PAUL A. LOMBARDO, Georgia State University - College of Law
Email: plombardo@gsu.edu

In 1929 Charles B. Davenport, a prominent biologist and leader in the American eugenics movement, carried out an experimental castration of a "Mongoloid dwarf" at a New York State mental institution. His goal was to retrieve tissue for chromosomal analysis in an attempt to understand the basis of syndromal mental retardation. Davenport was assisted in the research by cytologist T.S. Painter, who later achieved scientific celebrity for his work in counting human chromosomes. Davenport also invited George Washington Corner, who eventually contributed to the discovery of progesterone, to participate in the experiment. Davenport planned and carried out the surgery using the questionable promise of therapeutic benefit to elicit consent from a parent with limited mental capacity on behalf of an even more seriously impaired institutional resident. Archival evidence demonstrates that even at that date scientists like Davenport and the physicians he collaborated with were sensitive to ethical issues such as the necessity for consent and questions of decisional capacity, as well as the potential for negative publicity for mistreatment of "research subjects."

PAUL STEVEN MILLER, University of Washington School of Law
Email: psmiller@u.washington.edu

Despite his powerful influence in the U.S. Senate during the pivotal years of The Civil Rights Movement and The Cold War, Senator Henry M. Jackson’s position on equality and civil rights is largely unknown. Miller describes Senator Jackson’s approach to civil rights as shaped fundamentally by his anti-Communist agenda. This agenda recognized that social justice could triumph only in a democracy in which respect for human dignity was at its core. Using this framework, Miller connects the emergence of disability human rights to the values espoused by Senator Jackson.

PAUL STEVEN MILLER, University of Washington School of Law
Email: psmiller@u.washington.edu

Ruth Colker provides a detailed history of the first ten years of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based upon a study of federal cases, legislative history, and judicial decision-making. Her examination gives insight into why, despite broad congressional support, initial ADA jurisprudence has fallen short of the envisioned goals of its supporters with the vast majority of case law limiting the breadth and effectiveness of the statute. In addition, Colker gives readers a behind-the-scenes look into the debates and personal stories that paved the way for the statute's enactment in Congress.