This paper is an historical account of the discovery, testing, and early distribution of the Salk polio vaccine. The discovery posed fundamental dilemmas of medical research, pharmaceutical production, and public health. This paper assesses the ethical problems which arose, and examines critically their resolution.
The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (March of Dimes) financed and directed the discovery of the vaccine, subsequent field trials, and early distribution. The Foundation's role is analyzed with special attention to the conflicts between its philanthropic and scientific functions.
The great public demand which the discovery of the vaccine generated created a need for federal control which was only partly met. The federal government did not have sufficient institutional and legal mechanisms to assure the safety of the vaccine and protect the public. This discussion illustrates the failure of the government to keep pace with medical technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarterR.Breakthrough: The Saga of Jonas Salk. Trident Press, New York, 1966.
2.
WilsonJ. R.Margin of Safety. Doubleday, New York, 1963.
3.
KleinA. E.Trial By Fury: The Polio Vaccine Controversy. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1972.
4.
PaulJ. R.A History of Poliomyelitis. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1971.
5.
New York Times, September 23, 1937, p. 3.
6.
SillsD. L.The Volunteers: Means and Ends in a National Organization, pp. 149–175. Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1957.
7.
LeuchtenburgW. E.A Troubled Feast: American Society Since 1945, pp. 55–69. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1973.
8.
ZuckermanM.Dr. Spock: The confidence man. In The Family in History, edited by RosenbergC., pp. 179–209. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1975.
9.
EndersJ. F.WellerT. H.RobbinsF. C.Cultivation of the Lansing strain of poliomyelitis virus in cultures of various human embryonic tissues. Science109: 85–87, 1949.
10.
BenisonS.Tom Rivers: Reflections on a Life in Medicine and Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1967.
11.
SalkJ. E.Studies in human subjects on active immunization against poliomyelitis, I, A preliminary report on experiments in progress. JAMA151: 1098, 1953.
12.
BenisonS.The history of polio research in the United States: Appraisal and lessons. In The Twentieth Century Sciences: Studies in the Biography of Ideas, edited by HoltonG., p. 330. W. W. Norton, New York, 1970.
13.
LasagnaL.1938–1968: The FDA, the drug industry, the medical profession, and the public. In Safeguarding the Public: Historical Aspects of Medicinal Control, edited by BlakeJ. B., pp. 171–179. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1970.
14.
New York Times, November 11, 1953, p. 28.
15.
New York Times, November 13, 1953, p. 16.
16.
New York Times, October 11, 1953, p. 66.
17.
New York Times, November 22, 1953, Section IV, p. 9.
18.
New York Times, January 2, 1954, p. 1.
19.
EngelL.Climax of a stirring medical drama. In The New York Times MagazineVI: Pp. 7, 53, January 10, 1954.
20.
New York Times, March 12, 1954, p. 1; March 15, 1954, p. 15.
21.
New York Times, October 11, 1953, p. 66; April 6, 1954, p. 33.
22.
New York Times, November 13, 1953, p. 16.
23.
New York Times, November 27, 1953, Section IV, p. 9.
24.
New York Times, April 6, 1954, p. 33.
25.
FreundP. A., editor. Experimentation with Human Subjects. G. Braziller, New York, 1970.
26.
Poliomyelitis vaccine types 1, 2, and 3: Recommendations of the Vaccine Advisory Committee. National Foundation Pamphlet, New York, April 25, 1954.
27.
New York Times, April 13, 1955, p. 1.
28.
FrancisT. J.Evaluation of the 1954 Poliomyelitis Vaccine. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1956.
29.
WhitfieldS. J.The 1950's: The era of no hard feelings. South Atlantic Quarterly74: 289–307, 1975.
30.
SolbergC.Riding High: America in the Cold War. Mason and Lipscomb Publishers, New York, 1973.
31.
Cutter Laboratories: 1897–1972: A Dual Trust, Vol. I, p. 227. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
32.
JohnF. Enders to SebrellWilliam H., May 2, 1955. Poliomyelitis Vaccine File (10-535), Bureau of Biologics, Washington, D.C.
33.
House of Representatives, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, 84th Congress, 1st Session. Hearings on Poliomyelitis Vaccine, June 22–23, 1955.
34.
U.S. Public Health Service. Technical Report on Salk Poliomyelitis Vaccine, p. 87. Unpublished mimeograph, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., June 1955.
35.
VictorH. Haas to SebrellW. H.ShannonJames, May 10, 1955. Poliomyelitis Vaccine File (10-535), Bureau of Biologics, Washington, D.C.
36.
BarberB.The ethics of experimentation with human subjects. Scientific American234: 25–31, 1976.
37.
Federal control of new drug testing is not adequately protecting human test subjects and the public. Report to Congress, Government Accounting Office, July 15, 1976.
38.
New York Times, July 20, 1976, p. 1.
39.
GreenbergD. S.FDA: Poor marks for its self-investigation. N. Engl. J. Med.294: 1465, 1976.
