I am a huge fan of randomized controlled trials and about as hard-core as it gets in supporting evidence-based interventions whenever possible. But I was nonetheless troubled by the study Science published last week, in which Romanian orphans were randomized to receive either foster care or to stay in an orphanage.
Unsurprisingly, the research found a large 8 point difference in IQ between those given foster parents and those left behind and confirmed all the results from animal research and unfortunate “natural experiments” which show that the longer a baby languishes without specific parental care, the more damaged he is likely to be.
The investigators and those who wrote an article supporting their ethics which was published alongside the study in Science claim that previous evidence suggesting serious damage to kids in institutions was biased by selection issues and other problems.
However, in an age where no one will even randomize adults to drink alcohol or not to see if moderate drinking has health benefits for fear that they will become alcoholics, is such research really permissible? After all, we don’t lock children away from all exposure to language because previous “research” [like the story of poor “Genie”] was biased by the parents being abusive.
Given the enormous body of animal and human evidence showing damage from deprivation of parental care in infancy-- going back to Rene Spitz’ classic research from the 1940’s comparing orphanage-raised kids to those allowed to live with their incarcerated mothers which found that 37% of the kids in the orphanage didn’t even *live* past their 2nd birthday-- I’m not sure why this study was necessary.
The details of the ethical safeguards used did address some of my concerns. The kids in the orphanage would have been there anyway because Romania was just beginning to introduce foster care. As soon as the results began (predictably) to favor the foster kids, the researchers went public and called for foster care to be expanded. Children who were in orphanages and found adoptive parents were not kept there for the sake of the research.
The study should convince any remaining doubters that individualized, physically affectionate care by one or two consistent caregivers is critical for normal infant development. But the fact that such doubters still exist is really scary, given everything we know about mammalian neurodevelopment.
Comments
allison says:
What the hell is this world we live in today becoming, to where we have individuals partaking in groups to study situations that involve humans (specifically in this case innocent children) whose future could be positively affected if the ones who are researching would actually have a little compassion and help in whatever way possible instead of sitting on their asses taking notes. I am in shock after reading this.... I wonder how many others would be!!!! Human guinee pigs, eh? You need to get a life and stop getting off on other peoples lives!
January 1, 2008 8:46 PM
Aaron says:
Allison, i think sitting on their asses would be not to say about the study, therefore we wouldn't be reading this article. They did the study and found supporting evidence of negative effects from foster/orphan care. "You need to get a life and stop getting off on other peoples lives!"
January 2, 2008 2:40 PM
Paul Taylor says:
I abhor the fact that the situation exists and I'll be the first to admit that I could be doing more. But, as to the research, some of the children will be fostered and some will not. Does it really matter if the fostering was determined by bias or by randomness?
Bottom line: children are left to languish without parents. Is it less traumatic if the child is randomly left behind as apposed to deliberatly left behind?
With this study, we have proof that fostering is better. Nothing else has changed.
January 2, 2008 2:50 PM
D E Kirk says:
I think this study did what it was supposed to do - got a lot more people to become foster parents. Since fostering is just starting in Rumania, a push in the right direction was forthcoming. They did it and it worked.
January 2, 2008 3:46 PM
Rachel D. says:
I’d like to point out that these researchers created their own foster care program, recruiting 56 foster families. They provided extensive and detailed scientific evidence for a question that (whether we like it or not) remained ambiguous, as reflected in what the authors describe as “a historical bias in favor of institutional care,” due to “uncertainty about the relative merits of institutional and foster care in the Romanian child welfare community.”
As soon as the researchers had preliminary results indicating the benefits of foster care over institutional care, they held a press conference and shared their preliminary results with government officials and child protection professionals. A few years later, the Romanian government, who had invited the study with the aim of guiding child welfare policy, passed a law prohibiting institutionalization of children under 2 years old.
So not only did these researchers get children placed in foster care who otherwise wouldn’t have been, but they ensured that none of these children in the study would return to an institution, and by the end most of the children in the study had been adopted or placed in government foster care, which was not available at the start of the study.
January 2, 2008 5:59 PM
Janet Alger says:
I can't help but note the complete lack of concern in the comments that non-human animals have routinely been subjected to similar controlled studies. Scientists have achieved fame demonstrating that various monkey and ape infants have suffered permanent damage from maternal deprivation. Then their students have gone on to make their reputations subjecting more hapless animal infants and mothers to the same torture.
There is no excuse for this kind of study on either human or non-human animals. There are numerous instances of parental deprivation occuring under natural circumstances providing thousands of cases to study of the effects of parental deprivation on humans which is really what researchers want to know about. Controlled studies have serious limitations of their own and are hardly the sine qua non of good research.
January 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Daniela says:
Well...I just do not understand...what other criteria would have been better...instead of random selection? Considering the fact that only for a small number of children there were foster homes available? How do you choose the children who get the preferential treatment?
January 5, 2008 11:45 AM
Add a comment