A federal appeals panel has dismissed a lawsuit brought by nearly 300 former jail inmates who accused the University of Pennsylvania of injuring and mistreating them during research studies of skin treatments in the 1960s and ‘70s, one of which led to the development of Retin-A, a popular anti-wrinkle cream. The panel ruled that the statute of limitations had expired before the lawsuit was filed in October 2000.
The decision was filed on Tuesday by three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which is based in Philadelphia.
The lawsuit alleged that the university had coerced prisoners into participating in the clinical experiments, which tested products like deodorant and athlete’s-foot medications, along with other chemicals, by applying them directly to the inmates’ skin. Some of the research also involved testing the effects of chemical weapons for the military.
The plaintiffs said the studies left them with physical scars and bad memories. The lawsuit also said that Penn had wrongly told the participating prisoners that the products were harmless, and that it had failed to inform them that the university stood to benefit financially from commercial products developed from the research.
The lawsuit also named as a defendant Albert M. Kligman, a professor emeritus of dermatology, who supervised most of the experiments and whose research led to the invention of Retin-A. The anti-wrinkle cream was originally developed to treat burns, and the inmates had agreed to be burned with candles in order to test Retin-A’s properties, said Thomas M. Nocella, a Philadelphia lawyer who represents the inmates.
The story of the experiments and the inmates was described in a 1998 book, Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison (Routledge), by Allen Hornblum, an adjunct professor at Temple University. Holmesburg, a city jail in Philadelphia, was closed in 1995.
Critics have called the experiments unethical. Penn has responded that the studies met the ethical standards that were in place at the time. Since then, the federal government has mandated special oversight for experiments involving prisoners, in recognition that incarceration might undermine their ability to give willing consent to participate.
The lawsuit against Penn had sought unspecified sums for the former inmates’ pain and suffering. But the appeals panel ruled that the plaintiffs had been aware of the facts in the case many years before bringing suit, and could have filed their action before the time limit had expired.
Mr. Nocella said the plaintiffs, who are now in their 50s, 60s, and 70s, had not yet decided whether to appeal. However, he noted, members of the Philadelphia City Council are considering legislation that would require the city to pay damages to the surviving former inmates.
Background articles from The Chronicle:
