September 24, 1998

AnchorPoints

A Coat of Many Colors Adventists and 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 , 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 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 (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. states) that produces symp- laudable contribution to the success of had volunteered for the project, no toms ranging from low-grade fever to our nation and to the health and com- doubt disappointing many Adventist swollen lymph nodes to fatal infec- fort of our fellowmen.” 5 servicemen who had hoped for state- tions. Vaccines for tularemia developed USAMU personnel were soon side service, especially during the at Fort Detrick were tested on recruiting Adventist draftees for what Vietnam War. Both single and mar- Whitecoat participants, resulting in was dubbed “Operation Whitecoat” ried men volunteered for the program highly effective control of the disease during their Basic Training at Fort Sam and were selected. Nearly 40 percent and dramatically decreased mortality.

10 (1282) ADVENTIST REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 Several strains of combatants who served the military in a Adventist volunteers were actually were also studied in the Whitecoat pro- medical capacity. Articles appearing in serving as noncombatants. gram, involving nearly 240 Adventist the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald in Articles appearing in prominent volunteers for human trials of vac- 1955 and 1960 14 praised the courage Canadian and American journals cines.10 Encephalitis is usually carried by and selflessness of young Adventists between 1962 and 1969 openly chal- mosquitoes and infects the brain tissue who volunteered for Operation lenged church leadership’s contention of victims, sometimes leading to confu- Whitecoat. A two-part 1963 Youth’s that Operation Whitecoat was chiefly sion, coma, and death. While increas- Instructor article even innocently focused on defensive medical research ingly rare in the U.S., incidence in relayed the harrowing tale of one volun- (see below), some suggesting that tropical regions is still dangerously teer who participated in tests of airborne denominational officials had been duped high, and public health officials remain bacteriological agents in the Utah by the military into supporting a morally vigilant about any occurrences. desert.15 Articles in the church’s service- questionable enterprise.17 As public sen- Sandfly fever, Rocky Mountain men’s journal, For God and Country, fre- timent against American involvement spotted fever, , quently highlighted the humanitarian in the Vietnam War began to be re- , and typhoid fever were also nature of the program. flected on Adventist colleges campuses intensively studied during during 1968-1969, church leaders offi- Operation Whitecoat. Dozens of cially reviewed their support for scholarly articles were published Operation Whitecoat. An eight-per- by USAMU/ USAMRIID physi- son inspection team, including cians and scientists between 1955 General Conference officers, NSO and 1973 that grew out of re- Some former personnel, two college presidents, and search involving Seventh-day a physician, visited Fort Detrick in Adventist servicemen. Infor- Whitecoats report October 1969 and interviewed mation gained through this Dan Crozier, the officer human research has helped com- continuing immediately responsible for bat outbreaks of these and other Operation Whitecoat. diseases in both civilian and Satisfied by their site visit and the military populations around the concerns about answers provided, committee mem- world. bers carefully reaffirmed support for USAMU/USAMRIID records how human the program through an article in the maintain that while hundreds of Review18 and letters to each North Whitecoat volunteers were made ill, medical trials may American Adventist college campus. some seriously, by the human med- Noting that USAMU/USAMRIID ical trials, no Whitecoat died during required approvals by both civilian the program, nor was there docu- have affected and military panels before each mented permanent health damage to human medical trial and that there any participant.11 Both military their health. was no evidence of health damage to records and Whitecoat anecdotes do, participants, the committee conclud- however, report three disease-related ed, as General Conference officers deaths among civilian and scientific had 15 years earlier, that Operation employees at Fort Detrick.12 Whitecoat was a praiseworthy As early as 1957, however, humanitarian project. The Church Adventist leaders became aware of NSO information about As noted above, the ethical complexities that Operation Whitecoat, however, most Adventist lead- attended support for a medical began to reflect a more cautious ers supported research project yielding results that approach. Notes from an undated Operation could just as conceivably be used for presentation by NSO director Clark Whitecoat because offensive biological and chemical Smith to Adventist candidates at of its perceived humanitarian focus. warfare.16 While the offensive bio- (probably in Repeatedly assured by responsible logical weapons program and 1969) include the following line: USAMU personnel that the research at USAMU/ USAMRIID’s defensive “The SDA Church neither encour- Fort Detrick and Walter Reed was being medical research were officially dis- ages nor discourages anyone in used only for defensive purposes,13 tinct, the location of the two pro- volunteering. This is definitely an church leaders viewed the project as a grams at Fort Detrick provoked a individual decision to be made on logical extension of the denomination’s continuing stream of inquiries to the basis of the information avail- established policy of supporting non- church leaders about whether able at the time.”19 In light of the

