The Carney Landis Experiment

Suppose you’re making your way through a jungle, and in pulling aside a bush you find yourself before a huge snake, ready to attack you. All of a sudden adrenaline rushes through your body, your eyes open wide, and you instantly begin to sweat as your heartbeat skyrockets: in a word, you feel afraid.
But is your fear triggering all these physical reactions, or is it the other way around?
To make a less disquieting example, let’s say you fall in love at first sight with someone. Are the endorphines to be accounted for your excitation, or is your excitation causing their discharge through your body?
What comes first, physiological change or emotion? Which is the cause and which is the effect?

This dilemma was a main concern in the first studies on emotion (and it still is, in the field of affective neurosciences). Among the first and most influential hypothesis was the James-Lange theory, which maintained the primacy of physiological changes over feelings: the brain detects a modification in the stimuli coming from the nervous system, and it “interprets” them by giving birth to an emotion.

One of the problems with this theory was the impossibility of obtaining clear evidence. The skeptics argued that if every emotion arises mechanically within the body, then there should be a gland or an organ which, when conveniently stimulated, will invariably trigger the same emotion in every person. Today we know a little bit more of how emotions work, in regard to the amygdala and the different areas of cerebral cortex, but at the beginning of the Twentieth Century the objection against the James-Lange theory was basically this — “come on, find me the muscle of sadness!

In 1924, Carney Landis, a Minnesota University graduate student, set out to understand experimentally whether these physiological changes are the same for everybody. He focused on those modifications that are the most evident and easy to study: the movement of facial muscles when emotion arises. His study was meant to find repetitive patterns in facial expressions.

To understand if all subjects reacted in the same way to emotions, Landis recruited a good number of his fellow graduate students, and began by painting their faces with standard marks, in order to highlight their grimaces and the related movement of facial muscles.
The experiment consisted in subjecting them to different stimuli, while taking pictures of their faces.

At first volunteers were asked to complete some rather harmless tasks: they had to listen to jazz music, smell ammonia, read a passage from the Bible, tell a lie. But the results were quite discouraging, so Landis decided it was time to raise the stakes.

He began to show his subjects pornographic images. Then some medical photos of people with horrendous skin conditions. Then he tried firing a gunshot to capture on film the exact moment of their fright. Still, Landis was having a hard time getting the expressions he wanted, and in all probability he began to feel frustrated. And here his experiment took a dark turn.

He invited his subjects to stick their hand in a bucket, without looking. The bucket was full of live frogs. Click, went his camera.
Landis encouraged them to search around the bottom of the mysterious bucket. Overcoming their revulsion, the unfortunate volunteers had to rummage through the slimy frogs until they found the real surprise: electrical wires, ready to deliver a good shock. Click. Click.
But the worst was yet to come.

The experiment reached its climax when Landis put a live mouse in the subject’s left hand, and a knife in the other. He flatly ordered to decapitate the mouse.
Most of his incredulous and stunned subjects asked Landis if he was joking. He wasn’t, they actually had to cut off the little animal’s head, or he himself would do it in front of their eyes.
At this point, as Landis had hoped, the reactions really became obvious — but unfortunately they also turned out to be more complex than he expected. Confronted with this high-stress situation, some persons started crying, others hysterically laughed; some completely froze, others burst out into swearing.

Two thirds of the paricipants ended up complying with the researcher’s order, and carried out the macabre execution. In any case, the remaining third had to witness the beheading, performed by Landis himself.
As we said, the subjects were mainly other students, but one notable exception was a 13 years-old boy who happened to be at the department as a patient, on the account of psychological issues and high blood pressure. His reaction was documented by Landis’ ruthless snapshots.

