(Image: Counselling Directory)

In today’s, high pressure environment, stress has become an almost unavoidable part of adolescence. From academic expectations to social pressures that are amplified by digital media, teenagers are experiencing sustained levels of stress at increasingly younger ages. While stress is often dismissed as a normal part of growing up, medical research suggests that chronic stress does far more than affect mood for a small period of time,it can physically reshape the developing teenage brain. From a neurological and medical standpoint, this trend raises serious concerns about long term cognitive and emotional health.

One of the most significant biological mechanisms behind stress is the activation of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (HPA) axis, which regulates the body’s stress response. When a teen experiences stress, the body releases cortisol, a hormone designed to help manage short-term threats. However, during adolescence (which is a period marked by rapid brain development) this system becomes especially reactive. Studies show that teens exhibit heightened hormonal responses to stress, making their brains more vulnerable to its effects.

Chronic exposure to elevated cortisol can lead to structural changes in key brain regions. The hippocampus, which is responsible for memory and learning, and the prefrontal cortex, which governs decision making and impulse control, are particularly affected. Research indicates that prolonged stress can reduce the complexity and size of neurons in these areas, impairing cognitive functions such as memory retention and attention. At the same time, the amygdala, the brain’s emotional center may become more active or even grow, increasing fear responses and emotional reactivity. This imbalance can leave teenagers more prone to anxiety, mood disorders, and difficulty regulating emotions.

Beyond structural changes, chronic stress can also interfere with the brain’s development at a cellular level. During adolescence, the brain undergoes significant neural pruning and strengthening of connections, processes essential for efficient thinking and behavior. However, stress disrupts this process by reducing neurogenesis (the formation of new neurons) and weakening synaptic connections. Additionally, research suggests that stress may delay the maturation of the prefrontal cortex, the region responsible for higher order thinking and self control. This delay can manifest in poorer decision-making, reduced impulse control, and increased risk taking behaviors.

Perhaps most concerning is that the effects of stress during adolescence may be long lasting or even permanent. While adult brains often recover from stress related changes, studies indicate that stress experienced during adolescence can produce alterations that persist well into adulthood. This is because the teenage brain is still forming its foundational structures, making it more susceptible to environmental influences. As a result, chronic stress during this critical period is linked to an increased risk of mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse later in life.

Despite these risks, not all stress is harmful. Short term or “acute” stress can enhance focus and resilience, this is called Eustress in psychology and its main purpose is helping people adapt to challenges. The problem arises when stress becomes constant and overwhelming, preventing the brain from returning to its baseline state. From a medical perspective, this distinction is crucial: the goal is not to eliminate stress entirely, but to prevent it from becoming chronic and damaging.

Overall, chronic stress is not merely an emotional burden for teenagers, it’s a biological force capable of reshaping the brain itself. By altering brain structure, disrupting development, and increasing vulnerability to mental illness, prolonged stress poses a significant threat to adolescent health. Recognizing these effects underscores the importance of early intervention, stress management, and supportive environments. As society continues to place increasing demands on young people, addressing chronic stress is not just a psychological necessity but a medical imperative.

Works Cited:

Eiland, L, and R D Romeo. “Stress and the developing adolescent brain.” Neuroscience vol. 249 (2013): 162-71. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.10.048. Accessed 10 April. 2026

American Psychological Association. (2024, October 22). How to help children and teens manage their stress. https://www.apa.org/topics/children/stress . Accessed 10 April 2026

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2005/2014). Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain: Working Paper No. 3. Updated Edition. Retrieved from www.developingchild.harvard.edu . Accessed 10 April 2026

(Image: CNN)

In the wake of World War II, the United States entered the Atomic Age with unprecedented scientific power and equally unprecedented ethical challenges. The development of nuclear weapons through the Manhattan Project marked a turning point in history, but it also initiated a series of controversial human radiation experiments conducted between the 1940s and 1970s. Overseen in part by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, these experiments exposed unwitting patients, soldiers, and civilians to radioactive materials without their informed consent. From a medical and ethical standpoint, these actions represent a profound violation of human rights and a cautionary example of science conducted without adequate moral oversight.

