The CBW Colloquium: Past Human Trials of CBW Agents
reported by: Reginald Bartholomew
BCSIA Library, Littauer 369, 20 February 2000. The following report is both a report on the lecture and a partial review of the book on which the lecture was closely associated. The book is "Undue Risk, Secret State Experiments on Humans". The speaker on this occasion was the book’s author, Jonathan Moreno, Kornfeld Professor of Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia. In preparation for the lecture, ASA acquired Professor Moreno’s new book, Undue Risk, published by WH Freeman and Company, an account of the scourge of unethical experimentation on humans in recent times.
The lecture
Professor Moreno’s presentation covered a number of the topics to be found in his new book. In particular, he focused on the infamous human experiments conducted in Nazi concentration camps, and the resultant Nuremberg code. He made the point that the code was not developed to be a source of policy, but as a need at the time for a means to judge the ethical aspects of the cases being evaluated. Moreno went on to describe the Plutonium experiments in the US, and closed by presenting the methodology of the US military biological research establishment at Fort Detrick as a model example of how ethical research and informed consent can be achieved in the military environment.
The message of his talk was, however, overwhelmed by the lively discussion that followed. This discussion focused on the many inaccuracies, and an instance of a possible libelous allegation, as presented by Professor Moreno in his recently published book.
ASA’s Richard Price first pointed out that statements in the book referring to an incident in Kosovo in the 1987/88 time frame and Dr. Radovan Fuchs, who at the time of the alleged reported incident, was a member of the Institute of Medical Science and Occupational Health in Zagreb, Croatia, were factually false (see our review of the book below).
Dr. Fuchs had sent Richard Price a letter requesting him to take whatever and all necessary actions to ensure that a correction of the record were made as soon as possible. When these factually false statements were pointed out, Professor Moreno undertook to correspond with Fuchs, and to correct any mistakes.
Moreno was then publicly challenged by Dr Brian Davey, an old friend of ASA, to produce evidence in support of the serious allegations of ethical misconduct made against him in the book. Dr Davey provided a series of examples which clearly illustrated that Prof Moreno was simply wrong on virtually all of the statements referring to him. This included, as an example of improper research, a statement in the book where Professor Moreno refers to a location on the border between South Africa and Malawi, when in fact the two countries do not share any borders at all. This is just one of many deficiencies in the research supporting this book and in the lack of proper proofing and editing, which would have certainly helped to prevent these errors from appearing.
Moreno did not take up the challenge as presented by Dr. Davey. He was, however, gracious enough to admit that he had made serious mistakes, that he would be doing his best to correct them, and that he would make good with those who had been negatively affected. He informed us that he had already removed the allegations against Dr Davey from the forthcoming paperback edition of this book, and that he would be issuing an apology. We must wait to see what form that will take.
We, as well as the audience for this meeting of the CBW Colloquium, were particularly disturbed to note that a book with so many obvious inaccuracies had been published and distributed under the banner of the distinguished publisher of academic works WH Freeman and Company. As Freeman advertises, they are "Publishing Science’s Brightest Ideas." A proof reading by a referee with even basic knowledge of the field of CBW would have revealed the deficiencies. Additionally a proof reading by anyone at Freeman, or anywhere else, with a basic knowledge of history, would have certainly assisted the author.
The book:
The full title of Prof Moreno’s latest book, Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans, reflects his basic message. A lack of suitable vigilance, control, and transparency can lead to a disregard of the fundamental right to informed consent for the individuals who are the subject of medical experiments on humans. Professor Moreno makes his point by presenting a historical narrative delving into incidents which illustrate his point, most of these emanating from the field of nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare research. In some cases, his account exemplifies disregard for basic human rights (e.g. the outrages of human experimentation in the Nazi concentration camps exposed by the Nuremberg trials). In others, he presents models for the way he perceives things should be done (e.g. the protocols for research involving humans at the US military establishment at Fort Detrick, Maryland).
While no one would dispute the validity of the underlying moral message that Professor Moreno attempts to convey, it is a great concern to note that superficial research and a distortion of facts are used to back his arguments. Here are some examples:
Professor Moreno presents an account of alleged illicit human experimentation on Kosovo Albanians. It is stated that the Deputy Minister of Science and Technology, Radovan Fuchs, personally traveled from Zagreb to Kosovo to investigate an incident at a girl’s school and that they "confirmed the presence of benzodiazepine (BZ) in the school’s water supply." Dr. Fuchs sent ASA’s Richard Price a letter in which he pointed out that at the time of the alleged incident, he was a member of the Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health and not the Deputy Minister of Science and Technology and that he did not travel to Kosovo in connection with the suspected intoxication at all in this regard. A member of his team at the Institute, however, did travel to Kosovo as part of the Yugoslavian Federal Commission, many days after the alleged intoxication took place. The actual finding was limited to high amounts of atropine in blood samples from the schoolchildren — the apparent result of treatment attempts for an outbreak of possibly misunderstood symptoms. No BZ was found. ASA notes that an elevated amount of atropine (10-12 mg) is sufficient to produce delirium and incapacitation in a 70 kg soldier and this dose would probably be much less in a 40 kg female student. There was no specific evidence here, as claimed in the book, of illicit human experimentation. Of course, this published version provides an attractive vehicle to support the thesis on the illicit experiments on humans, amplified to be more credible by the involvement of a government Minister. We also noted Moreno’s explanation that BZ is "benzodiazepine". Benzodiazepines are medicinal sedatives (including Valium) and they are not the chemical warfare agent, BZ. BZ is a well-known incapacitant and hallucinogen agent, with the generic name 3 Quinuclidinyl benzilate, see for example p.14 of this newsletter. ASA is pleased to note that as requested by Dr. Fuchs, Prof Moreno has undertaken to correspond with Dr. Fuchs and to correct any mistakes.
