{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02526487367563162, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008149959250203749, 'mean_word_length': 4.932367149758454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constraints on experimentation: protecting children to death.

Why are so many adolescent girls becoming pregnant even though contraception is available? What is the best technique for repairing the congenital heart defects that still kill many newborns? Is it possible to develop a drug that will slow or stop progression of brain tumors in children? These questions are among those being asked today by researchers. Although presumably everyone wishes that these and other questions had answers, the notion of finding answers by performing research on adolescents and children, especially infants, still meets with strong resistance in some segments of our society.1 Often this resistance is unwarranted. For instance, if a two-year-old boy needs a haircut, his mother takes him to a barbershop, sits him in a chair, and regardless of objection, forces him to get a haircut. Few, if any, advocates of children's rights would consider this haircut a threat to the child's welfare. If a medical researcher, in contrast, wants to study children's hair and the same two-year-old is brought by the same mother to have a piece of hair snipped by a physician instead of a barber, some people would argue that the child's fundamental