One of the most troubling aspects of these experiments was the lack of informed consent. Many participants were unaware that they were being exposed to radiation at all. Hospital patients, including those suffering from chronic illnesses, were injected with radioactive substances under the guise of treatment or research. In some cases, pregnant women and children were included in studies to observe the effects of radiation on development. These practices directly violated the ethical principle of autonomy, which requires that patients be fully informed and voluntarily agree to any medical procedure. The absence of transparency highlights how national security concerns were often prioritized over individual rights during this period.

From a medical perspective, the consequences of these experiments were severe and long lasting. Exposure to radiation can damage DNA, increasing the risk of cancer, organ failure, and genetic mutations. At the time, researchers were aware of many of these risks, particularly following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Despite this knowledge, experiments continued, often justified by the need to understand radiation’s effects for military and industrial purposes. This raises critical ethical questions about the obligation to do good and avoid harm. In these cases, the harm inflicted on individuals was neither minimized nor ethically justified.

Another major issue was the targeting of vulnerable populations. Many subjects were chosen because they were less likely to question authority or had limited access to legal protections, including prisoners, military personnel, and economically disadvantaged patients. This reflects a broader pattern of exploitation in medical research, where marginalized groups bear disproportionate risks. Ethical frameworks today emphasize justice and fairness, ensuring that no group is unfairly burdened or excluded from the benefits of research. The radiation experiments of this era stand in stark contrast to these principles.

Public awareness of these experiments did not emerge until decades later, leading to widespread outrage and calls for accountability. Investigations in the late 20th century revealed the extent of the programs, prompting government apologies and compensation efforts for some victims. More importantly, these revelations contributed to the development of stricter ethical guidelines in human research, including requirements for informed consent, institutional review boards (IRBs), and greater transparency. These safeguards are now fundamental to modern medical research, ensuring that past abuses are not repeated.

The human radiation experiments conducted during the Atomic Age illustrate the dangers of prioritizing scientific advancement and national security over ethical responsibility. By disregarding informed consent, exposing individuals to significant harm, and exploiting vulnerable populations, these programs violated core principles of medical ethics. While they led to important reforms in research practices, they also serve as a lasting reminder that scientific progress must always be guided by respect for human dignity and rights.

Works cited: 

“Manhattan Project.” Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2025, www.atomicheritage.org/history/manhattan-project  .  Accessed 10 April. 2026.

“U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/Atomic-Energy-Commission    Accessed 10 April. 2026.

“Ethics of Human Experimentation.” National Institutes of Health, 2024, www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/basics  Accessed 10 April. 2026.

(Image: babel.ua)

During the height of the Cold War, fear and competition between global superpowers drove the United States to pursue increasingly secretive and controversial scientific programs. Among the most disturbing was Project MKUltra, a covert operation led by the Central Intelligence Agency that aimed to explore mind control techniques through the use of drugs such as LSD. Conducted largely in the 1950s and 1960s, these experiments often involved unwitting participants, including mental patients, prisoners, and ordinary citizens. From a medical and ethical standpoint, MKUltra represents a profound violation of human rights and serves as a stark warning about the dangers of unchecked government power in scientific research.

At the core of MKUltra’s ethical failure was the complete absence of informed consent. Participants were frequently given powerful psychoactive substances, including LSD, without their knowledge or permission. In some cases, individuals were told they were receiving treatment, when in reality they were being used as test subjects in experiments designed to manipulate cognition and behavior. This directly violates the principle of autonomy, which requires that individuals have full knowledge of and voluntarily agree to any medical or experimental procedure. The deliberate deception used in MKUltra not only stripped participants of their rights but also undermined the trust essential to ethical medical practice.

The medical consequences of these experiments were severe. LSD and similar substances can profoundly alter perception, mood, and cognition, especially when administered in uncontrolled or repeated doses. Many subjects experienced intense psychological distress, including paranoia, hallucinations, and long term trauma. In extreme cases, these experiments contributed to lasting mental health issues and even death. From the ethical standpoint in experimentation that researchers should do no harm, MKUltra represents a clear and egregious failure. Researchers knowingly exposed individuals to significant risks without therapeutic intent, prioritizing experimental goals over patient welfare.

