The ‘forbidden experiment’ is a notoriously evil chapter in the history of science

What’s the weirdest thing you learned this week? Well, whatever it is, we promise you’ll get an even weirder answer if you listen to PopSci‘s popular podcast.
The weirdest thing I learned this week hits Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and everywhere you listen to podcasts every Wednesday morning. It’s your new favorite source for the weirdest science-related facts, figures, and Wikipedia spirals the editors of Popular science can bring. If you like the stories in this post, we guarantee you’ll love the show too.

Check out Weirdest Thing’s new page on Reddit and meet other Weirdos!

FACT: This experiment was so cruel that people now call it “the forbidden experiment”

By means of Doctor Danielle Bainbridge

Throughout history, language deprivation experiments have (rightly) been called “the forbidden experiment” because of the cruelty involved in testing their subjects. An article by Slate briefly describes the history of these experiments, beginning with Pharaoh Psamtik I around 600 BC.

According to the ancient historian Herodotus, Psamtik I gave two newborns to a shepherd who was ordered not to speak to them. The idea was to see what language the children would speak without any external influences.

A similar experiment was supposedly conducted in the 13th century by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I, but the Chronicle of Salimbene notes that the children “…could not live without clapping hands, gestures, a happy face, and flattery.” In other words, the subjects died.

In the 20th century, cases of neglected and abused children resulted in unintended replications of these experiments, such as Genie in California in 1970, Oxana in Ukraine in the 1980s, and a young boy named John in Uganda in the 1990s. Despite the cruelty of the past, it is clear to us today why this experiment cannot and should not be replicated on living subjects. But it can teach us much about the questions that preoccupied ancient people.

For what it’s worth, humans seem remarkably resilient and resourceful when it comes to finding ways to communicate with each other. Just look at the children who developed their own sign language!

FACT: Some frogs are so sticky and annoying that it protects them from predators

By means of Sara Kiley Watson

How does a frog get out of a sticky situation? By gluing its predator’s mouth shut. Or at least that’s how it works for the Dyscophus guineti, a cute little orange frog that lives only in Madagascar and loves swampy, marshy climates. A study published in July in Nature communication explaining the science behind this small, sticky tomato frog. This frog secretes a thick, viscous, glue-like substance when provoked.

We’ve all heard of creatures like the famous poison dart frog that use their mucus as a medium to poison their predators, but poison can be imperfect. A small predator that attacks a poison dart frog is likely doomed from the start. If a large predator attacks a bufo toad, which creates a less potent poison in its moment of terror, it may not feel those unpleasant or even deadly side effects until it’s too late for the frog in question to escape. Glue, on the other hand, works immediately, making it impossible for a predator like a snake to swallow the sticky frog and distracting it long enough for prey to escape.

How this tactic evolved, and how many creatures have this unique escape route in their genes, is still a mystery. But scientists are diving in, even if they risk getting their fingers glued together by a less-than-happy frog specimen.

FACT: People used to think that thunderstorms made milk sour

By means of Rachel Feltman

On June 12, 1858, Scientific American published a letter to the editor called “Lightning and Milk” written by John Dean Caton. It began: “Messrs. Editors—It may not be common knowledge among men of science, but it is well known to dairymen and housewives that a violent thunderstorm turns sweet milk into sour milk.”

According to Atlas ObscuraThis was a widespread truth in Europe and North America. In the late 1600s, a Flemish alchemist wrote that “When it thunders, beer, milk, etc. turn sour in the cellars. Thunder brings corruption and putrefaction everywhere.” (Wow, that last sentence is harsh!)

There were several theories on the subject. Noah Webster, the dictionary man, thought it might have something to do with the drop in air pressure. Others thought lightning might have created ozone or some other gas that could turn milk sour. Still others thought it was electricity itself.

In this week’s episode I delve deeper into the experiments people have done involving sour milk and thunderstorms. The weirdest thing I learned this weekBut what I find really interesting about the idea of ​​thunderstorms turning into lactic acid is that it really stickyJust a few weeks ago, someone posted on the r/AskFoodHistorians subreddit asking what their Swedish grandmother was talking about when she said that filmjolk was created or ruined (too congealed) when a thunderstorm got too bad. The mod said something like, “Food historians are not the right people to ask what happens to dairy during a thunderstorm! Please keep this discussion to historical beliefs on the subject,” and yet plenty of people have been speculating about what might happen, all the way to speculating about how thunderstorms might change the behavior of cows and thus their milk. Four years ago, someone posted on r/AskUK saying, “My anecdotal evidence suggests this is the case, but every time I look at it, the jury seems to still be out,” and responding to someone who gave the literal scientific explanation with, “Ha! Clever answer.”

Anyway, sorry to have to break this down for you: someone actually cracked it in 1891. Aaron L. Treadwell, who was enthralled by the new developments in our understanding of microbiology, decided to compare the effects of an electric charge on pasteurized versus unsterilized milk. He found that pasteurized milk curdled much less rapidly in a simulated thunderstorm than raw dairy, and he wisely concluded that whatever was happening had to do with bacterial growth, not some transformation entirely related to the electricity. He correctly deduced that “favorable conditions of the atmosphere” led to rapid bacterial growth. As a 1927 University of Wisconsin guide to dairy production poetically put it, “A thick, sultry atmosphere usually precedes thunderstorms and affords favorable conditions for the growth of milk-souring bacteria.”

Watch this week’s episode for a bunch of funky dairy facts that barely have anything to do with it.