Perhaps the most embarassing aspect of the whole story was that the final results for this cruel test — which no ethical board would today authorize — were not even particularly noteworthy.
Landis, in his Studies of Emotional Reactions, II., General Behavior and Facial Expression (published on the Journal of Comparative Psychology, 4 [5], 447-509) came to these conclusions:

1) there is no typical facial expression accompanying any emotion aroused in the experiment;
2) emotions are not characterized by a typical expression or recurring pattern of muscular behavior;
3) smiling was the most common reaction, even during unpleasant experiences;
4) asymmetrical bodily reactions almost never occurred;
5) men were more expressive than women.

Hardly anything that could justify a mouse massacre, and the trauma inflicted upon the paritcipants.

After obtaining his degree, Carney Landis devoted himself to sexual psychopatology. He went on to have a brillant carreer at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. And he never harmed a rodent again, despite the fact that he is now mostly remembered for this ill-considered juvenile experiment rather than for his subsequent fourty years of honorable research.

There is, however, one last detail worth mentioning.
Alex Boese in his Elephants On Acid, underlines how the most interesting figure of all this bizarre experiment went unnoticed: the fact that two thirds of the subjects, although protesting and suffering, obeyed the terrible order.
And this percentage is in fact similar to the one recorded during the infamous Milgram experiment, in which a scientist commanded the subjects to inflict an electric shock to a third individual (in reality, an actor who pretended to receive the painful discharge). In that case as well, despite the ethical conflict, the simple fact that the order came from an authority figure was enough to push the subjects into carrying out an action they perceived as aberrant.

The Milgram experiment took place in 1961, almost forty years after the Landis experiment. “It is often this way with experiments — says Boese — A scientis sets out to prove one thing, but stumbles upon something completely different, something far more intriguing. For this reason, good researchers know they should always pay close attention to strange events that occur during their experiments. A great discovery might be lurking right beneath their eyes – or beneath te blade of their knife.

On facial expressions related to emotions, see also my former post on Guillaume Duchenne (sorry, Italian language only).

Booksigning 2016

There will be plenty of opportunities to meet before the year is over.

His Anatomical Majesty will be presented at the University of Padova on November 22. Here are the event details:


But that’s not all. Besides the usual appointment at Lucca Comics & Games (tomorrow you will find me there, at the stand Logos, E137 Napoleone), I will also be in Florence on November 3 to converse with Claudio Romo, author of Nueva Carne — not to mention all the events of the Academy of Enchantment, taking place every Sunday in Rome.

If you want your book copy signed, if you would love to chat a bit about those topics you never get to discuss with anybody (because how-can-you-like-things-like-that) or even just to drop by and say hello, here is my schedule.
See you soon!

The Punished Suicide

This article originally appeared on Death & The Maiden, a website exploring the relationship between women and death.

Padova, Italy. 1863.

One ash-grey morning, a young girl jumped into the muddy waters of the river which ran just behind the city hospital. We do not know her name, only that she worked as a seamstress, that she was 18 years old, and that her act of suicide was in all probability provoked by “amorous delusion”.
A sad yet rather unremarkable event, one that history could have well forgotten – hadn’t it happened, so to speak, in the right place and time.

The city of Padova was home to one of the oldest Universities in history, and it was also recognized as the cradle of anatomy. Among others, the great Vesalius, Morgagni and Fallopius had taught medicine there; in 1595 Girolamo Fabrici d’Acquapendente had the first stable anatomical theater built inside the University’s main building, Palazzo del Bo.


In 1863, the chair of Anatomical Pathology at the University was occupied by Lodovico Brunetti (1813-1899) who, like many anatomists of his time, had come up with his own process for preserving anatomical specimens: tannization. His method consisted in drying the specimens and injecting them with tannic acid; it was a long and difficult procedure (and as such it would not go on to have much fortune) but nonetheless gave astounding results in terms of quality. I have had the opportunity of feeling the consistency of some of his preparations, and still today they maintain the natural dimensions, elasticity and softness of the original tissues.
But back to our story.