Another critical issue was the exploitation of vulnerable populations. Mental patients, in particular, were frequently targeted because they were less able to question authority or advocate for themselves. This raises serious concerns about justice and fairness in research. Ethical standards require that vulnerable groups receive additional protections, not increased exposure to risk. By deliberately selecting individuals with limited autonomy, MKUltra amplified its ethical violations and reinforced patterns of inequality within medical experimentation.

The secrecy surrounding MKUltra further compounded its ethical breaches. For years, the program operated without public knowledge or oversight, shielded by national security justifications. It was not until the 1970s, during investigations such as the Church Committee investigations, that the extent of the program began to emerge. Even then, many records had been destroyed, limiting full accountability. This lack of transparency highlights the dangers of allowing scientific research to proceed without independent review or ethical regulation.

In response to revelations about MKUltra and similar programs, stricter guidelines were established to protect human subjects in research. Institutional review boards (IRBs), informed consent requirements, and federal regulations now play a central role in ensuring ethical compliance. These safeguards are designed to prevent the kinds of abuses that occurred under MKUltra, emphasizing the importance of oversight, accountability, and respect for human dignity.

MKUltra still stands as one of the most troubling examples of unethical experimentation in modern history. By disregarding informed consent, inflicting psychological harm, exploiting vulnerable populations, and operating in secrecy, the program violated every major principle of medical ethics. While it contributed to reforms that strengthened research protections, its legacy is a reminder that scientific ambition and national security must never come at the expense of fundamental human rights.

Works Cited: 

Tabor, Nick. "MK-ULTRA". Encyclopedia Britannica, 3 Mar. 2026, https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA  . Accessed 11 April 2026.

“CIA Mind Control Experiments (MKUltra).” National Security Archive, George Washington University, 2024, nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2017-08-15/cia-mind-control-experiments-mkultra .  Accessed 11 April. 2026.

 “Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room.” Central Intelligence Agency, www.cia.gov/readingroom/  

. Accessed 11 April. 2026.

(Image: Dr. Jockers Functional Nutrition)

Many teens expect periods to be uncomfortable, inconvenient, or even painful. What often gets less attention is how heavy menstrual bleeding can affect the rest of the body, especially when it leads to anemia.

Anemia is a condition that happens when the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells or enough hemoglobin to carry oxygen effectively to tissues and organs. Hemoglobin depends on iron to function properly. When iron levels drop, the body cannot produce enough healthy red blood cells, which reduces oxygen delivery throughout the body. One of the most common causes of iron deficiency anemia in teen girls is heavy menstrual bleeding.

Heavy periods are not always easy to recognize. Some signs include bleeding that lasts more than seven days, needing to change pads or tampons very frequently, bleeding through clothes or bedding, or passing large blood clots. When this kind of blood loss happens regularly, the body loses more iron than it can replace through diet alone. Over time, iron stores become depleted, which leads to anemia.

One of the first things teens notice with anemia is constant fatigue. This is not the kind of tiredness that improves with a single good night of sleep. It can feel like waking up already drained, struggling to stay awake in class, or needing naps after school just to get through homework. Since oxygen delivery is reduced, muscles and organs do not get the energy they need, which makes everyday tasks feel heavier than usual.

Focus is also affected in a noticeable way. The brain depends on oxygen just like the rest of the body. When iron levels drop, students may find it harder to concentrate during lessons, follow multi step instructions, or remember information they just studied. It can feel like the mind is moving slower than normal, even when the material itself is not difficult. This can be especially frustrating for students who are used to doing well academically but suddenly feel like they are falling behind without understanding why.

School performance often declines as a result of these symptoms. Assignments may take longer to complete, studying can feel overwhelming, and participation in class may decrease simply because it requires too much mental and physical effort. Some students may also miss school more often due to fatigue or dizziness. Over time, this can create a cycle where falling behind increases stress, and stress makes symptoms feel even worse.

