DOCSLIB.ORG

Rcc2.950201.002 8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rcc2.950201.002 8 RCC2.950201.002 8 U. S. A!!! !GDIC.iL RESrRCH INSTITLTE OF IXFECTIOUS DISEASES PROJECT i,NITZCOAT: A EISTOKY .. 14 February 1974 rt TABLE OF COdTENTS PACE SEC'IIOX I. Authorization and Establishment. 1 NOTE: Some of the information presented in Sections I and I1 was obtained from historical files acd binders ic the Editor's Office. Source documents are not available for zll of the drafts, however, inasmuch as the notes, memos, etc. were derived from first hand observations, they are considered as such in this document. i I I SECTION 11. Unit Expansion and Progress. 3 i NOTE: Some of the information presented in Sections I and 11 was obtained fron historical files and binders in the Editor's Office. Source documents are not available for all of the drafts, however, inasmuch 3s the notes, memos, etc. were derived fron first hand observation, they are considered as such in.. this docuzenr. SECTIOE: 111. Projcct Whitecoat. 5 I I SECTION IV. Sample Project Synopsis. a 1 - NOTE: A waalth of supplemectary material 13 the fom of I moffical notes, drafts and memoranduns can be located in the Editor's Office. Included is a Project Whitecoat binder arranged by a former Whitecoat which contains several docrnents prepared by che Seventh Day Adventist i Church, professional articles by former key USXNRIID personnel and observztions by the news media. These articles, too numerous and diversified to acknowledge indivi&J:l1y, provide significant background information essential to the total comprehension of Project Whitecoat. APPENDICES APPEYDIX 1. Staff Study; pre?ared by OTSG for the Arned Forces Xedical Policy Council; subjcct: Parcicipatior. of rh~-3Ldical Services in Siological !;aifare Resszrzn (VI; dated 9 Sep 52. (CONFIDENTIAL) XTE: Appendices 1 - 6 are filcd in the Sffice of cha Cax~xd?~. USAXXIID, Fort Detrick, !li. 2li31. 'QPE~IX2. Xemcrandum for Chief Chemical Officer and The Surseon General (CS: 385); prepared by the Army Chief of Staff; subject: Use of Volunteers in iiesearch (E); dated 30 Jun 53. (CONFIDENTIAL.) APPENDIX 3. DF fron the Chief Chemical Officer tc tlhe Acting Chief Chemical Officer/FW; subject: ?rocurement of Extrapolation Data (U); dated 21 Oct 54. (C0EiOENTLJ-L)- APPENDIX 4. Minutes of a meeting of the Conmission on Epidemio- logical Survey (18 Oct 54); undated. (CONFIDEXITI&) APPENDIX 5. Letter €ut the President, hmed Forces Epidenio- logical Board (XFEB: to the Chief C!iemical Officer; subject: Findings of the Board (U); dated 1: Dec 5s. (COhTIDENTLAL) AWENIMX 6. Letter from the Chief Officer to the Secretary of the Army; subject: Use of Vo1untee:s-b iesearch (U); dated 10 Jan 55. (CONFIDENTIAL) WPENDIX 7. Memorandum for the Amy Chief of Staff; prepared by the Acting Secrccary of the Ary;; subject: Use of Voiunteers in Research; dated 14 Jan 55. APPE%IX 8. GO 37, IXV.lC; Organization of Xedical Unit, KWCYC: dated 20 Jun 56. APPENDIX 9. Joint Xedical Service - Chemical'Corpa AgreeKent on Responsibilities for the Ccnduct of Xcsesrch acd Development in Dcfensive aioloeical L'arfare; dated 21 Feb 56. APPENDIX 10. GO 7, 'URWC, Organization of '&Vi (extract); dated 1 Aug 57 escabiished Ward 203, !,RUiC at USA'W. APPEXDIX 11. 1957 USA!! Annual Report AlPEKDIX 12. GO 9, OTSG, kited 29 Sep 5; (extract). MPESDIX 13. Organization Chart, 1 Apr 63. APPEXDIX 14. GO 6, OTZG, Fiedesignation of Units/Activities, dated 27 Jan 59. APPEXDIX 15. Xcnorandun for !X Amstrong, The Surgeon General; prepared by Li'C Tiger::; c3;2c! 14 Oct 54 re: :!eeting with Dr. Theodore D. Tkiz. APPENDIX 16. Letter to MG Armstrong, with attached Statement of Attitude. from Dr. Flaiz; dated 19 Oct 54. 4 APPENDIX 17. Letter from MG Hays, The Surgeon General, to Hr. G. '4. Chambers; dated 27 Oct 55 with attached published article. APPENDIX 18. Minutes of Operation Whitecoat Heeting, USASIRM:, dated 17 ?far 59. APPENDIX 19. DF From Enlisted Braxh, Personnel and Training Division to CG, USLXlUC, dated 27 Jun 60, subject: Whitecoat Volunteers. APPENDIX 20. USAMRIID Table of Distribution and Allowances. Document can be located in the 3udget and Fiscal Off ice, USAEIRIID. UPENDIX 21. AR 70-25, 26 Mar 62, Use of Volunteers as Subjects of Research. APPENDIX 22. Letter from U.S. Army Medical Training Cecter to CG, CONARC (undated; but attached to TI. dated 23 Feb 673; subject: Imunitacion of Potential Volunteers for Stdies of Tnfactiotis Diseases at U.S. Army Hedical Unit, Fort Detrick, Xazyland. Entire appendix attached to Appendix 22. APPENDIX 23. DA Message 767602, 1 Jun 66; subjecc: Immunization for Class I-A-0 Fetsonnel. APPENDIX 24. Final article on Project Whitecoat submitted by Thomas Green and forwarded by Clark Snith, Sirector, Sevencn Day Adveacist National Service Organization; xdated. APPENDIX 25. Article in the National Examiner, dated 1 Dec 69, subject: Ccnscientious Objector Experience. Subject matter along with official U.S. Army rebuttai cm be .