In defense of the Hopkins lead abatement studies

The author examines three of the court's rulings in Grimes Kennedy Krieger Institute and argues that the research was therapeutic or, at minimum, that parents have the right to expose their children to some low level of risk in non-therapeutic research. She also considers the potential implications of the court's conclusion that informed Consent agreements can create "special relationships" between researchers and human subjects, giving rise to specific duties of care by researchers.