TAB D-5



                           DISCLAIMER

The following is a staff memorandum or other working document 
prepared for the members of the Advisory Committee on Human
Radiation Experiments.  It should not be construed as representing
the final conclusions of fact or interpretation of the issues. 
All staff memoranda are subject to revision based on further 
information and analysis.  For conclusions and recommendations of
the Advisory Committee, readers are advised to consult the Final
Report to be published in 1995.

		 DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

				MEMORANDUM

TO:	Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation 
        Experiments

FROM:	Rebecca Lowen

DATE:	April 4,1995

RE:	Representation of Experiments Using Human Subjects
	in Newspapers and Periodicals, 1946-1981

This research is based on a survey of the representation of human 
experimentation in magazines and the New York Times between 1946 and 
1981.  Articles and editorials on human experimentation were located 
using the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature and the Index to the 
New York Times.  The newspaper and magazine articles are not understood 
to be a reflection of general, or "mass" opinion on the subject of 
human experimentation, but rather a guide to the range and tenor of 
publicly acceptable discussion about human experimentation over the 
years under examination.

The period 1946-1981 has been broken into four sections.  The first 
(Condemning the "Doctors of Infamy," 1946-1961) focuses on reportage 
and editorials related to human experimentation in Nazi Germany.  The 
second (De-Stigmatizing Human Experimentation, 1946-1962) covers a 
period during which a number of magazines featured stories about 
"human guinea pigs."  These stories may best be read as attempts to 
de-stigmatize the use of human subjects in experiments, in light of 
widespread knowledge of, and horror at, the use of human subjects by 
Nazi doctors.  The third (Human Experimentation: Scandals and Debate, 
1962-1968) discusses a period marked by the opening up of debate about 
human experimentation, following revelations, widely reported on in 
newspapers and magazines, of experiments conducted on humans without 
their informed consent.  The fourth (Renewed Debate, 1972-1981) 
discusses new revelations about human experimentation and renewed 
debates about the ethics of experimentation as well as what 
constituted an "experiment."

I.    CONDEMNING THE "DOCTORS OF INFAMY," 1946-1961

The New York Times provided front-page coverage of the trial of Nazi 
medical practitioners at Nuremberg in 1946.  In an editorial at the 
outset of the doctor's trial at Nuremberg ("The Nazi Doctors," 
21 November 1946, p.30/1), the times condemned what it called 
"outrageous violations of the medical code" by Nazi doctors.  The 
doctors deserved the same fate as that of the Nazi leaders who had 
recently been convicted at Nuremberg, according to the editorial, 
because the "real purpose" of the experiments was "mass killing 
and the destruction of a large block of humanity."  The editorial 
implied that, had the doctors engaged in research for the "benefit of 
science and society," they might not be judged so harshly.  The Times 
also linked experimentation on humans by the Nazis with genocide in an
editorial at the conclusion of the doctor's trial ("For a 'Genocide' 
Treaty," 23 August 1947, p. 12/3) which called upon the United Nations 
to adopt a treaty to bind nations to act collectively against acts of 
genocide.

An article in the Times on 20 March 1948 reported on the consideration 
in America among experimental biologists of the Nuremberg Code.  At the 
annual meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental 
Biology by University of Illinois, Andrew C. Ivy, M.D., who had 
testified at the Nuremberg trials, outlined the principles under which 
experimentation on humans in the U.S. might be justified.  (This article 
appeared on p. 27.) In 1949, Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi 
Medical Crimes, by Alexander Mitscherlich, M.D. and Fred Mielke (head 
of the German Medical Commission at the Nuremberg Trials), was 
published in America, and reviewed prominently in the Saturday Review 
of Literature, and in the New York Times Book Review.

In succeeding years, the Times reported on the capture and trials of 
other Nazi doctors, although did not provide front-page coverage.

Attention to experimentation on human beings under Hitler was renewed 
in May 1959 in relation to the visit to America by thirty Polish women 
who had been victimized by doctors in the Ravensbruck concentration.  
"Of all the incredibly horrible stories that came to light" at the 
Nuremberg trials, wrote Times reporter Howard A. Rusk, M.D., "there 
were none so cruel and revolting as the so-called "scientific 
experiments on human subjects."  ("Science In the Nazi Era," 
31 May 1959, p. 62/4,5).)  The decision of the West Germany government 
to compensate the Ravensbruck camp victims received front-page coverage 
in the Times on 13 November 1961.