When Brunetti heard about the young girl’s suicide, he asked her body be brought to him, so he could carry out his experiments.
First he made a plaster cast of the her face and upper bust. Then he peeled away all of the skin from her head and neck, being especially careful as to preserve the girl’s beautiful golden hair. He then proceeded to treat the skin, scouring it with sulfuric ether and fixing it with his own tannic acid formula. Once the skin was saved from putrefaction, he laid it out over the plaster cast reproducing the girl’s features, then added glass eyes and plaster ears to his creation.

But something was wrong.
The anatomist noticed that in several places the skin was lacerated. Those were the gashes left by the hooks men had used to drag the body out of the water, unto the banks of the river.
Brunetti, who in all evidence must have been a perfectionist, came up with a clever idea to disguise those marks.

He placed some wooden branches beside her chest, then entwined them with tannised snakes, carefully mounting the reptiles as if they were devouring the girl’s face. He poured some red candle wax to serve as blood spurts, and there it was: a perfect allegory of the punishment reserved in Hell to those who committed the mortal sin of  suicide.

He called his piece The Punished Suicide.

Now, if this was all, Brunetti would look like some kind of psychopath, and his work would just be unacceptable and horrifying, from any kind of ethical perspective.
But the story doesn’t end here.
After completing this masterpiece, the first thing Brunetti did was showing it to the girl’s parents.
And this is where things take a really weird turn.
Because the dead girl’s parents, instead of being dismayed and horrified, actually praised him for the precision shown in reproducing their daughter’s features.
So perfectly did I preserve her physiognomy – Brunetti proudly noted, – that those who saw her did easily recognize her”.

But wait, there’s more.
Four years later, the Universal Exposition was opening in Paris, and Brunetti asked the University to grant him funds to take the Punished Suicide to France. You would expect some kind of embarrassment on the part of the university, instead they happily financed his trip to Paris.


At the Exposition, thousands of spectators swarmed in from all around the world to see the latest innovations in technology and science, and saw the Punished Suicide. What would you think happened to Brunetti then? Was he hit by scandal, was his work despised and criticized?
Not at all. He won the Grand Prix in the Arts and Professions.

If you feel kind of dizzy by now, well, you probably should.
Looking at this puzzling story, we are left with only two options: either everybody in the whole world, including Brunetti, was blatantly insane; or there must exist some kind of variance in perception between our views on mortality and those held by people at the time.
It always strikes me how one does not need to go very far back in time to feel this kind of vertigo: all this happened less than 150 years ago, yet we cannot even begin to understand what our great-great-grandfathers were thinking.
Of course, anthropologists tell us that the cultural removal of death and the medicalization of dead bodies are relatively recent processes, which started around the turn of the last century. But it’s not until we are faced with a difficult “object” like this, that we truly grasp the abysmal distance separating us from our ancestors, the intensity of this shift in sensibility.
The Punished Suicide is, in this regard, a complex and wonderful reminder of how society’s boundaries and taboos may vary over a short period of time.
A perfect example of intersection between art (whether or not it encounters our modern taste), anatomy (it was meant to illustrate a preserving method) and the sacred (as an allegory of the Afterlife), it is one of the most challenging displays still visible in the ‘Morgagni’ Museum of Anatomical Pathology in Padova.

This nameless young girl’s face, forever fixed in tormented agony inside her glass case, cannot help but elicit a strong emotional response. It presents us with many essential questions on our past, on our own relationship with death, on how we intend to treat our dead in the future, on the ethics of displaying human remains in Museums, and so on.
On the account of all these rich and fruitful dilemmas, I like to think her death was at least not entirely in vain.

The “Morgagni” Museum of Pathology in Padova is the focus of the latest entry in the Bizzarro Bazar Collection, His Anatomical Majesty. Photography by Carlo Vannini. The story of the ‘Punished Suicide’ was unearthed by F. Zampieri, A. Zanatta and M. Rippa Bonati on Physis, XLVIII(1-2):297-338, 2012.

