I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but I would guess that Andrew G. Ebert, Ph.D. spearheaded the design and implementation of the glutes double-blind studies, just as he first founded and then directed the International Glutamate Technical Committee for many years.

The challenge would have been to design a study that would allow the glutes to conclude that there was no difference between experimental (test) groups given monosodium glutamate, and control groups (given placebos).  That may not seem to offer "proof" that MSG is "safe," but since statistics allow one to determine the probability with which two things differ, but do not allow one to consider the possibility that two things do not differ, that would have been the best that Ebert, or anyone else, could do. The underlying problem, you see, is that if there were two groups of randomly selected subjects, and one group was given MSG and the other was given a true placebo (something to which no one would react), then the researchers would invariably have found that the MSG group people had more adverse reactions than the placebo group people.

The challenge, then, would have been to choose subjects carefully, make sure that test and placebo materials would produce the same results, and set up procedures that 1) would minimize the chance that subjects would react to the monosodium glutamate test material, and 2) would increase the chance that subjects would react to placebos.

The first step would have been to choose a basic design to be used to evaluate differences between two or more groups, and then, from the available tests, choose a design with a sophisticated, elegant, impressive sounding name.  Anyone who has had college statistics has heard of the t-test, and might even understand its underlying assumptions--and might understand that its underlying assumptions would not be met.  The choice, therefore, would be something more sophisticated.  A "randomized double-blind crossover" design would be very appropriate.  It sounds like something quite grand and erudite, and the casual reader might even get the impression that subjects were drawn randomly from the general population, even though that would not be true.

Subjects:  Not all people experience adverse reactions from MSG.  If  people used in the studies were not MSG-sensitive, i.e., if they did not experience adverse reactions from MSG, none of the people being studied would have adverse reactions to MSG.  So if one didn't want people reacting to the MSG that would be given to them, one would use people who didn't react adversely to MSG.  Therefore:

Require that all of  subject be "well" people, i.e., people who have never had any of the reactions that can be caused by MSG.

Use placebos to which MSG-sensitive people would react (placebos containing monosodium glutamate, aspartame, corn based citric acid, carageenan or enzymes, for example); test potential subjects for sensitivity to those placebos; and eliminate any subjects who react to the placebos. Researchers could be fairly certain that those who did not react to these reactive placebos would not react to their monosodium glutamate test material.

Offer several hundred dollars to students who agree to participate in the study – but only if they claim to be sensitive to MSG.  It is conceivable that students might lie about being sensitive to MSG for a prize of several hundred dollars.

Refuse to take subjects who claim they are extremely sensitive to MSG.  The rationalle would be that there would be fear that they might become extremely ill during the study.

Require that subjects offering to participate in the study give informed consent as part of the subject screening process. Describe the study as including "treatments that might contain flavor enhancers."  It is extremely unlikely that a person who knew he/she was sensitive to MSG would volunteer to participate in a study where he/she might be asked to ingest a flavor enhancer.  MSG is advertised as a flavor enhancer.

Use very little monosodium glutamate in the test material.

Use monosodium glutamate encased in capsules. One gram monosodium glutamate encased in capsules, and therefore guaranteeing slow release, will cause less effect than 1g monosodium glutamate sprinkled on food.

Use monosodium glutamate modified with sucrose. One gram monosodium glutamate modified with sucrose will cause less effect than otherwise because sucrose is known to slow monosodium glutamate uptake.

Use MSG in placebos, but use sources of MSG other than the ingredient called monosodium glutamate. Gelatin, which always contains more than 11 per cent free glutamic acid, is a good choice.  Autolyzed yeast and citric acid are others.

Use a neurotoxic amino acid other than MSG.  Aspartic acid (found in the artificial sweetener aspartame) would be the neurotoxin of choice because aspartic acid causes reactions identical to the reactions caused by MSG. Aspartame contains phenylalanine (which adversely affects one in 15,000 Americans), aspartic acid (an excitatory amino acid), and a methyl esther. Aspartic acid and glutamic acid load on the same receptors in the brain, and cause the same brain damage and neuroendocrine disorders in experimental animals. With the exception of blindness related to aspartame ingestion, aspartame and MSG cause virtually identical adverse reactions in humans. There are over 7,000 unsolicited reports of adverse reactions to aspartame filed with the FDA.

Load placebo material into gelatin capsules.  Gelatin is more than 11 percent MSG.

Do not identify the ingredients in the placebos.

Make certain that the people sponsoring the research supply both monosodium glutamate test material and appropriate placebo material.

1) Cut down on the possible number of reactions to the monosodium glutamate test material.

Reactions to MSG are many and varied.  Limit the adverse effects to be accepted as adverse reactions to a few generally mild and transitory reactions occurring simultaneously, such as those first reported in 1968 by Kwok and dubbed "Chinese- restaurant syndrome" (CRS): "...numbness at the back of the neck, gradually radiating to both arms and the back, general weakness and palpitation."  By limiting the types of reaction that would be accepted as adverse reaction to MSG, some subjects would be reacting with reactions that won't be counted as reactions to monosodium glutamate.  If the only reactions counted as adverse reaction were limited to those of "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome," subjects who got migraine headache, skin rash, or tachycardia, for example, would not be counted as having had reactions to the monosodium glutamate test material.

Reactions to MSG may occur immediately following ingestion of MSG or they may occur as late as 48 hours after ingestion of MSG.  By recording reactions as reactions to monosodium glutamate only if they occured 2-3 hours or less following ingestion of test material, reactions that occur later won't be recorded as reactions to MSG.

If subject were on medications that might block the effects of MSG, medications for asthma or migraine headache for example, be sure that those subjects continued to take their medications while participating in the experiment.

It has been reported that reactions to MSG are greater on an empty stomach.  Therefore, treat all subjects to a breakfast or lunch prior to starting the experiment.

Lace the placebos with material to which MSG-sensitive people would react.

Feed all subjects breakfast, snacks, and/or lunch to which MSG-sensitive people would react; and do that 2 hours or less before the placebo trial is given.  The MSG or other neurotoxic material in this food would be added to any MSG or other neurotoxic material in the placebo, and would increase the chances that a subject might react adversely to the placebo.

Make no attempt during a study to prevent subjects from ingesting food to which they might be allergic or sensitive.

Use such small numbers of subjects that no matter what the data show, it will be virtually impossible to get a statistically significant difference between test and placebo groups.

Space MSG and control sessions so the reactions might overlap.  This will virtually guarantee that some reactions to MSG will occur during the period following administration of the placebo.

If need be, draw conclusions that do not follow from the results of the study.