A Coat of Many Colors Adventists and Operation Whitecoat COVER STORY

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

A Coat of Many Colors Adventists and Operation Whitecoat COVER STORY September 24, 1998 AnchorPoints A Coat of Many Colors Adventists and Operation Whitecoat COVER STORY Looking back at Operation Whitecoat BY BILL KNOTT T IS NOT A LANDSCAPE WE ASSOCIATE versial military projects evolved—a project that injected the Seventh-day Adventist Church and more than 2,300 non- with war, but appearances deceive. The gentle, combatant young Adventists into a national debate about the morality of biological and chemical warfare. wooded hills and rich hayfields near Frederick, The History Maryland, have been some of the most con- Only two months before the General Conference of the Seventh- tested acres in American history, though few day Adventist Church was officially organized in 1863, the wartime U.S. Ireminders of that pain and violence remain. Dairy cattle Congress voted to require all able-bod- ied Northern men between the ages of 21 and 45 to register browse the grass where Union and Confederate soldiers for compulsory military service. From its earliest moments, the fledgling church had to negotiate the difficult terrain massed 135 years ago. The cows will never know that the between the commandments of God and the edicts of gov- ernment. pastures they inhabit were the prize for which thousands Beginning in 1862, leading Adventists had passionately argued their differing perspectives about military service in fought and died. the pages of the Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (now the Adventist Review). Abolitionist Adventists main- Thirty miles to the north, the three-day carnage known tained that compulsory military service would aid a righteous as Gettysburg unfolded. Twenty miles to the west, the blood- cause—the destruction of slavery—while pacifists rejoined iest single day in American history played out along the that any participation with the military constituted a viola- banks of Antietam Creek. In Frederick itself, Barbara tion of the sixth commandment—“Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. Fritchie earned literary immortality by daring Stonewall 20:13). Jackson’s troops to “shoot if you must this old gray head” as James White, editor of the weekly Review, suggested a she defiantly flew the Stars and Stripes over the heads of the third and middle way in a landmark editorial in August invaders from the South. 1862. “For us to attempt to resist the laws of the best gov- And within the gates of the U.S. Army’s Fort Detrick on ernment under heaven,” White wrote, “which is now strug- the northwest edge of town, one of America’s most contro- gling to put down the most hellish rebellion since that of 8 (1280) ADVENTIST REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 TOP: A group of Project Whitecoat volunteers at Fort Detrick, Maryland about 1962. ABOVE: A soldier being interviewed prior to signing up. EGLEY H. N H. AVID D Satan and his angels, we repeat it, bear arms but participating in the mili- sands of young Adventists paramilitary would be madness. Those who are tary as noncombatant medical personnel and paramedical training that aided loyal to the government of Heaven, when legally required to do so. their placement as medical corpsmen true to the constitution and laws of United States involvement in World when they were drafted during World the Ruler of the universe, are the last War I (1917-1918) and World War II War II. The recommended “noncom- men to ‘sneak’ off to Canada, or to (1941-1945) again tested the North batant but cooperative” position also Europe, or to stand trembling in their American church’s resolve to cooperate received much favorable publicity when shoes for fear of a military draft.” 1 with compulsory military service and one Adventist wartime medic, HITECOAT PHOTOS COURTESY OF W Notwithstanding White’s editorial, still be obedient to Scripture. Draft laws Desmond Doss, was awarded the most Adventists continued to pay the swept hundreds of young Adventists Congressional Medal of Honor in 1945 ROJECT / P “commutation” fee of $300 per person into military service, creating personal for conspicuous battlefield bravery. that allowed exemption from the draft. hardship for many over Sabbathkeeping Cold War tensions and the threat of OGERS 2 R In 1864, Congress amended the draft and conscientious noncombatancy. continued Communist aggression per- TEVE law to allow some exemptions for those Denominational leaders struggled to suaded the U.S. Congress to maintain S conscientiously opposed to bearing clarify the church’s position to hard- a peacetime draft even when the arms, and Adventist leadership was pressed national governments, while Korean conflict ended in 1953. One quick to claim the new status for church also trying to support individual year later, when the U.S. Army EDALLION BY 3 : M members. A growing body of Adventist Adventists in the military. The church’s Medical Unit (USAMU) approached members and church leaders, however, timely sponsorship of the Medical General Conference leadership with a HOTOS P saw