II.  DE-STIGMATIZING HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION, 1946-1962

Between 1948 and 1960, magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post, 
Reader's Digest, American Mercury, and the New York Times Magazine ran 
"human interest" stories on "human guinea pigs." These stories 
generally focussed on specific groups among experimental 
subject--prisoners, conscientious objectors, medical students, 
soldiers--and described them as "volunteers."  The articles described 
the ordeals to which the volunteers had submitted themselves 
("Among these men and women you will find  those who will take 
shots of the new vaccines, who will swallow radioactive drugs, who 
will fly higher than anyone else, who will watch malaria-infected 
mosquitos fed on their bare arms..." from "Why Human 'Guinea Pigs' 
Volunteer," New York Times Magazine, 13 April 1958, p. 62.), and 
discussed the reasons for volunteering to act as "guinea pigs."  
These explanations ranged from redemption (in the case of


				2

prisoners), religious or other beliefs (conscientious objectors), the 
advancement of science (medical students), excitement and diversion, 
and service to society.  ("The Most Unforgettable Character I've Met," 
Reader's Digest, May 1948, p. 30; "A Treasure In the Heart of Every 
Man," Reader's Digest, December 1954, p. 49 (condensed from the 
American Mercury); "I was a Human Guinea Pig," Saturday Evening Post, 
25 July 1953, p. 27; "They Volunteer To Suffer," Saturday Evening Post, 
26 March 1960, p. 33; "Why Human 'Guinea Pigs' Volunteer," New York 
Times Magazine, 13 April 1958, p. 62.

These articles were uncritical toward experimentation on humans, and 
assumed that those involved in the experiments had freely volunteered 
to participate.  This should not be seen as the viewpoint of the 
general public, however.  A number of the articles and editorials on 
human experimentation in America in this period make clear that the 
general public was suspicious of human experimentation.  A 1948 
article, "Experiments on Prisoners," in Science News Letter (p. 117) 
opened with the statement that "at least one Soviet scientist had 
publicly criticized American medical scientists for using "Nazi 
methods when they use prisoners in medical experiments."  The rest 
of the article was devoted to refuting this charge, emphasizing that 
prisoners had freely volunteered their services and received no rewards 
or reduction in sentences.  In March 1953, the Times editorialized in 
response to a series of articles in Science on the ethics of human 
experimentation, arguing that "opponents of experimentation on human 
beings are too squeamish."  The Times asserted that experimenters 
carefully followed particular guidelines when using human subjects: 
all subjects were volunteers, and the experiments were undertaken for 
the patient's immediate good.  The Times supported experimentation, 
which it described as taking "a risk" on behalf of "the patient as 
well as of science."  This editorial provoked a letter to the editor 
which challenged the claim by the Times that human subjects were 
always volunteers who were treated with proper respect by experimenters. 
The writer argued that human guinea pigs were drawn from among "the 
friendless, the unfortunate and the helpless" which included men in 
the armed services.  A New York Times article, "Drugs and Prisoners," 
in November 1962, emphasized that all experiments on prisoners were 
voluntary and uncoerced, "contrary to the general impression."  And a 
1960 feature story in the Saturday Evening Post defended medical 
experimenters, while noting the public's objection to the use of human 
guinea pigs.  "The doctors are extremely cautious too.  They are aware 
that the public is suspicious of the use of human beings for medical 
experimentation, particularly so since the horrifying revelations of 
Nazi experiments on prisoners without consent, caution or regard for 
pain."

During this period, some concern was voiced by religious leaders about 
the dangers posed to the health of volunteer "guinea pigs," particularly 
in relation to experiments involving radiation.  October 1954 article in 
the New York Times reported that the Pope had urged doctors and nurses 
not to volunteer for  medical experiments that might pose a danger to 
their health.  That same month, the Christian Century commented on a
group of conscientious objectors who were taking part in experiments 
(at the Fitzsimons army hospital in Denver and assessed by doctors at 
Fitzsimons and the University of Colorado) which required them to eat 
foods that had been exposed to cobalt radiation.  The Christian Century 
called upon the Army to halt the experiments at the first sign of danger 
(while noting that it was possible that the experiments


				    3

could do "irrmediable damage before their damage is discovered.")  
("C.O's Offer Selves for Atomic Experiments," Christian Century, 
20 October 1954, p. 1260.)