Physical symptoms outside of tiredness are also common. These can include headaches, dizziness when standing up quickly, shortness of breath during light activity, and feeling unusually cold. Some teens may notice that their heart beats faster than normal, especially during exercise. These signs happen because the body is trying to compensate for lower oxygen levels.

The impact of anemia is not just physical. It can also affect mood and motivation. Low iron levels have been linked to irritability, low mood, and reduced interest in activities that used to feel enjoyable. This is often misunderstood as laziness or lack of effort, when in reality the body is simply not functioning at full capacity.

The good news is that anemia from heavy periods is treatable and often reversible. Increasing iron intake through diet can help, especially with foods like lean red meat, beans, lentils, spinach, and fortified cereals. In many cases, doctors also recommend iron supplements to restore levels more quickly. Treating the underlying cause of heavy periods is equally important, and healthcare providers can help explore options if bleeding is affecting daily life.

Paying attention to symptoms early can make a major difference. If fatigue feels extreme, focus is consistently difficult, or periods seem unusually heavy, it is worth talking to a healthcare provider. Anemia is common in teens, but it is not something that should be ignored or pushed through.

Understanding the connection between heavy periods and anemia helps explain why some students feel physically and mentally exhausted without an obvious reason. With the right support and treatment, energy levels, concentration, and school performance can significantly improve, making daily life feel manageable again.

Works Cited:

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Heavy Menstrual Bleeding. ACOG, https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/heavy-menstrual-bleeding  . Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

Mayo Clinic Staff. Iron Deficiency Anemia. Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/iron-deficiency-anemia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355034  . Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

National Health Service (NHS). Iron Deficiency Anemia. NHS, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/iron-deficiency-anaemia/  . Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements. Iron Fact Sheet for Consumers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-Consumer/  .Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

(Image: Thomas Processing)

The idea that “natural” automatically means “safe” is everywhere. Herbal teas, vitamin gummies, plant-based capsules, and powders are often marketed as gentle alternatives to prescription medications. The appeal is understandable. Natural products feel closer to food, less clinical, and more in tune with the body. However, safety is not defined by whether something comes from a plant or a pharmacy.

Natural supplements can affect the body in powerful ways. Many contain active compounds that change how organs function, alter brain chemistry, or influence hormone levels. In fact, some prescription drugs are originally derived from plants. The difference is that prescription medications go through strict testing for safety, dosage, and effectiveness, while most supplements do not face the same level of regulation.

In the United States, supplements are regulated as food products, not as drugs. This means companies do not have to prove that their products work before selling them. Labels may list ingredients, but the actual amounts or purity can vary. Some supplements have been found to contain contaminants, undisclosed ingredients, or doses much higher than listed. This creates uncertainty, especially when the body responds differently depending on dosage.

Another common misconception is that supplements have fewer side effects. In reality, natural does not guarantee mild. For example, certain herbal supplements used for mood or sleep can cause drowsiness, dizziness, or changes in heart rate. Others may irritate the stomach or interfere with liver function. Even vitamins, when taken in high amounts, can become harmful. Vitamin A toxicity, for instance, can lead to serious health problems despite being a nutrient the body needs.

Interactions are another concern. Supplements can react with prescription medications in ways that reduce effectiveness or increase risk. A well-known example involves supplements like St. John’s Wort, which can interfere with medications used for depression, birth control, and even some heart conditions. These interactions are not always obvious, and without proper guidance, combining products can become risky.

Prescription drugs, while sometimes associated with side effects, are carefully studied before approval. Clinical trials test how the drug works, what dose is appropriate, and what risks may appear. Doctors also consider a person’s medical history before prescribing medication, adjusting treatment as needed. This process creates a level of predictability that supplements often lack.

That said, supplements are not inherently bad. Many play a helpful role when used correctly. Iron supplements can treat anemia, vitamin D can support bone health, and certain probiotics may help with digestion. The key difference lies in informed use. When taken under medical guidance, supplements can complement health care rather than replace it.