ADVENTIST REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 (1283) 11 praise given Operation Whitecoat scrutiny of Operation Whitecoat to a about how the bacterial agents to by church leaders since 1955, the close. As the offensive weapons pro- which they were exposed during new statement suggested a shift in gram at Fort Detrick ground to a halt, human medical trials may have leadership Operation Whitecoat’s defensive mis- affected their opinion. sion was less frequently challenged in health in the the public press and among church decades since The Critics members. A major 1970 article in then. Many Spectrum, the journal of the North Association of Adventist Forums, The Future American Adventists were deeply nonetheless continued to challenge In the quarter troubled by the criticism of leadership’s support for what it termed century since the Adventist participation in Opera- U.S. military draft tion Whitecoat that appeared in ended and the popular press during the Operation Whitecoat was termi- 1960s. Major articles in McCleans, “Hawks” and nated (1973), hundreds of TheNew Republic, the New York Whitecoats have served both society Times Magazine, the Washington and the Seventh-day Adventist Post, and Ramparts20 portrayed “doves” need not Church in many fields, including Adventist servicemen as “human medicine, science, journalism, law, guinea pigs.” One prominent continue to make education, and theology. A 1991 sur- author even claimed that “Ad- vey of those for whom addresses were ventist leadership has elevated feathers fly in the available suggested that more than service in Project Whitecoat 60 percent had completed at least a almost to an act of faith.”21 bachelor’s degree, while nearly half Church leadership’s 1954 present. of that number had earned at least a “Statement of Attitude” was char- master’s degree.28 acterized as “at best—wonderfully Efforts to locate and communicate naive.”22 The 1969 inspection com- a “morally dubious cause,” implying with Operation Whitecoat volunteers mittee’s affirmation that the program that any participation in the military are ongoing, including attempts by the was “strictly medical” was deemed made one morally culpable for all that Army to conduct a health survey for “almost laughable—except that the the military did.26 all participants (see sidebar). Perhaps entire hierarchy of the Adventist During the ’80s and ’90s, both the most complete database is that Church believes it.”23 serious researchers and those pursuing maintained by Dr. Frank Damazo, a Two major U.S. television networks conspiracy theories have attempted to general surgeon and member of the broadcast investigative reports during gather data and personal statements Frederick Seventh-day Adventist 1969 that either alluded to or alleged from the more than 2,300 men who Church. Damazo has lived and worked Whitecoat participation in the devel- served in Operation Whitecoat. Two in Frederick since 1956, and he and opment of offensive biological and documents highly critical of Opera- his wife, Ann, have been mainstays of chemical weapons,24 implying that tion Whitecoat featured sensational the Frederick church’s support network church leaders had compromised the claims by several Adventist partici- for Whitecoat participants. At consid- church’s historic noncombatancy posi- pants and testimonies from some who erable personal expense the Damazos tion. Editorials in campus newspapers believed they were suffering lingering have collected the addresses of hun- at several Adventist colleges subse- medical problems because of their dreds of Whitecoats across North quently called for the church to dis- participation.27 America, as well as helping to organize tance itself from Operation Whitecoat While both anecdotal and survey national reunions in 1985 and 1989. and to actively support young evidence suggests that the vast A third national reunion for Adventists who opted for a 1-O (con- majority of Adventists who served in Operation Whitecoat volunteers is scientious objector) status, thereby Operation Whitecoat still view their scheduled for September 25-27, avoiding the perceived moral ambigu- service as honorable and humanitar- 1998, at the Frederick church. ity of the project.25 ian and report no related-health con- Special features will include the ded- President ’s execu- cerns, a vocal minority continues to ication of a Whitecoat memorial, tive order in November 1969 that criticize the project for ethical and tours of Fort Detrick, a certificate of banned both the use of biological and health reasons. Even some volunteers appreciation from the U.S. Congress, chemical weapons and research and who viewed Operation Whitecoat as a USAMRIID medallion for each development of such weapons a patriotic alternative to service in participant, and the release of a new brought most of the immediate public Vietnam report continuing concerns book about Operation Whitecoat