My week of English wonders – I

England, despite the sweetness of its mild hills standing out, or its pleasantly green countryside, always had a funereal quality to my eye.

I am well aware that such an impression, indistinct and irrational as it is, is but an indefensible generalization; yet I cannot help this feeling deep inside of me every time I go back across the Channel.
It may be because of the many convent ruins characterizing the landscape since Reformation, or because of the infamously leaden sky, or the lingering memory of Victorian mournings; but I suspect the idea that this whole country could have an affinity with death was actually suggested to me by the British I happened to know throughout the years, who seemed to be fighting against a sort of innate, philosophical resignation with the weapons of irony.
In his sketches, John Cleese often made fun of the deferential British austerity, that fear of hurting or being hurt if feelings are given free rein — the same bottled up behaviour which finds its counterpart in the cruelty of British humour, in Blake’s dazzling ecstatic explosions, in the dandies’ iconoclasm or in punk nihilism. Thus, as hard as I have tried, I cannot get rid of the sensation that the English people think more than others, or maybe with less distractions, about vanitas, and are able to transform this awareness of futility (even in respect to social conventions) into a subversive undercurrent.

This is why heading to England to talk about memento mori felt somehow natural right from the start.
At the University of Winchester was gathered a heterogeneous crowd of academics (medievalists, medical historians, anatomists, paleopathologists, experts in literature and painting) and artists, all interested in the relationship between death, art and anatomy.

20160605_171453

2016-06-04 13.01.17

2016-06-04 13.01.55

20160603_153516

20160603_153057

These three days of memorable intellectual stimulation really fueled my mind, by nature already overexcited.
Therefore I arrived in London in a state of augmented perception, as the town greeted me with a bright sun and crystal blue skies over its buildings, as if eager to deny all the aforementioned stereotypes. And yet, in retrospect, the days I spent in the capital proved to be a protraction and a follow-up to the meditations initiated in Winchester.

My first, inevitable visit was obviously paid to the Wellcome Collection. This Museum, founded in 2007, is particularly dear to me because it addresses, like I often do on these pages, the intersections between science, art and the sacred. Its permanent collections feature anatomical dolls, memento mori, human remains (for instance a Peruvian 5 to 7 centuries-old mummy); but also fakirs sandals, shrunken heads, chastity belts and religious objects.

WC1

WC2

WC3

  WC5

WC6

WC7

WC8

WC9

WC11

WC12

WC14

WC15

WC16

WC17

WC18

WC19

WC20

WC10

A fascinating temporary exhibition entitled States of mind: Tracing the edges of consciousness introduces the visitor to the mysteries of the Self, of what we call “consciousness”, through the liminal territories of nightmare, somnambulism and its opposite — hypnagogic paralysis —, all the way to the uncharted realms of vegetative state. In the last room I learned with a shiver how recent studies suggest that patients suspended between life and death might be much more aware than we thought.


The Grant Museum of Zoology, just a five-minute walk from the Wellcome Collection, is the only remaining University zoological museum in the capital. The space open to the public is not very big, but it is packed to the ceiling with thousands of specimens covering the entire spectrum of animal kingdom. Skeletons, wet and taxidermied specimens are a silent — yet meaningful — reminder of the vortex of biodiversity.

MoZ4

MoZ7

MoZ2

MoZ3

MoZ5

MoZ1

MoZ8

MoZ9

MoZ10

Another ten-minute walk, and I reached 1 Scala Street, the location for what is probably one of the most peculiar and evocative museums in London: Pollock’s Toy Museum.

PTM1

PTM2
The visitor must proceed by climbing steep narrow stairs, passing through corridors and small rooms, in a sort of maze unfolding on multiple levels across two different houses, one built in the 1880s and the other dating back to the previous century. Ancient toys are stacked everywhere: dolls, tin soldiers, train models, stuffed animals, rocking horses, puppets, kaleidoscopes.
Coming from the Zoology Museum, I can’t help but think of how play is a fundamental activity for the human mammal. But what could appear just as a curious excursus in the history and diverse typologies of toys soon turns into something different.