The “natural equals safe” belief often comes from a desire for control and simplicity. Health decisions feel easier when framed in clear categories like natural versus chemical. In reality, the human body does not recognize this divide. It responds to chemical compounds, whether they come from a plant, a lab, or a mix of both.

Understanding this distinction helps shift the focus from where a product comes from to how it works. Safety depends on factors like dosage, quality, interactions, and individual health conditions. A prescription drug can be safe when used as directed, just as a natural supplement can be harmful if misused.

The takeaway is not to avoid supplements or medications, but to approach both with the same level of awareness. Labels, research, and professional guidance matter more than marketing language. In health, “natural” is not a guarantee. It is simply a description, not a safety label.

Works Cited:

“10 Common Pregnancy Myths.” University Hospitals, https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2022/10/10-common-pregnancy-myths . Accessed 29 Mar. 2026.

“9 Common Pregnancy Myths Debunked.” Scripps Health, https://www.scripps.org/news_items/3039-9-common-pregnancy-myths-debunked . Accessed 28 Mar. 2026.

“Which Pregnancy Myths Are Actually True?” University of Utah Health, https://healthcare.utah.edu/the-scope/health-library/all/2024/05/which-pregnancy-myths-are-actually-true.  Accessed 28 Mar. 2026.

“Pregnancy Myths Busted: A Guide for Moms to Be.” Memorial Healthcare System, https://www.mhs.net/blog/2025/03/pregnancy-myths-busted-a-guide-for-moms-to-be . Accessed 28 Mar. 2026.

(Image: Wikipedia) 

Aging is an inevitable biological process. This is a fact we all know and believe, but what happens when biology challenges fundamental scientific understanding? One of the most extraordinary cases is that of Brooke Greenberg, a woman whose body appeared to defy the normal progression of aging. Despite living to the age of 20, Brooke remained physically and developmentally similar to a young child. From a medical and ethical standpoint, her condition, referred to as “Syndrome X”, raises profound questions about human development, the limits of modern medicine, and the responsibilities of researchers studying rare disorders.

From a biological perspective, aging is a complex process involving genetic programming, cellular division, and hormonal regulation. In Brooke’s case, these processes appeared to be uncoupled, meaning that different parts of her body developed at different rates or not at all. Doctors observed that while some of her organs showed signs of aging, others remained in a much earlier developmental stage. For example, her bones were estimated to be that of a young child, while systems other than the skeletal showed more advanced characteristics. This lack of synchronized development challenged the conventional understanding that aging occurs as a coordinated, system wide process.

Researchers were particularly interested in Brooke’s condition because it suggested that aging might not be governed by a single “biological clock,” but rather by multiple independent mechanisms. Studying her case offered the possibility of uncovering new insights into genetics, cell growth, and age related diseases. Some scientists hypothesized that understanding the mechanisms behind her condition could eventually contribute to treatments for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease or other degenerative disorders. However, despite extensive testing, no definitive genetic mutation or cause was identified, leaving her condition largely unexplained.

From a medical ethics perspective, Brooke’s case also highlights important concerns. As a rare and highly publicized patient, she became the subject of significant scientific interest. While research on such unique conditions can lead to valuable discoveries, it also raises questions about patient autonomy and consent, particularly when the individual is unable to fully understand or communicate their participation. In such cases, families and guardians must make decisions on behalf of the patient, balancing the potential benefits of research with the need to protect the individual’s dignity and well being.

Additionally, Brooke’s condition draws attention to the emotional and social challenges faced by families of individuals with rare disorders. Caring for someone whose physical and cognitive development does not follow typical patterns requires long term medical support, financial resources, and psychological resilience. These challenges are often compounded by the uncertainty surrounding rare conditions, as families navigate a medical landscape with few clear answers or treatment options.

The case of Brooke Greenberg represents both a medical mystery and an ethical challenge. Her condition disrupted established theories of aging and opened new avenues for scientific inquiry, while also emphasizing the importance of protecting vulnerable patients in research. Although many questions about her condition remain unanswered, her story continues to influence the study of human development and aging. Ultimately, it serves as a reminder that even in the most advanced areas of medicine, there are still profound mysteries about the human body waiting to be understood.