wisdom in a middle way: refusing to Cadet Corps in the 1930s offered thou- highly unusual request, hundreds of ADVENTIST REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 (1281) 9 Adventist men aged 18-26 were still Houston. All Adventist draftees who were married, many of them living being drafted to serve a minimum of had identified themselves as “noncom- offpost in Frederick or suburban 24 months in military service. batants” (1-A-O) were invited to at Maryland.7 least twice-annual meetings with The Army USAMU representatives, during which The Research The post-World an overview of the research program Just as partici- War II discovery of was given along with a description of its pation in the the extent of the benefits and risks. Questions were wel- overall project Japanese and comed and answered in a public forum was voluntary, so German “germ warfare” programs following the presentation. A represen- participation in accelerated efforts by the U.S. military tative of the General Conference’s specific trials of vaccines, toxoids, and to develop adequate defenses against National Service Organization (NSO) other antibacterial medications was also bacteriological and chemical weapons. also was on hand to describe the voluntary. Whitecoat participants were While the attention of the American denomination’s relationship to the briefed about the medical purposes of public in the late 1940s and early ’50s Whitecoat program. Within 24 hours of each proposed human trial and the likely was focused on the more obvious threat the public meeting, interested draftees effects on health. Consent forms were of nuclear warfare, the U.S. Army were interviewed jointly by the again required before participation in launched an intensive and top-secret USAMU and NSO representatives and any project, and individuals were free to effort at Fort Detrick, Maryland, to given the opportunity to sign consent refuse involvement if they deemed the defend U.S. troops and population forms that clearly stated the voluntary project too risky, or for any other reason. from airborne infectious and chemical aspect of individual participation. While there were undoubtedly informal weapons and to respond in kind to a USAMU based selections for the and social pressures to volunteer, first strike by an enemy nation. research effort on such characteristics anecdotal evidence gathered from In late 1954 representatives of the as overall general health, skills acquired Whitecoats suggests that as many as U.S. Army Medical Unit and the office in civilian life, and perceived ability to 20 percent never participated in any of the surgeon general of the Army con- participate in medical research. Survey medical trials during their tenure with tacted General Conference leaders in results suggest that more highly educat- the program.8 Takoma Park, Maryland, to ascertain ed volunteers were preferred; fully 70 Major research projects during the the willingness of the denomination to percent of Whitecoat participants had 19-year life span of Operation support an Army proposal to use completed one or more years of college, Whitecoat included human trials of Adventist draftees as volunteers for with 27 percent having completed a vaccines and antibiotics for some of human trials of defensive vaccines and bachelor’s degree.6 the world’s most dangerous bacterio- antibacterial medicines. Within weeks Whitecoat volunteers were assigned logical agents. Q-fever (Queensland church leaders gave a cautious but to Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, fever), first noted in Australia, is an favorable endorsement. A document to the Walter Reed Army Medical acute airborne infectious disease com- titled “Statement of Attitude Regarding Center, or to the Center Annex in mon in agricultural areas that incapac- Volunteering for Medical Research” was Forest Glen, Maryland, just outside itates its victims for two to four weeks. voted by an appointed subcommittee Washington, D.C. Their identification as The disease had affected many U.S. and forwarded to the Army Medical medical research volunteers didn’t troops in Southern Europe during Unit.4 The four-paragraph statement excuse them from standard military World War II. Owing to research invoked the heroic research of such assignments at their posts. Most served involving Adventist Whitecoats, an medical giants as Louis Pasteur and as medical technicians, medical corps- effective vaccine was developed by Walter Reed as a rationale for men, clinical aides, or animal caretakers 1958, offering hope to both military Adventists volunteering to serve in in Fort Detrick’s massive animal-research and civilian populations in many farm- human medical trials and concluded program. ing regions of the world.9 that “any service rendered voluntarily At peak strength, the Whitecoat Tularemia (Francisella tularensis) is a by whomsoever in the useful necessary program included as many as 175 men highly virulent microbe common to research into the cause and treatment of at a time. This number usually repre- the Northern Hemisphere (including disabling disease is a legitimate and sented less than a third of those who 49 U.S.
