In the final months of 1960, executives at the Cincinnati pharmaceutical company William S. Merrell submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration seeking approval for a new German-made sedative. They expected the paperwork to move quickly, and they expected the drug — thalidomide, sold in Germany under the brand name Contergan — to be sitting on American store shelves by Christmas.
That approval never came. Not in 1960, and not in 1961. The obstacle was a single medical reviewer inside the agency who refused to be moved by the company's timetable. Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, a pharmacologist working out of the FDA's Washington offices, kept digging into the drug's data, and her objections blocked approval for general use in the United States. The applications sat unresolved for roughly two years.
Kelsey's resistance is remembered as one of the most consequential acts of drug regulation in American history. Her actions fundamentally reshaped how the FDA tested and reviewed drugs, and are credited with producing the rigorous approval machinery the agency still uses today. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy publicly praised her for sparing the country "this terrible human tragedy which has been visited on families in Germany," where the drug had already caused a generation of severe birth defects.
But the framing of that heroic story, however well earned, was incomplete. Withholding approval is not the same as preventing use. While the FDA's gate stayed shut, doctors across the country were already handing out thalidomide to thousands of patients in the United States, including women who were pregnant. Many received the drug without being told what it was, and without the agency ever having sanctioned it. Some of the children born to those mothers came into the world with severely deformed limbs.
Those children are adults now. And they are asking the federal government for something that has been denied to them for six decades: formal recognition that they exist, that they were harmed, and that the exposure happened on American soil.
"We go to doctors today who say it didn't happen here in the United States," said Gwen Riechmann, who was born with phocomelia — the shortened, malformed limbs that are the signature birth defect associated with thalidomide. "Oh yeah, it did."
Riechmann is among the survivors now organizing around that demand. The scale of the discrepancy is the point: the number of Americans living with thalidomide-related deformities exceeds what federal officials acknowledge, because for much of the postwar period the official position was that the drug never entered circulation here at all.
The condition itself is rare, though it is slightly more common outside the United States — in countries such as Britain and Germany, where thalidomide was sold far more widely. That geography is precisely the geography of the argument. The countries that experienced the widest exposure have long been forced to reckon with the consequences, while the United States, which regulated the drug out of general circulation but not out of physicians' offices, spent decades arguing about a contradiction rather than counting its victims.
In Riechmann's case, the exposure was routine and unremarkable at the time. When her mother was pregnant with her in the early 1960s, the doctor prescribed a new sedative. The visit looked like any other prenatal appointment in an era before modern drug-safety rules made the risks of ordinary prescriptions a routine part of the conversation. Riechmann's mother had no reason to question what she was given, and no framework in which to question it.
The lack of documentation is what makes the survivors' case difficult to settle. A drug that was never approved leaves no approval file, no official distribution record, and often no clinical trail of who received it and why. What survives instead is the testimony of the people who were there — the patients, the families, and now the adult children living with the injuries.
What the survivors are seeking is acknowledgment, and acknowledgment carries practical weight. Federal recognition would establish the U.S. cases as part of the same documented history as those in Britain and Germany, where exposure was broader. It would also give American survivors standing in debates over assistance, compensation, and medical monitoring that have long been framed as matters for other governments to handle.
The Merrell application from 1960 remains the sharpest illustration of the gap. The company expected a routine approval and a holiday launch; the reviewer who stopped them is now commemorated for a system of safeguards that was built precisely on cases like this one. Yet the safeguards govern the market, not every clinical decision. Physicians could still prescribe, and physicians did.
For survivors like Riechmann, that gap is not a footnote in regulatory history. It is the reason an entire cohort of Americans spent their childhoods being told, by adults and institutions alike, that what happened to them could not have happened here.
The thalidomide story is usually told as a story of one person's refusal. The fuller version — thousands of prescriptions, no federal approval, and a generation of children who learned to doubt their own medical records — is still being written, and it is being written by the people who survived it.
(0)