PTM4

PTM10

PTM5

PTM7

PTM8

PTM13

PTM19

PTM11

PTM3

Standing before the display cases crowded with hundreds of time-worn puppets, overwhelmed by the incredible quantity of details, one could easily fall prey to a vague malaise. But this is not that sort of phobia some people have for old dolls and their vitreous gaze; it is a subtle, ancient melancholia.

What happened to the children who held those teddy bears, who played out fantastic stories on tiny cardboard theaters, who opened their eyes wide in front of a magic lantern?

PTM18

PTM22

PTM21

PTM6

PTM12

PTM9

PTM17

PTM14

PTM15

PTM16

PTM24

PTM23

PTM25

It might have been just another suggestion caused by previous days spent in heartfelt discussions on the symbols and simulacra of death; or, once more, my preconceptions were to blame.
But to me, even a museum dedicated to child entertainment somehow looked like a triumph of impermanence.

PTM20
(This article continues here)

The Monster Study

Vi sono molti disturbi ai quali la scienza non ha ancora saputo trovare un’origine e una causa certa.

Sotto il comune termine di “balbuzie” si è soliti raggruppare diversi tipi di impedimenti del linguaggio, più o meno gravi; al di là delle classificazioni specialistiche, ciò che risulta chiaro anche ai profani è che chi soffre di questo genere di disfluenze verbali finisce per essere sottoposto a forte stress, tanto da farsi problemi ad iniziare una conversazione, avere attacchi di ansia, e addirittura nei casi più estremi isolarsi dalla vita sociale. Si tratta di un circolo vizioso, perché se la balbuzie provoca ansia, l’ansia a sua volta ne aggrava i sintomi: la persona balbuziente, quindi, deve saper superare un continuo sentimento di inadeguatezza, lottando costantemente contro la perdita di controllo.

Le cause esatte della balbuzie non sono state scoperte, così come non è ancora stata trovata una vera e propria cura definitiva per il problema; è indubbio che il fattore ansiogeno sia comunque fondamentale, come dimostrano quelle situazioni in cui, a fronte di uno stress più ridotto (ad esempio, parlando al telefono), i sintomi tendono ad affievolirsi notevolmente se non a scomparire del tutto.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB3N_nmeB9k]

Fra i primi a sottolineare l’importanza dell’aspetto psicologico della balbuzie (pensieri, attitudini ed emozioni dei pazienti) fu il Dr. Wendell Johnson. Riconosciuto oggi come uno dei più influenti patologi del linguaggio, egli focalizzò il suo lavoro su queste problematiche in un’epoca, gli anni ’30, in cui gli studi sul campo erano agli albori: eppure i dati raccolti nelle sue ricerche sui bambini balbuzienti sono ancora oggi i più numerosi ed esaustivi a disposizione degli psicologi.

wjoldcap
Nonostante le molte terapie efficaci da lui iniziate, e una vita intera dedicata alla comprensione e alla cura di questo disturbo (di cui egli stesso soffriva), Johnson viene spesso ricordato soltanto per un esperimento sfortunato e discutibile sotto il profilo etico, che nel tempo è divenuto tristemente famoso.

Wendell Johnson era convinto che la balbuzie non fosse genetica, ma che venisse invece fortemente influenzata da fattori esterni quali l’educazione, l’autostima e in generale l’ambiente di sviluppo del bambino. Per provare questa sua teoria, nel 1939 Johnson elaborò un complesso esperimento che affidò a una studentessa universitaria, Mary Tudor, sotto la sua supervisione. Lo scopo del progetto consisteva nel verificare quanto influissero i complimenti e i rimproveri sullo sviluppo del linguaggio: la Tudor avrebbe cercato di “curare” la balbuzie di alcuni bambini, lodando il loro modo di esprimersi, e allo stesso tempo – ecco che arriva la parte spinosa – di indurla in altri bambini perfettamente in grado di parlare, tramite continui attacchi alla loro autostima. Venne deciso che le piccole cavie umane sarebbero state dei bambini orfani, in quanto facili da reperire e privi di figure genitoriali che potessero interferire con il progetto.