- - -. located in the Office of the Comandsr. APPENDIX 26. Fact Sheet - Project Whitecoat. dated 28 Nov 69. APPEh'DIX 27. Duties of Secretary, Xedical Division. APPENDIX 28. Resume Research Projects Involving Volunteers and Others (Iy5S-73). SPEIUDIS 29. Resune k%itecoat Volunteer Rccruitnnext Procecure. SECTION I AUTHORIZATION AND ESTABLIS- I Ever since World War I and the intrpduction of mustard gas into military Inventories, the use of chemical and biological agents in open warfare has been addressed as a moral, social and tactical issue at military conferences as well as a mtter for open public cotxern. Although the use of biological agents in the military armamentarium was not a universally accepted proposal, the reqciremeot to investigate the effects of such a weapon if applied by a hostile element against the United States received attention from the highest levels of the military establishment. This concern engendered coordination between the Chemical and Medical elements of the Army and invclved the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, Army Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense. Coordination effected by MG W.M. Creasy, Chief, Chnical Officer (CCO) and MG C. E. Armstrong in conjunction with an ex:ensive legal review, culminated in the authority to conduct research investigation utilizing volunteers in defense against biological warfare. This - - authority was granted by the Acting Secretary of the Army on 14 January - 1955. \ The authorization added a nev dimension to the biological warfare (Bk') research then being coriducted at Camp Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, in that effective research leading to the development of a defense egriinst the .Lse nf zicrcbii-lcg5c-l -0-*ezts cn-12 be ccier!tificzl>; conducted and evaluated without relying upon extrapolated data obtained from_animal studies. Approximately two years prior, an Ad UDC Camittee was established to investigate the feasibility of obtaining dose-response data on tularemia and/or Q Frver in hurrans. The comittee chcse to investigate Q fever by the experhental inoculation of volunteers with a Coxiella burnetii. This project, known as the CD-22 progras, terminated its initial research effort ir 1956 after yielding the first scientific data of its kind, gathered by U.S. military investigations from experiments conducted on human volunteer subjects. >.reas of interest concerning the project were: the vulnerability of ran to biological agents; prevention and treatment of BW casualties; 2nd identification of biological agents. Information such as the minimum infectious dosage, effectiveness of prophykctic and therapeutic measures, serologic responses to infectian 2nd the effects of various doses of inoculum, eventually provided answers to most initial questions contained within the researcn objectives.-. The entire progrm %as monitored by 52Csx.issisn 211 ;?iceniolo~ical 5iir\-ey (C5.r: of the fumed Forces Epideniological iSoara (AFEB) wnich provided tschnical assistance of a consultory nature to the research teams. The responsibility to provide a defense >Fainst t;iologicai wzrfare .-- vris assigzed tn .!.zzy ?!-.'ic=l S=-ic=-, ::n?cr tb.: pzr*.ris: cf che Scrr;e02 _-- - General. .U:houEh the origin of the tern ":?itrcoat" is not dx.;-entcd here, its use to descriire research invslving vclunt.cers is found in correspondence dating back to October 1954. "OPERATION WHITECOAT" vas the code name for the plan to use human volunteers in field experiments concerning the effect of certain biologicdl pathogens upon humans (bbjective of program in 1955). Thorough legal investigation and moral consideration was rendered. yielding a group of conditions under which volunteers may be used in research, to wit: a. Voluntary consent is required. Vritten consent must be witnessed, and signed by the individual concerned. b. No experimentation which could predictably lead to death or permanent disabling injury will be investigated with the use of human volunteers. c. Proper medical supervision and treatment capability will be imediately available to the subjects. d. Experfmentation must be expected to yield fruitful results for the good of society, not available by other means. e. Experimentation should avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering. f. The degree of risk taken should never exceed the hportance of the experiment or tho expectable benefits from It. g. The volunteer may remove himself from the experbent at any stage if he feels thtt he has reached the limits of his physical or mental endurance. The authorization to use volunteers, success of the two-year research project Cn-22, the definition of responsibilities concerning research into BW defense, and the legal requirements essential to OPERATION WiIITEC0.4T culminated in the organization of the United States Army Medical Unit (USAXLJ) and its activation at Camp Detritk, Frederick, Maryland cm 20 June 1956. US.LW was assigned the research responsibilities of the Army Medical 3rpartment's requirement to provide a defense against EX. Colonel W.D. Tigertt, M.C. assumed command of US.LW end occqied that position until 1961; during his tenure as Concander, Colonel Tigertt established the ground wcrk for an effective, ongoing recruiting progrzm aimed at continuing tke supply of volunteer personnel for Project Whiteccat.
Load more

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]