12 (1284) ADVENTIST REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 4 “Statement of Attitude Regarding Volunteering for Medical Research,” Operation Health Follow-up for Whitecoat Participants Whitecoat File, ed. Errol L. Chamness (General Conference Archives). 5 Ibid. The Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases 6 Mole and Mole, p. 112. (USAMRIID) is conducting a retrospective study of Whitecoat volunteers to deter- 7 Ibid., p. 117. mine if there could be any long-term adverse effects resulting from their partici- 8 Interview with Dr. Frank Damazo by the author, July 8, 1998. pation in human medical trials between 1954 and 1973. 9 Mole and Mole, pp. 67, 68. 10 Ibid., p. 76. The study, which has been approved by the surgeon general of the Army, invites 11 See Mole and Mole, p. 35, and Winton H. Beaven, “Letter to Editors” (SDA college news- Whitecoat participants to fill out a questionnaire incorporating state-of-the-art papers, October 1969), Operation Whitecoat knowledge about immunization and diagnostic methods. File, General Conference Archives. 12 See Norman M. Covert, Cutting Edge: A History of Fort Detrick, Maryland (Fort Detrick, Entry into the study is restricted to those Whitecoat participants who wish to vol- Md.: Public Affairs Office, 1997), p. 41, and unteer. Contact Dr. Frank Damazo, 700 Montclaire Avenue, Frederick, Maryland Mole and Mole, p. 129. 21701 (301-662-4502) or Mike Bradley at USAMRIID (1-800-256-7621) to 13 Report of the Project Whitecoat Study Committee (Sept. 11, 1969), Operation receive the initial postcard response form. Once response postcards have been Whitecoat File, General Conference Archives. received by USAMRIID, names will be checked against USAMRIID’s records of 14 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Nov. 3, those who received special immunizations during the Whitecoat program. Detailed 1955, and May 12, 1960. 15 Don Roth, in The Youth’s Instructor, Oct. 8 questionnaires will be forwarded to all Whitecoat participants who are selected and 15, 1963. for the study. 16 Memo of Colonel Dan Crozier (May 6, 1957), Operation Whitecoat File, General Conference Archives. Phone and/ or mail follow-up of former Whitecoats in the study is planned by 17 Seymour Hersh, “Germ Warfare: For Alma USAMRIID, including discussions with medical personnel from USAMRIID. Results Mater, God and Country,” Ramparts, December from the completed study will be forwarded to all participants, as well as specific 1969, p. 22. 18 Kenneth H. Wood, in Advent Review and medical information that has a bearing on the health status of individual Sabbath Herald, Nov. 27, 1969. Whi t ecoat s . 19 Clark Smith, “Project Whitecoat,” Operation Whitecoat File, General Conference Archives. Further information about the health study of Whitecoat participants will be avail- 20 See McCleans, April 1962; New Republic, able at the Whitecoat reunion at the Frederick Seventh-day Adventist Church, November 1969; New York Times Magazine, September 25-27, 1998. Sept. 28, 1969; Washington Post, Nov. 2, 1969; Ramparts, December 1969. 21 Hersh. authored by a father-son duo. reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19, RSV) 22 Ibid. Dr. Damazo’s continuing concern for come to recognize that not all argu- 23 Ibid., p. 23. 24 National Broadcasting Company, “First Operation Whitecoat participants and ments must be won; not all painful his- Tuesday,” Feb. 4, 1969; Columbia Broadcasting the four decades of nurture provided by tory must be sorted out, with blame System, 60 Minutes, July 8, 1969. the Frederick church suggest a helpful attached and penalties pronounced. 25 Editorials appeared in the Southern Accent (Southern Missionary College), The Student way for the wider Seventh-day Adventist We best learn the lessons of the past Movement (Andrews University), and the Church to relate to the still-simmering when we understand their human Collegian (Walla Walla College). controversy about the Whitecoat era: dimension, when we see the faces of 26 Martin Turner, in Spectrum, Summer 1970, p. 65. simply support the participants. The non- those with whom we disagree and 27 See Neil C. Livingston, “Whitecoat File: judgmental attitude that can embrace strive to understand their stories. God’s A Joint U.S. Army Seventh-day Adventist both those who praised the project and “teaching in our past history” 29 Church Psychochemical Weapons Experiment” (unpublished manuscript); and Richard Orley those who castigated it illustrates a par- becomes even more precious when it Curtis, “Secret Project Whitecoat: Seventh-day ticularly appropriate way for spiritual yields believers who make every effort Adventist Germ Warfare Concessions,” in “The people to deal with a troubled history. to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in Greatest Conspiracy” (unpublished manuscript). 28 Mole and Mole, p. 112. ■ The passions of a quarter century ago the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3, RSV). 29 Ellen White, in General Conference Daily that polarized society and the Seventh- Bulletin, Jan. 29, 1893. day Adventist Church into “hawks” and 1 James White, in Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug. 12, 1862. “doves” need not continue to make 2 Robert L. Mole and Dale M. Mole, For God feathers fly in the present. The ultimate and Country, Operation W hitecoat: 1955-1983 irony would be that persons endorsing a (New York: Aspects Books, 1998), pp. 49, 50. 3 The Army Medical Research Unit Bill Knott is an associate principle of noncombatancy refuse to lay (USAMU) was renamed the United States editor of the Adventist down weapons of invective and insinua- Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Review. tion against each other for choices made Diseases (USAMRIID) in 1969. For purposes of this article, the differing designations will be a generation ago. used as appropriate to their chronological Christians embracing a “message of occurrence.

ADVENTIST REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 (1285) 13