Talk:Chester M. Southam

Notes to class
In this dif and this dif you all have added unsourced content (which violates WP:V and WP:OR which is policy, content that is very detailed about the controversial experiments and his career to the point of violating WP:UNDUE (which is policy) (the article should cover his whole career - what else did he do other than these experiments?), and the edits don't follow the manual of style for the project at large (WP:MOS) or for medical topics (WP:MEDMOS).   Please propose edits here or in your sandbox, and please have your class WP liaison check them before you implement them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now reported at ANI here and asked for page protection to force you all to use the talk page, since you refuse to do that. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for a detailed biography on his career puts more emphasis on the insignificant background minutiae and paper-publishing of academia than on the subject for which he was more broadly known: unethical human experiments. If anything, the article needs more of an explanation on how he escaped a Nuremberg-style trial for his actions and why he was allowed to retire a free man. 173.246.142.41 (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hormesis content
The following was added in this dif by User:Hannahriedy


 * Hormesis

Chester M. Southam and his colleague, John Ehrlich, described hormesis in their 1943 article titled the “Effects of Extract of Western Red-Cedar Heartwood on Certain Wood-Decaying Fungi in Culture.” This paper examined the differential growth rates of varying species of fungus. In solutions containing low concentrations of red-cedar heartwood, Southam and Ehrlich observed that the growth rate initially increased. However, the rate of fungi growth eventually slowed to stabilize the fungi concentration, mimicking a logistic function.

This experiment was significant because it contributed to studies involving dose-response relationships in which researchers use hormesis to explain why low concentrations of a substance result in positive effects, while higher exposure to the same substance is deleterious.
 * The first paragraph is all sourced to the primary source from 1943, and that is done pretty well - limits itself to discussion of what that paper says, and no more. That is OK.  But it ~seems~ to be making the claim that a) that was Southam's first paper on the topic, or that Southam's discussion of it was important.  And the 2nd paragraph starts out saying, "This experiment was significant because "... and that paragraph is sourced to a review.  Looks good on the surface.  The problem is that the review doesn't mention Southam or the year 1943.  So what we have here is WP:SYN, a form of WP:OR.  That is policy and content that violates policy cannot be in WP.  You need a review that talks about Southam and the important of his work to the concept of "hormesis". Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Effect of Russian Encephalitis and Viruses on Mouse Leukemia
The following content was added in these difs by User:Ayromja

In 1953, Southam published a paper titled “The Effect of Russian Encephalitis and Viruses on Mouse Leukemia,” describing whether or not a selected group of viruses could combat leukemia in mice. Each experimental group of 30-40 mice were given 100,000 to 1,000,000 leukemia cells taken from the tail of a mice infected with AK4 leukemia. The mice were either injected intraperitoneally or intracerebrally. Out of fifteen viruses, the Russian spring-summer Encephalitis, West Nile Virus, and Ilheus Virus were able to provoke an immune response in the mice, which was measured using the amount of leukocytes in the blood of the mice. The other viruses either did not have an effect, or had a mild and questionable effect. Southam also tested the West Nile Virus as a way to kill cancer on humans in the 1950’s. The West Nile Virus was injected into over 100 cancer patients. In Africa, the symptoms included a mild fever; however, upon injection into the cancer patients, their health worsened. For patients with lymphoma, there was evidence of tumor reduction; others did not react well to the injection and developed the West Nile Virus. The results of these experiments were inconclusive; Southam’s interest immunotherapy and virology led him to expand cancer research further.

So the first paragraph summarizes the paper. That is kind of OK but it is unclear why this paper is being given all this WP:WEIGHT. Why? The next paragraph kinds of hints at it.. maybe Southam went on to try WNV in people because of that work in mice. But doing this is WP:SYN, because the NYT paper doesn't mention that paper at all. So there is no reason for the first paragraph to be in WP. The second paragraph is more interesting, and we can use that. The last sentence is kind of wrong, but I will fix that when I restore this paragraph. (by the way, that citation is already used in the article, and this was a duplicate reference. I will fix that too.)Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Viral Oncolysis Studies with a Metastatic Human Tumor in Chicks proposed section
The following was added in this dif by User:Changjames:

Chester M. Southam, in his article “Viral Oncolysis Studies with a Metastatic Human Tumor in Chicks,” entails the methodologies and the results obtained from the various experiments related to human tumors in chicks. Specifically, he refers to an experiment that cancer researchers Dagg and Karnofsky conducted, in which they found that the human epidermoid carcinoma (H. Ep. #3) growing on chickens’ eggs’ chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) would metastasize in the embryo. In other words, the chicks would be born with metastatic human cancer. The cancer researchers believe that this information has the potential to significantly advance the study of viral oncolysis.

Segments of H. Ep. #3 are placed on the eggs and after hatching, the egg shells were examined to see if CAM tutors grew. If the tumors were not found, then the chicks were discarded. On the other hand, if the tumors existed, then they were carefully measured. Because of the differences in the sizes of tumors, the researchers initially believed that there was a correlation between tumor size and the development of metastasis. However, the correlation was proved insignificant. In fact, one result demonstrated that there was not even a correlation between tumor size and the chicks’ lifespan. That said, sixty percent of the chicks that had CAM tumors died before day 35 of the experiment.