III.   HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION: SCANDALS AND DEBATE,
       1962-1969

The use of human subjects in medical/scientific experiments gained 
wide attention, became the subject of investigations, and began to be 
debated openly beginning in late 1962, in relation to the discovery 
that thalidomide, prescribed to patients on an experimental basis by 
their physicians, produced deformities in fetuses.  In early 1964, the 
discovery that patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Center in 
Brooklyn had been experimented upon without their consent made 
front-page news in leading newspapers.  In response to these 
revelations and the debates about the ethics of human experimentation 
that followed, both the FDA and the USPHS introduced new regulations 
governing human experimentation.

In late 1962, editorials in both the Christian Century and the Saturday 
Review responded to the Thalidomide tragedy, objecting to the use of 
human "guinea pigs" and focusing on the importance of informed consent.  
Outraged that the law permitted doctors and drug companies to use a 
drug for "investigational purposes at their own discretion whether or 
not the government or even the patient approves," "(Guinea Pigs and 
People," Christian Century 15 August 1962, p. 975), the Christian 
Century insisted that "the decision to be a guinea pig or not to be one 
should lie with the patient, not with the doctor or the drug company."  
The Saturday Review editorial, "Human Guinea Pigs and the Law," 
(6 October 1962, p. 55) expressed the same concern for individual rights, 
opening with a reiteration of the first rule of the Nuremberg Code, 
which stated that human subjects most give consent voluntarily.  The SR 
went on to complain about the attempts of the drug companies and the 
medical profession to quell debate about this issue and to call on 
Congress to pass legislation to protect the patient's right to be 
informed of the nature of her medical treatment.

Largely in response to the Thalidomide tragedy, the FDA began requiring 
that new drugs be tested in controlled experiments before sale to doctors 
and the public.  Thus, in March 1963, the Saturday Evening Post featured 
yet another article on prison volunteers, pointing out that the use of 
prisoners for the testing of experimental drugs had assumed great 
importance since the FDA's ruling.  This article differed from earlier 
ones of this genre in that it made plain that most prisoners, while 
volunteers, were rewarded (usually financially) for acting as guinea 
pigs.  The issue of experimentation on humans made headlines in the 
nation's newspapers and magazines in January 1964 when it was 
discovered that elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital 
in Brooklyn had been injected with live cancer cells as  part of an 
experiments conducted by two eminent physicians at Sloan-Kettering.  
This experiment had first been conducted in 1956 on prison volunteers 
in the Ohio State penitentiary and had been reported on without comment 
by Time magazine and Newsweek at that time.  ("Cancer by the Needle,"

				   4


Newsweek, 4 June 1956, p. 67; "Volunteers for Cancer," Time, 
4 June 1956, p. 48).  The public outrage over the experimentation at 
the Chronic Disease Hospital stemmed from the discovery that the 
patients had not been told that the cells being injected were cancer 
cells, and had not given consent.  (The doctors claimed to have obtained 
oral consent, but it was discovered that many of the patients in question 
were deaf, spoke only Yiddish, or were senile.)  Further, the 
experiments were not conducted for the benefit of the patients 
involved, nor did the physicians experiment first on themselves.  It is 
possible that public outrage over this incident was magnified because 
the patients in question were Jewish and mentally and physically 
impaired, suggesting some obvious parallels to human experimentation in 
Nazi Germany.  ("Hospital Accused on Cancer Study, NY Times, 21 January 
1964, p. 31; "State Broadens Cancer Inquiry," NY Times, 22 January 1964, 
p. 38; "Test on Cancer to Need Consent," 23 January 1964, p. 28; "Many 
Scientific Experts Condemn Ethics of Cancer Injection," 26 January 1964, 
p. 70; "Experimental Ethics," Time, 3 February 1964, p. 48.)

The refusal of the Sloan-Kettering physicians or the director of the 
Chronic Disease Hospital to admit wrongdoing led to a court battle for 
release of the victimized patients' records as well as to a formal 
inquiry by the medical grievance committee of the professional conduct 
division of New York State's Education department, thus keeping this 
story in the papers intermittently from January 1964 to early 1966.  The 
State's inquiry led to the discovery that the same doctors had injected 
close to 300 patients at Sloan-Kettering with cancer cells, again, 
without informing them of the nature of the cells and without obtaining 
written consent.  On the recommendation of the medical grievance 
committee, the New York State Board of Regents found the two 
Sloan-Kettering physicians guilty of unprofessional conducts and of 
fraud and deceit in the practice of medicine.  According to the Saturday 
Review, this case of human experimentation, involving as it did eminent 
researchers from Sloan-Kettering, "shook the complacency that had 
obscured experimental ethics."  ("The Law on Human Guinea Pigs," SR, 
3 April 1965, p. 56; "The Patient's Right to Know," SR, 26 June 1965, 
p. 20; "Research and Responsibility," Nation, 14 March 1966, p. 284).