Recommended publications
  • The Pentagon Bio-Weapons
    The Pentagon Bio-Weapons https://southfront.org/pentagon-bio-weapons/ ANALYSIS #USAEditor's choice DilyanaGaytandzhieva is a Bulgarian investigative journalist and Middle East Correspondent. Over the last two years she has published a series of revealed reports on weapons smuggling. In the past year she came under pressure from the Bulgarian National Security Agency and was fired from her job in the Bulgarian newspaper Trud Daily without explanation. Despite this, Dilyana continues her investigations. Her current report provides an overview of Pentagon’s vigour in the development of biological weapons. Twitter/@dgaytandzhieva (Here is a topic long suspected, but never ‘brought to light’ until now. Don't expect to see such an article in the Main Stream media [MSM] as it would be censored and/or heavily edited before being published. The level of details provided by the author makes her case irrefutable! Those that would like better documentation, can go to the website cited, as virtually EVERY photo, document, map, etc., is enlargeable.. Downloaded from the above website on Feb 10, 2018 ~ Don Chapin) The US Army regularly produces deadly viruses, bacteria and toxins in direct violation of the UN Convention on the prohibition of Biological Weapons. Hundreds of thousands of unwitting people are systematically exposed to dangerous pathogens and other incurable diseases. Bio warfare scientists using diplomatic cover test man-made viruses at Pentagon bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthrax Plague Tularemia
    July 29, 2019 Paula Bryant Acting Director, OBRRTR OBRRTR in DMID Office of the Director Clinical Research Coordination Office of Office of Office of Office of Office of Office of Biodefense, Scientific Clinical Clinical Genomics Regulatory Research Resources, Coordination Research Research and Advanced Affairs and Translational and Program Affairs Resources Technologies Research (OBRRTR) Operations Parasitology and Enterics & Sexually Bacteriology and Respiratory International Transmitted Virology Branch Mycology Branch Diseases Branch Programs Infections Branch Branch HHS Priority Biological Threats* NIAID Cat A NIAID Cat B NIAID Cat C Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) Burkholderia mallei (glanders) Antimicrobial resistance MDR anthrax Burkholderia pseudomallei Pandemic influenza Smallpox (melioidosis) Ebola virus Rickettsia prowazekii (typhus) Marburg virus Yersinia pestis (plague) Francisella tularensis (tularemia) Clostridium botulinum toxin (BoNT) Emerging infectious diseases (EID) – ‘Disease X’ Other VHFs (Junin, Machupo, Alphaviruses (WEE,EEE,VEE) Lassa, RVF) Ricin, Brucellosis, SEB, Q-fever Yellow Fever Additional DoD and/or lower priority *PHEMCE SIP 2017-18 From OBRA to OBRRTR Broad spectrum MCMs & Narrow-spectrum MCMs Enabling Platform for CatA-BioD Technologies for CatA-C BioD & EID preparedness OBRRTR’s Role 1. ‘PHEMCE’: Address USG’s identified biodefense and public health needs • Execute and represent NIH’s BioD and public health emergency R&D to the PHEMCE 2. Product Development: advance candidate MCMs and Platform Technologies late preclinical, IND/IDE- Phase I clinical testing, enabling testing & mfg with Phase II capabilities • Biothreats = PHEMCE requirements based on DHS assessments • EID’s and other public health threats • Regulatory path - accelerated approval, Animal rule, or EUA • Transition to BARDA, DoD or industry 3. Translational Research: facilitate and manage….