In un orfanotrofio di veterani nello Iowa, Johnson e Tudor selezionarono ventidue bambini dai 5 ai 15 anni, che avevano tutti perso i genitori in guerra; fra questi, soltanto dieci erano balbuzienti. I bambini con problemi di balbuzie vennero divisi in due gruppi: a quelli del gruppo IA, sperimentale, la Tudor doveva ripetere che il loro linguaggio era ottimo, e che non avevano da preoccuparsi. Il gruppo IB, di controllo, non riceveva particolari suggestioni o complimenti.

Poi c’erano i dodici bambini che parlavano fluentemente: anche loro vennero divisi in due gruppi, IIA e IIB. I più fortunati erano quelli del secondo gruppo di controllo (IIB), che venivano educati in maniera normale e corretta. Il gruppo IIA, invece, è il vero e proprio pomo della discordia: ai bambini, tutti in grado di parlare bene, venne fatto credere che il loro linguaggio mostrasse un inizio preoccupante di balbuzie. La Tudor li incalzava, durante le sue visite, facendo notare ogni loro minimo inciampo, e recitando dei copioni precedentemente concordati con il suo docente: “Siamo arrivati alla conclusione che hai dei grossi problemi di linguaggio… hai molti dei sintomi di un bambino che comincia a balbettare. Devi cercare immediatamente di fermarti. Usa la forza di volontà… Fa’ qualunque cosa pur di non balbettare… Non parlare nemmeno finché non sai di poterlo fare bene. Vedi come balbetta quel bambino, vero? Beh, certamente ha iniziato proprio in questo modo”.

L’esperimento durò da gennaio a maggio, con Mary Tudor che parlava ad ogni bambino per 45 minuti ogni due o tre settimane. I bambini del gruppo IIA, bersagliati per i loro fantomatici difetti di pronuncia, accusarono immediatamente il trattamento: i loro voti peggiorarono, e la loro sicurezza si disintegrò totalmente. Una bambina di nove anni cominciò a rifiutarsi di parlare e a tenere gli occhi coperti da un braccio tutto il tempo, un’altra di cinque divenne molto silenziosa. Una ragazzina quindicenne, per evitare di balbettare, ripeteva “Ah” sempre più frequentemente fra una parola e l’altra; rimproverata anche per questo, cadde in una sorta di loop e iniziò a schioccare le dita per impedirsi di dire “Ah”.

I bambini della sezione IIA, nel corso dei cinque mesi dell’esperimento, divennero introversi e insicuri. La stessa Mary Tudor riteneva che la ricerca si fosse spinta troppo oltre: presa dai sensi di colpa, per ben tre volte dopo aver concluso l’esperimento Mary ritornò all’orfanotrofio per rimediare ai danni che era convinta di aver provocato. Così, di sua spontanea iniziativa, cercò di far capire ai bambini del gruppo IIA che, in realtà, non avevano mai veramente balbettato. Se questo tardivo moto di pietà sia servito a ridare sicurezza ai piccoli orfani, oppure abbia disorientato ancora di più le loro già confuse menti, non lo sapremo mai.

WJ 3

I risultati dell’esperimento dimostravano, secondo Johnson, che la balbuzie vera e propria poteva nascere da un errato riconoscimento del problema in famiglia: anche con le migliori intenzioni, i genitori potevano infatti scambiare per balbuzie dei piccoli difetti di linguaggio, perfettamente normali durante la crescita, e ingigantirli fino a portarli a livello di una vera e propria patologia. Lo psicologo si rese comunque conto che il suo esperimento poggiava su un confine etico piuttosto delicato, e decise di non pubblicarlo, ma di renderlo liberamente disponibile nella biblioteca dell’Università dello Iowa.

