victims.

"HUD documents show the study's lead author, Mark Farfel, has pursued several other studies of lead contamination including the risks of exposure from urban housing demolitions and the vacant lots left behind.

The Maryland Court of Appeals likened the study to Nazi medical research on concentration camp prisoners, the U.S. government's 40-year Tuskegee study that denied treatment for syphilis to black men in order to study the illness and Japan's use of "plague bombs" in World War II to infect and study entire villages." YahooNews

The question to be answered here is why this "scientist" conducts his experiments exclusively upon Black people.

I don't understand why you are defending him, unless you think that exposing people to contaminants based on their skin color is an acceptable way to conduct scientific research.

Would YOU consider it ethical behavior to expose exclusively Black people to harmful contaminants, even after the "Maryland Court of Appeals likened the study to Nazi medical research"?

If so, then you shouldn't be permitted to engage in scientific research and at all, and particularly not with the approval and funding of the United States Government.

I am the editor of the American Journal of Color Arousal (AMJCA).

The main issue is that this was done and the people in the neighborhoods WERE NOT INFORMED or ASKED FOR CONSENT. The upshot is that poor black folks can still be used as GUINEA PIGS whenever those in power wish.
As to black folks getting "keyed-up emotionally" because they don't understand science, I once saw Jay Leno as some WHITE COLLEGE GRADUATES how many moons the earth had, and they answered TWO.