Following the revelations about experimentation on patients at the 
Jewish Chronic Disease Center, Dr. Henry K. Beecher, Professor of 
Research in Anesthesia at Harvard University, delivered a paper, 
"Ethics and the Explosion of Human Experimentation," at a March 1965 
symposium sponsored by Upjohn.  In this paper, Beecher, who had been 
researching the issue for the past decade, cited 50 documentable cases 
of experimentation on human subjects in the absence of informed consent 
and with no expected benefits to the patients involved.  The New York 
Times reported on Beecher's talk, and noted Beecher's comment that his 
examples were "by no means rare but are almost, one fears, universal."  
(NY Times, 24 March 1965, p. 35.)  The Times also noted in the article 
that some of Beecher's colleagues disputed  his claims.  In 1966, Beecher 
published "Ethics and Clinical Research" in the New England Journal of 
Medicine which documented 22 of the 50 experiments previously mentioned.  
The Boston Herald devoted one-third of its front page to reporting on 
Beecher's article; it was also covered by the New York Times and Time 
magazine.

				5

Largely in response to the uproar over the Sloan-Kettering/Jewish 
Chronic Disease Hospital case, the US Public Health Service enunciated 
a new policy in 1966 regarding experiments conducted with support from 
the USPHS.  All institutions receiving USPHS support were to establish
independent review committees which would assure the USPHS that 
researchers proposing to conduct experiments with human subjects would 
protect the rights and welfare of the human subjects, and obtain 
informed, written consent from the subjects.  ("Experiments on 
People-The Growing Debate," SR, 2 July 1966, p. 41; "U.S. Acts to 
Protect All Persons Used for Medical Tests," NY Times, 19 May 1966, 
p. 38.)  Also, in August 1966, the FDA ruled that doctors could no 
longer test any drugs on humans without first obtaining the written, 
informed consent of their patients.  (This regulation was softened 
considerably the following year after strong objections from medical 
researchers; "Doctors Must Experiment on Humans," NY Times Magazine, 
2 July 1967, p. 12).

In December 1966, attention again focussed briefly on the issue of 
human experimentation when New York State Senator Seymour Thaler 
charged that New York City hospitals were using their patients for 
experiments without their informed consent.  ("State Opens City 
Hospitals' Investigation Today," NY Times, 28 December 1966, p. 24; 
"City Aides Deny A Thaler Charge," NY Times, 29 December 1966, p. 34; 
"Experiments on Man," Newsweek, 6 March 2967, p. 84).

For the remainder of the decade, magazines and the New York Times 
dealt with the issue of human experimentation intermittently.  After 
1966, ethical concerns expanded from the previous focus on the 
necessity for informed consent to include discussions of the meaning 
of informed consent as well as concern for the welfare of particular 
groups of "volunteers"--prisoners, children, the seriously ill, and 
members of the armed services.

In "Do We Need New Rules for Experiments on People?"  Saturday Review 
drew attention to the use of public school children in psychological 
experiments without the consent of the parents.  In "Experiments On 
Man," Newsweek reported on New York State Senator Thaler's effort to 
pass legislation providing special protection to children who might be 
used as research subjects.  (6 March 1967, p. 84).  Newsweek reported 
on the concerns of Dr. Wolf Wolfensberger of the Nebraska Psychiatric 
Institute that so-called "volunteer: guinea pigs--prisoners, armed 
forces personnel, medical students--were actually not fully free to 
decide whether or not to participate in an experiment.  Even if 
prisons were told that participation in an experiment would not affect 
their chances of parole, prisoners believed it would and volunteered 
on that basis, in Wolfensberger's view.  (6 March 1967, p. 84).  In 
"Medical Experiments On Humans,' (New Republic 3 December 1966, 
pp. 10-12) this issue was raised by Michael Alderman, M.D., who 
pointed to the ambiguity in regulations requiring voluntary and 
informed consent.  "Can prisoners, students or soldiers, all popular 
research subjects, ever be entirely free of pressure to consent?"  
Whether college  students, prisoners, and soldiers could be considered 
"free" to volunteer was also raised by "Doctors Must Experiment on 
Humans, But What Are the Patient's Rights," (New York Times Magazine, 
2 July 1967, p. 12), and by M.H. Pappworth, M.D., in Human Guinea Pigs: 
Experimentation on Man (Beacon Press, 1968), which included among

				6

vulnerable "volunteer" groups the sick and the terminally ill.  
Pappworth's book also provided extensive documentation of experiments 
conducted without fully informed consent of the patients; it received 
a favorable review in the NY Times Book Review (14 July 1968, p. 30)
and the Nation (27 January 1969, p. 117).  In November of 1969, Senior
Scholastic, a periodical distributed to secondary school students and 
designed to stimulate discussion and debate, focussed on the issued of 
experimentation on prisoners.