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency in Past Offensive Biological Weapon Programmes
    Transparency in past offensive biological weapon programmes An analysis of Confidence Building Measure Form F 1992-2003 Nicolas Isla Occasional Paper No. 1 June 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary................................................................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Analysis and evaluation of declared data on past offensive BW programmes........................ 8 2.1. Canada....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2. France........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.3. Iraq............................................................................................................................................. 13 2.4. Russian Federation................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. South Africa.............................................................................................................................. 18 2.6. United Kingdom...................................................................................................................... 20 2.7. United States............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook
    USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES FORT DETRICK FREDERICK, MARYLAND Emergency Response Numbers National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802 or (for chem/bio hazards & terrorist events) 1-202-267-2675 National Domestic Preparedness Office: 1-202-324-9025 (for civilian use) Domestic Preparedness Chem/Bio Helpline: 1-410-436-4484 or (Edgewood Ops Center – for military use) DSN 584-4484 USAMRIID’s Emergency Response Line: 1-888-872-7443 CDC'S Emergency Response Line: 1-770-488-7100 Handbook Download Site An Adobe Acrobat Reader (pdf file) version of this handbook can be downloaded from the internet at the following url: http://www.usamriid.army.mil USAMRIID’s MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CASUALTIES HANDBOOK Sixth Edition April 2005 Lead Editor Lt Col Jon B. Woods, MC, USAF Contributing Editors CAPT Robert G. Darling, MC, USN LTC Zygmunt F. Dembek, MS, USAR Lt Col Bridget K. Carr, MSC, USAF COL Ted J. Cieslak, MC, USA LCDR James V. Lawler, MC, USN MAJ Anthony C. Littrell, MC, USA LTC Mark G. Kortepeter, MC, USA LTC Nelson W. Rebert, MS, USA LTC Scott A. Stanek, MC, USA COL James W. Martin, MC, USA Comments and suggestions are appreciated and should be addressed to: Operational Medicine Department Attn: MCMR-UIM-O U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Fort Detrick, Maryland 21702-5011 PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION The Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook, which has become affectionately known as the "Blue Book," has been enormously successful - far beyond our expectations.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD
    Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD FACT SHEET as of February 2018 Background: Fort Detrick encompasses approximately 1,200 acres divided among three areas in Frederick, Md. Area A is the largest, comprised of approximately 800 acres, and the primary area of construction activity. Most of the Fort Detrick facilities, tenants, post housing, and community facilities are located in Area A. The Forest Glen Annex, Silver Spring, Md., also falls under the operational control of Fort Detrick. The current Corps of Engineers design/construction program on Fort Detrick is approximately $724 million, featuring the $678-million U.S. Army Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) Replacement project, the only Department of Defense high-containment biological laboratory. Fort Detrick, originally named Camp Detrick until 1956, was established in 1931 as a military training airfield named after Maj. Frederick Detrick, a squadron surgeon. In 1943, the U.S. Biological Laboratories were established, pioneering efforts in decontamination, gaseous sterilization and agent purification. In 1969, Fort Detrick’s biological warfare research center mission was terminated and 69 acres of the installation were transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct cancer research. The installation has now matured into a multi-interagency campus (four cabinet level tenants) focusing on advanced bio-medical research and development, medical materiel management, and long-haul telecommunications for the White House, Department of Defense, and other governmental agencies. The National Interagency Biodefense Campus (NIBC) is currently the focal point of all activities on the installation, and the new USAMRIID project is the cornerstone of the campus. Names and phone numbers for significant installation points of contact are as follows: Congressional Rep (D-6th) John Delaney Congressional Rep (D-8th) Jamie Raskin Installation/MRMC Commander MG Barbara R.
    [Show full text]
  • Nov03 POSTER1106.Indd