Passarono più di sessant’anni, quando nel 2001 un giornalista investigativo del San Jose Mercury News scoprì l’intera vicenda, e intuì subito di poterci costruire uno scoop clamoroso. Johnson, morto nel frattempo nel 1965, era ritenuto uno degli studiosi del linguaggio di più alto profilo, rispettato ed ammirato; il sensazionale furore mediatico che scaturì dalla rivelazione dell’esperimento alimentò un intenso dibattito sull’eticità del suo lavoro. L’Università si scusò pubblicamente per aver finanziato il “Monster Study” (com’era stato immediatamente ribattezzato dai giornali), e il 17 agosto 2007 sei degli orfani ancora in vita ottennero dallo Stato un risarcimento di 950.000 dollari, per le ferite psicologiche ed emotive sofferte a causa dall’esperimento.

Era davvero così “mostruoso” questo studio? I bambini del gruppo IIA rimasero balbuzienti per tutta la vita?

In realtà, non lo divennero mai, nonostante Johnson sostenesse di aver provato la sua tesi anti-genetica. Mary Tudor aveva parlato di “conseguenze inequivocabili” sulle abilità linguistiche degli orfani, eppure a nessuno dei bambini del gruppo IIA venne in seguito diagnosticata una balbuzie. Alcuni di loro riferirono in tribunale di essere diventati introversi, ma di vera e propria balbuzie indotta, neanche l’ombra.

Le valutazioni degli odierni patologi del linguaggio variano considerevolmente sugli effetti negativi che la ricerca di Johnson potrebbe aver provocato. Quanto all’eticità del progetto in sé, non va dimenticato che negli anni ’30 la sensibilità era differente, e non esisteva ancora alcuna direttiva scientifica internazionale riguardo gli esperimenti sugli esseri umani. A sorpresa, in tutto questo, l’aspetto più discutibile rimane quello scientifico: i professori Nicoline G. Ambrose e Ehud Yairi, in un’analisi dell’esperimento condotta dopo il 2001, si mostrano estremamente critici nei confronti dei risultati, viziati secondo loro dalla frettolosa e confusa progettazione e dai “ripensamenti” della Tudor. Anche l’idea che la balbuzie sia un comportamento che il bambino sviluppa a causa della pressione psicologica dei genitori – concetto di cui Johnson era strenuamente convinto e che ripeté come un mantra fino alla fine dei suoi giorni – non viene assolutamente corroborata dai dati dell’esperimento, visto che alcuni dei bambini in cui sarebbe dovuta insorgere la balbuzie avevano invece conosciuto addirittura dei miglioramenti.

La vera macchia nella brillante carriera di Johnson, quindi, non sarebbe tanto la sua mancanza di scrupoli, ma di scrupolo: la ricerca, una volta spogliata da tutti gli elementi sensazionalistici ed analizzata oggettivamente, si è rivelata meno grave del previsto nelle conseguenze, ma più pasticciata e tendenziosa nei risultati che proponeva.

Il Monster Study è ancora oggi un esperimento pressoché universalmente ritenuto infame e riprovevole, e di sicuro lo è secondo gli standard morali odierni, visto che ha causato un indubbio stress emotivo a un gruppo di minori già provati a sufficienza dalla morte dei genitori. Ma, come si è detto, erano altri tempi; di lì a poco si sarebbero conosciuti esperimenti umani ben più terrificanti, questa volta dalla nostra parte dell’Oceano.

Ad oggi, nonostante l’eziologia precisa del disturbo rimanga sconosciuta, si ritiene che la balbuzie abbia cause di tipo genetico e neurologico.