IV.RENEWED DEBATE, 1972-1981

Beginning in 1973, a number of instances of experimentation on humans 
without their consent came to light, renewing discussions of the ethics 
of human experimentation, particularly regarding the use of prisoners, 
and leading to Congressional legislation to protect human subjects.

In March 1972, "A Clockwork Orange in a California Prison," Science 
News (11 March 1972, p. 174) reported on experimental brain surgery 
and psychosurgery on inmates in California's Vacaville prison.  The 
experiments at Vacaville received attention not only from the press 
but from the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.  
Further attention was brought to experiments using prison "volunteers" 
in January 1973, by Jessica Mitford's "Experiments Behind Bars: Doctors, 
Drug Companies and Prisoners," in the Atlantic Monthly.  Mitford's 
article suggested not only that some experiments were dangerous and of 
no benefit to the prisoners, but also that some experiments were of 
questionable scientific value.  In March 1973, "Cons as Guinea Pigs," 
Time reported that the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary 
had ended the use of prisoners in experiments, explaining that the 
poverty of prisoners and the fact of their incarceration meant that 
they could not be considered truly "free agents" when asked to 
volunteer.  (Time, 19 March 1973, p. 45).  By late 1973, the Christian 
Century was not only objecting experimental psychosurgery on prison 
inmates, but was also charging that the aim of these experiments was 
to subdue political dissidents.

The Tuskegee syphilis study, an experimental program begun in 1932 by 
the USPHS in which treatment was denied to about 400 impoverished 
African-American men who had syphilis, also came to light in 1972, 
and received particular attention from Ebony and Christian Century.

Following these revelations, The Institute of Society, Ethics, and the 
Life Sciences, in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, issued an update on 
the work of Dr. H.K. Beecher, listing 43 questionable experiments 
involving the use of human subjects since H.K. Beecher's 1966 paper.  
Among the experiments listed by the Institute and reported on in 
Science News were those involving the use of LSD and those involving 
the use of children, prisoners, and the mentally imcompetent without 
informed consent.  ("Medical Ethics and Human Subjects," Science News, 
14 July 1973,  p. 20)

In February and March 1973, the Senate Subcommittee on Health began 
holding hearings on human experimentation, and in 1974, Congress passed 
the Protection of Human Subjects Act.


				7

This did not receive as much attention from the press as did the 
revelations in 1975 of the experimental use of LSD on unknowing 
subjects.  Experiments involving LSD, and the alleged suicide of one 
of the subjects involved, received coverage in Newsweek, Science News, 
Time, the Nation, US News and the New Republic.  In "Science 
Atrocities," the New Republic editorialized that the LSD experiments" 
are no isolated series of events," and that experimentation on humans 
without informed consent was common.  The New Republic viewed this 
as a knowing violation of ethical and scientific standards; "to the 
extent that we know these standards, it is clear we do not adhere to 
them."  (New Republic, 13 September 1975, p. 5.)

The issue of the use of human "guinea pigs" appeared intermittently in 
the press for the remainder of the decade, with some articles focussed 
on the rights of prisoners, others on new revelations regarding human 
experimentation, an one editorial in Christian Century proposing 
compensation for the victims of scientific and medical experiments.  
("Compensating Victims of Medical Research," 29 November 1978, p. 1149.)

The discussion of human experimentation was broadened from a focus 
informed consent and the violation of individual rights by a series 
of front-page articles titled "The War on Cancer: First, Do No Harm," 
in the Washington Post which drew attention to the ethical issues 
raised by the NIH-sponsored clinical trials for cancer patients.  
("Experimental Drugs: Death in the Search for Cure," 12 October 1981; 
"Risk, Rivalry and Research--and Error," 19 October 2981; "The World of 
Shattered Hopes," 20 October 1981; and "Spark of Hope vs. Ordeal of 
Pain," 21 October 1981.)  In "The Ethics of Human Experimentation," 
(New Republic, 9 December 1981, p. 16), Charles Krauthammer reviewed 
the history of human experimentation, discussed the Nuremberg Code, 
and then argued that experimental treatments for cancer patients raised 
existential but no ethical questions.

				  8