    The National Cancer Institute Ft. Detrick’s 60th Anniversary story on page 3. News from the NCI-Frederick NOVEMBER 2003 Offi ce of Scientifi c Operations IN THIS ISSUE This year we celebrate the 60th Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) Ft. Detrick’s 60th Anniversary 3 anniversary of Fort (Ft.) Detrick. facility. Ft. Detrick’s roots can be traced to The fi rst employees of the NCI- Major Construction Projects 4 a small municipal airport known as Frederick (then known as the Detrick Field1, The Field was named Frederick Cancer Research Center) Building 470 Update 5 to honor Major Frederick L. Detrick, appeared on campus in June 1972 and who served in France during World numbered around 20 by the end of Scientifi c Publications, War I. The fi rst military presence at that month. By 1976 these numbers Graphics & Media News 6 the airfi eld was in 1931 when the had grown to about 750 individuals, Maryland National Guard established and by 1987 the staff numbered over Awards 6 a cadet pilot training center at Detrick 1,400 with a budget of nearly $100 Field and subsequently Platinum Publications 8 changed the name to Camp Detrick. Poster-Script 11 As we pause to think about the history of Ft. Did You Know? 12 Detrick and the many contributions that the Transfer Technology Branch 14 staff of Ft. Detrick has made in the areas of Community Outreach 15 infectious disease and national defense, it Offi ce of Diversity and seems that now is an Employee Programs 16 appropriate time to also look back at the history Environment, Health, and Safety of the NCI here at Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioterrorism, Biological Weapons and Anthrax
    Bioterrorism, Biological Weapons and Anthrax Part IV Written by Arthur H. Garrison Criminal Justice Planning Coordinator Delaware Criminal Justice Council Bioterrorism and biological weapons The use of bio-terrorism and bio-warfare dates back to 6th century when the Assyrians poisoned the well water of their enemies. The goal of using biological weapons is to cause massive sickness or death in the intended target. Bioterrorism and biological weapons The U.S. took the threat of biological weapons attack seriously after Gulf War. Anthrax vaccinations of U.S. troops Investigating Iraq and its biological weapons capacity The Soviet Union manufactured various types of biological weapons during the 1980’s • To be used after a nuclear exchange • Manufacturing new biological weapons – Gene engineering – creating new types of viruses/bacteria • Contagious viruses – Ebola, Marburg (Filoviruses) - Hemorrhagic fever diseases (vascular system dissolves) – Smallpox The spread of biological weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union •Material • Knowledge and expertise •Equipment Bioterrorism and biological weapons There are two basic categories of biological warfare agents. Microorganisms • living organic germs, such as anthrax (bacillus anthrax). –Bacteria –Viruses Toxins • By-products of living organisms (natural poisons) such as botulism (botulinum toxin) which is a by- product of growing the microorganism clostridium botulinum Bioterrorism and biological weapons The U.S. was a leader in the early research on biological weapons Research on making
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Years of Ethical Human Subjects Research at Fort Detrick by Caree Vander Linden Edited by Arthur O
    50 Years of Ethical Human Subjects Research at Fort Detrick By Caree Vander Linden edited by Arthur O. Anderson, USAMRIID On 27 January 2005, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) celebrated its 35th anniversary since it was given this name. However, this milestone also marks 50 years of research to develop medical countermeasures for protecting military service members, a functionality that has held several names over the years since the early to mid 1950’s. In order to carry out research related to determining human vulnerability to biological weapons, and whether prophylaxis or treatment might prevent casualties, the leaders and committees that considered this decided that to do this work it was necessary to create a medical research institute, staff it, equip it and create operational policies, and procedures to ensure that any outcome of this research would clearly be seen as meeting the ethical, legal and moral tenets of the Nuremberg Code. The resulting plans that emanated from these meetings were written and submitted up the Army chain of command between April 1953 and January 1955 and the first series of human experiments carried out under a program called CD-22 (Camp Detrick – 22) took place on 25 January 1955. This author has extensively researched this history while being the POC for the President’s Advisory Commission on Human Radiation Experiments and the President’s Advisory Commission on Gulf War Veteran’s Illness and has allowed our documents and records to be examined by ethicists and inspectors from outside DoD and it is they who concluded that the human subjects research that took place at CD-22; USAMU, and USAMRIID should be highlighted as “a program of human experimentation that is a moral model for all others, civilian and military.”(from front flap of Undue Risk by Jonathan Moreno) The Institute, which remains the nation’s lead biodefense research laboratory, acquired its present name in 1969 as the United States was dismantling its offensive biological warfare (BW) research program at Fort Detrick.