Works cited:

Walker, Dan Walker. “The Girl Who Didn’t Age: The Mysterious Case of Brooke Greenberg.” ABC News, 2013, abcnews.go.com/Health/girl-didnt-age-mysterious-case-brooke-greenberg/story  . Accessed 11 April. 2026.

“Brooke Greenberg.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025, www.britannica.com/biography/Brooke-Greenberg  . Accessed 12 April 2026.

“Case Study: Brooke Greenberg and Syndrome X.” National Institutes of Health, 2024, www.nih.gov  . Accessed 12 April . 2026.

“Rare Aging Disorder Challenges Scientists.” CNN Health, 2013, www.cnn.com/2013/health/brooke-greenberg-aging  . Accessed 12 April . 2026.

(Image: Study.com) 

Buck v. Bell (1927) stands as one of the most controversial decisions in United States Supreme Court history. The ruling upheld a Virginia law that permitted the state to forcibly sterilize individuals deemed “unfit” to reproduce. This decision gave legal approval to a broader eugenics movement that had already begun shaping public policy in the early twentieth century, influencing thousands of forced sterilizations across the country.

At its core, the case centered on Carrie Buck, a young woman institutionalized at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. State officials argued that Buck, her mother, and her infant daughter all demonstrated “feeblemindedness,” a term widely used at the time to categorize individuals with intellectual disabilities, mental illness, or perceived social and behavioral differences. The classification lacked a consistent medical definition and was often shaped by subjective judgments, social bias, and poverty.

The legal argument in Buck v. Bell reflected the principles of eugenics, a now-discredited scientific ideology that claimed human populations could be improved by controlling reproduction. Eugenic theory divided people into those considered “fit” and “unfit,” often using flawed measurements such as intelligence testing, family history, and institutional records. These ideas were heavily influenced by early interpretations of genetics, but they ignored environmental factors, education, and socioeconomic conditions. Over time, eugenics became closely tied to discrimination against disabled individuals, immigrants, and marginalized communities.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote the majority opinion, famously stating, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The ruling concluded that compulsory sterilization did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections. As a result, the decision validated state power to restrict reproductive rights in the name of public welfare.

The impact of Buck v. Bell was far-reaching. Following the decision, more than 30 states expanded sterilization laws, leading to the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of individuals. Many of those affected were people with disabilities, psychiatric patients, prisoners, and individuals from low-income backgrounds. The ruling remained legally valid for decades, even as its scientific foundations were increasingly questioned.

The ideology behind the case, eugenics, deserves further context. Eugenics emerged in the late nineteenth century and gained popularity in the United States and Europe in the early twentieth century. It was promoted by some scientists and policymakers who believed that traits such as intelligence, morality, and mental health were strictly inherited. Modern genetics has since rejected this simplistic view. The term “feeblemindedness,” frequently used in early eugenic policy, was not a medical diagnosis in the modern sense. Instead, it functioned as a broad label applied to individuals who did not meet institutional expectations, often based on biased assessments rather than objective clinical criteria.

Although Buck v. Bell was never formally overturned, its legal influence weakened over time. A major shift occurred in Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), in which the Supreme Court struck down an Oklahoma law mandating sterilization for certain repeat offenders. The Court recognized procreation as a fundamental right and ruled that sterilization laws could violate equal protection principles under the Constitution.

Unlike Buck v. Bell, Skinner v. Oklahoma treated reproductive rights as essential rather than expendable. The decision did not explicitly repudiate the earlier case, but it significantly limited its reach by establishing stricter constitutional protections around bodily autonomy and reproduction. Over time, this shift contributed to the decline of eugenic sterilization policies in the United States.

Today, Buck v. Bell remains a cautionary example of how legal systems can reinforce scientific misunderstanding and social prejudice. Its legacy is frequently discussed in medical ethics, disability rights history, and constitutional law as a reminder of the consequences of allowing flawed science to shape public policy.

Works cited

“Buck v. Bell.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, https://www.history.com/topics/eugenics. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Buck v. Bell.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Buck-v-Bell. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).” Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.