In another part of his book, the Professor cites a report commissioned by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) during its investigations into human rights abuses in that part of the world. Regarding the apparently offensive chemical and biological warfare program, he states "As usual, human experiments were an important part of the development effort". To support his statement, he then provides an account of a specific incident that took place in Mozambique in 1992 (incidentally, he has the event mistimed by a decade — he reports that it took place in 1982). The now outdated commissioned report, and the final TRC report that superseded it, have been reviewed by ASA staff and although there is much to be concerned about, there are no conclusions regarding human experimentation with CBW agents. Professor Moreno incorrectly implies that the Commission uncovered a program of human experimentation using CBW agents, which simply is not the case. It is sad to note that an academic of such standing has chosen to quote a journalist with only second-hand knowledge of the incident concerned, when he could have accessed and quoted reports from recognized international experts who had first hand knowledge of the events in question. We do recognize that it is the journalist’s version and not the international experts’ version which lends support to the Professor’s arguments.
ASA also notes the appearance of perhaps a newly discovered bacterium in his research. He states on two separate occasions that "thyroid" and "parathyroid" bacteria were featured in Japanese human experimentation. We suspect the Professor meant "typhoid" and "paratyphoid". This is one more example of the proof readers not doing their job.
Observations such as these tend to undermine our confidence in the facts as presented and lead us to recommend caution in taking the accounts in this book seriously. This is a great pity, as Professor Moreno’s plea for ethical research is one that is timely and valid and one we fully identify with.
Professor John E. van C. Moon, the well noted CBW historian, had several comments on Undue Risk which he had sent to Professor Moreno. In his letter he had expressed concerns on the historical errors in the book. He expressed his concerns with several direct quotes such as from page 273: "After storming the beaches with the Normandy invasion force on D-day, Franklin Anderson was transferred to North Africa where he faced Rommel’s legendary tanks."
Professor Moon notes: "The North African campaign ended on 12 May 1943. The Normandy invasion was launched, as you well know, on 6 June 1944. Rommel commanded the German forces opposing the Allies on D-day."
Page 111: Kharabarov Trial: You write that all the defendants were "quickly executed". Professor Moon notes: "Sheldon Harris writes as follows: "The twelve defendants who were convicted received remarkably lenient sentences, given the serious nature of the crimes they committed. The sentences ranged from a low two years to a high of twenty-five years of hard labor. No one was sentenced to death, despite their confessions to having killed countless Soviet citizens." [Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death, p. 230]"
Page 44: "Roosevelt had announced a U.S. Policy that biological weapons would be used only in retaliation."
Professor Moon notes: "No such announcement was made. It would have blown secrecy off the program. Roosevelt did announce such a policy on CW on 8 June 1943. That policy implicitly covered BW as well."
Pages xiv-xv: a number of BW attacks in the past are listed and Professor Moon notes: "I believe one should be very careful in making clear that these are "alleged attacks". Many of them are only recorded in a single source. Today we would not think of accepting them at face value. I would recommend that you look at Mark Wheelis’ second chapter in our SIPRI volume: Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945 (Oxford, 1999) where Wheelis uses careful standards to evaluate what attacks can be considered as valid and also raises some caveats regarding even those cases that he notes. I think it is particularly important to be careful since allegations regarding the use of BW are so frequent and can cause such harm by increasing the level of distrust among nations. Moreover, your account leaves the unintended impression that BW has an unbroken and continuous history. Actually, use of BW in the past has been sporadic."
Professor Moreno writes: "….. there is universal agreement that sloppy research with human beings is a basic breach of medical ethics." We would also suggest that Professor Moreno, as well as the rest of us, consider the consequences of this type of inadequate research, not only in his field of biomedical ethics, but in all fields for which the public and our fellow professionals must depend on the writer for explicit accuracy. Inadequate and insufficient research has the potential to undermine the very foundations on which ethical research is based.
To be fair to Professor Moreno, we must also record and congratulate him on the gracious way in which he accepted the criticism, acknowledged mistakes, and undertook to make corrections. There was general agreement amongst the attendees to the meeting that such an approach to academic dialogue can only be of benefit in the longer term.
Editor’s Note: Reginald Bartholomew, is a nom de plume which has been in use at ASA for seven years. Reginald almost always represents multiple authors and editors. The ASA Editor does take full responsibility.
See Update in ASA 00-5
For the Professional
in Government and Industry with an interest in Nuclear,
Biological and Chemical Defense, Disarmament and
Verification; Emergency and Disaster Medical Planning;
Industrial Health and Safety; and Environmental
Protection