    [Show full text]
  • Q Fever: the Neglected Biothreat Agent P
    Journal of Medical Microbiology (2011), 60, 9–21 DOI 10.1099/jmm.0.024778-0 Review Q fever: the neglected biothreat agent P. C. F. Oyston and C. Davies Correspondence Biomedical Sciences, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, P. C. F. Oyston Wiltshire SP4 0JQ, UK [email protected] Coxiella burnetii is the causative agent of Q fever, a disease with a spectrum of presentations from the mild to fatal, including chronic sequelae. Since its discovery in 1935, it has been shown to infect a wide range of hosts, including humans. A recent outbreak in Europe reminds us that this is still a significant pathogen of concern, very transmissible and with a very low infectious dose. For these reasons it has also featured regularly on various threat lists, as it may be considered by the unscrupulous for use as a bioweapon. As an intracellular pathogen, it has remained an enigmatic organism due to the inability to culture it on laboratory media. As a result, interactions with the host have been difficult to elucidate and we still have a very limited understanding of the molecular mechanisms of virulence. However, two recent developments will open up our understanding of C. burnetii: the first axenic growth medium capable of supporting cell-free growth, and the production of the first isogenic mutant. We are approaching an exciting time for expanding our knowledge of this organism in the next few years. Taxonomy an obligate intracellular organism and having a tick reservoir. However, the restructuring of the family Rickettsiaceae based In 1935, in two near concurrent incidences on two different on genetic differences resulted in the organism becoming a continents, a previously undescribed organism was iden- member of the family Coxiellaceae in the order Legionellales.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Background of the US Biowarfare Program
    Historical Background of the US Biowarfare Program In light of the current FBI/Patriot Act investigations against Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), it is worthwhile to point out two moments from the history of the US government’s involvement in biowarfare. The first concerns the specific issue of access to knowledge, education, and resources in the life sciences. The second concerns the general backdrop of US biodefense ideology. All of this information has been confirmed by several sources, and has been in the public domain for some time (see the references below). Needless to say, this is not meant to be a comprehensive “history” of biowarfare. Instead, it is a perspective on biowarfare from the vantage point of US involvement. What is evident is that the US government’s involvement in biowarfare raises far more substantial questions than the investigation of dissenting artists. - Eugene Thacker ([email protected]) 1. US Biological Warfare Program Simulant Field Tests, 1949-68 Although the particulars of the investigation against CAE have not been made clear, the charges made against them surround particular strains of bacteria which Steve Kurtz was culturing: Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii. As has been noted, both bacteria are non-lethal, commonly found in wind-blown dust or the soil, and are often used for educational purposes in biology labs across the US. They have also been used by the US biological warfare program. A short chronology follows: 1942: The War Research Service is created to oversee the creation of a US biological warfare program, partially in response to intelligence concerning possible biowarfare programs in Germany and Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Adventists and Biological Warfare
    Adventists and Biological Warfare Spectrum magazine, vol. 25, no. 3 (Mar. 1996), pages 35-50. © 2002 Spectrum/AAF. All rights reserved. By Krista Thompson Smith Krista Thompson Smith is currently pursuing graduate studies in political science at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She originally wrote this essay for the history seminar at Walla Walla College, led by Professor Terrell Gottschall. For 20 years, Seventh-day Adventist noncombatant servicemen participated in defensive biological warfare research for the United States Army. The program, based at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was known as Project Whitecoat. Approximately 2,200 Adventists volunteered for medical research experiments. Another 800 assisted in the program as laboratory technicians, ward attendants, and clerks.1 Both the Adventist Church and the Army praised this project highly. Members of Congress, scientists, and the press criticized the Adventist Church’s involvement. Some of the questions raised about this largely forgotten project remain unanswered. Was Project Whitecoat a humanitarian program, devoted solely to the development of vaccines and treatment for disease? Or were critics correct when they charged that the Adventist Church collaborated with the U.S. Army, risked the health of its members, and even supported the development of offensive weapons for conducting germ warfare? Project Whitecoat continues to raise concretely the issue of how the Adventist Church should relate to government and its use of science. In 1953 and 1954, human volunteers participated in a study of Q-fever, known as the CD- 22 program. The success of this project, and the authorization to use volunteers for defensive studies, cleared the way for the establishment of Project Whitecoat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks
    University of Birmingham BIOTERRORISM POLICY REFORM AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES: THE IMPACT OF THE 2001 ANTHRAX ATTACKS Mary Victoria Cieplak April 5, 2013 Candidate for a MPhil in U.S. Intelligence Services American and Canadian Studies College of Arts and Law ID No. CT/AD/1129744 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. C i e p l a k | 2 Abstract The 2001 anthrax attacks on the United States (U.S.) Congress and U.S. media outlets showed the world that a new form of terror has emerged in our modern society. Prior to 2001, bioterrorism and biological warfare had brief mentions in history books, however, since the 2001 anthrax attacks, a new type of security has been a major priority for the U.S. U.S. politicians, public health workers, three levels of law enforcement, and the entire nation were caught off guard. Now that over a decade has passed, it is appropriate to take a closer look at the impact this act of bioterrorism had on the U.S. government’s formation and implementation of new policies and procedures.
    [Show full text]