Several viruses were tested to determine their effects on the chickens’ survival rate. It turns out that H. Ep. #3 slightly increased the survival rate of the chickens, suggesting that it may be an effective virus to use. However, the article reiterates that due to the many factors during an experiment, few conclusions can be accurately drawn.

Several viruses that bear the potential to infect chickens were also carefully examined. Viruses such as Mengo, Bunyamwera, and Semliki Forest showed no antitumor effect. Nonetheless, Egypt 101, through tissue culture of the H. Ep. #3 cell, caused an apparent increase in survival rate. This informs the researchers that the virus exists in higher concentrations in tumors than it does in regular tissue.

So OK, this starts out giving his whole name, as though the article was not already in existence. Student work does this kind of thing way too often. You are not writing an essay and dumping it into WP; you are part of a community building and maintaining an article.

This description of the paper (which is a WP:PRIMARY source), gives an enormous amount of WP:WEIGHT (part of the WP:NPOV policy) to this single paper, as though it was of enormous importance in Southam's life and perhaps to medicine in general. But there is no discussion of that - no secondary source saying why this work mattered. So this doesn't comply with the WP:NPOV policy at all. There is no reason for this to be in Wikipedia. There is also editorializing language, like "carefully". If you read both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS you will see that use of primary sources alone is generally discouraged in WP, and if -- if -- you use them, you need to be very careful not to add WP:OR by editorializing or drawing your own conclusions, and WEIGHT should be minimal. Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Transplantable Renal Tumor of the Rat, proposed section
The following was added in this diff by User:Hannahriedy:

Prior to using HeLa cells, Southam experimented on rats and mice in order to observe the effects of injecting cancerous tumors into healthy subjects. In a 1960 paper titled “Transplantable Renal Tumor of the Rat,” Southam explains the details of his experiment in which he injected tumor cells into healthy rats. He first injected only newborn rats, but eventually experimented on rats of all ages. Additionally, Southam varied his solutions, injecting some rats with over 100 million tumor cells and others with 10 million tumor cells. At the time of the paper’s publishing, he had injected the tumor for eight generations. In his paper, Southam describes the differences in tumor formation depending on the solution used. Rats injected with the larger dose had noticeable tumors by two weeks, while those injected with the lower, 10 million cell dose did not have apparent tumors until four weeks after the injections.

Furthermore, Southam examined the variety of tumor growth rates in his subjects. While tumors formed in 40-50% of all of the rats, their growth was fastest in rats less than 2 weeks old. These rats had evident tumors 2 to 3 weeks after the injections and died after 2 to 6 weeks. However, in adult rats, the tumor growth was slower on average, and most did not die for over 8 weeks after the injections. Lastly, Southam observed how the rate of tumor growth depended on the transplantation generation. In the later generations, the tumors grew somewhat faster in younger rats than those from earlier generations. He also noted that the tumors appeared nearly identical to the original tumor, aside from slight structural differences.

Same issues with the section discussed above with regard to WP:WEIGHT. No secondary source saying why this work mattered. Also the first sentence seems to be incorrect. He was using HeLa cells already in the mid-1950s's right? Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Violation of Bioethics proposed content
The following was added in this dif

Of the four pillars of bioethics (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice), Southam’s cancer cell experiment violated all four and failed to meet bioethical regulations despite the medical progress he was able to make.


 * Autonomy: In his first series of experiments at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn, he was found guilty of failing to provide the patients with informed consent . In fact, “The Board of Regents found this had been done without the ‘informed consent’ of the patients and that Southam and Mandel were therefore guilty of ‘fraud and deceit in the practice of medicine.’"


 * Justice: In his prison experiments at the Ohio State Penitentiary, Southam limited his sample population to a sample size of just 53 volunteers . His failure to select volunteers from a larger, more diverse population violates justice since the prisoners were unable to benefit from the research conducted on them.


 * Non-Maleficence: In his experiments, it was found that the cancer cells did have the potential to grow and develop tumors in patients. In cases where subjects already had cancer, by injecting them with the cancer cells he ended up giving them even more cancer cells that continued to grow . Bernard Pisanie, the former president of the Medical Society of the County of New York stated, “The known hazards of such experiments include growth of nodules and tumor and may result in a metastasis of cancer if the patient does not reject the cells”.


 * Beneficence: In his studies, the patients did not benefit any personal gain and were subjected to dangerous and painful injections. Because he injected patients with cancer cells to record the effects on them, Southam’s research did not help his subjects. Elinor Langer writes that for Southam “to test the hypothesis that the slower rate of rejection in the cancer patients was in fact attributed to their cancer and not to the general debility that accompanies any chronic illness, it was necessary to perform the experiment on patients severely ill with nonmalignant diseases”.

The sources do not discuss these four rubrics. This appears to be entirely WP:OR. It is also very WP:UNDUE. This is the last time I am doing the courtesy of giving commentary. I will be just deleting content-violating content in the future. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Observation. These "four pillars of bioetics" are not mentioned in the bioethics article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)