Overview (of Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Meeting, July 5-6 1994)

Page 1

i* TO: Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments FROM: Advisory Committee Staff THE BIG PICTURE This briefing book continues our efforts at providing "Big Picture" mapping which should produce the context for both identifjmg and interpreting individual experiments. As we have discussed, we are simultaneously seeking to map out several dimensions: (1) institutional relationsf-ips, e.g., experiment fbnders, users, investigators; (2) ethics policies, and their evolution; (3) contemporaneous scientific norms; and (4)categories of experiments. In the May briefing book, we made a good start on the ethics timeline, aided by documentation of Department of Defense and Atomic Energy Commission ethics policies dating to fie 1940s and 1950s. In the June briefing book, we 2rovided examples of the documentation that we hope to rely on for institutional mapping (e.g., the minutes of the Atomic Energy Commission biology and medicine committees) and Manhattan Project era documentation that addition, we plotted out interesting additions to the ethics timeline. . begins to give a flavor for contemporaneous scientific understanding of radioactive hazards. In This briefing book provides additional material on institutional relationships (see, e.g., the 4' documents on the Joint Panel on Medical Aspects of Atomic Warfare under Tab 0-1) and ethical policies (e.g., the documentation of the debate underlying the Department of Defense's 1953 recognition of the Nuremberg Code under Tab E-2.) MAPPING THE EXPERIMENTS As we begin to get a sense of the relevant institutions and formal ethics policies, we have begun to look at experimental mapping. The question that emerges is how we manage the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of experiments that have been identified, in order to determine which ones should and can be studied in greater depth to know as much as practicable about the At the June meeting, the Committee asked the staff to perform a pilot project based on the experiments covered in the Markey report. Under the direction of the Cold War Data Collection Subcommittee and the Scope and Priorities Subcommittee, a form was developed for summarizing available, pertinent information about individual experiments. Tab N shows the results of our attempt to employ this form on the Markey experiments.

Page 2

In tandem with the development of the form and initial database, we have been thinking d about ways to group experiments so that they can be efficiently studied and reported. The obstacles are, at least, twofold. First, we need more than one dimension to satisfactorily group all experiments. For example, we are interested both in the scientific and medical purposes of an experiment and any government purpose. Thus, a grouping on the former dimension would still require a grouping on the latter. Second, while it may be easy to agree on the dimensions that are highest priority, these dimensions may be least susceptible to easy inquiry. For example, while it may be desirable to place a high priority on military-purpose experiments, the experiment lists we have been provided typically do not make such purposes readily apparent; similarly, as another example, they often do not identi@the subject population, much less the procedures (if any) used to obtain consent. The May briefing book sampled the documentation available on three experiments (Green Run, Cincinnati, and the plutonium injections). Here we extend that exercise to consider the documentation available on groups of experiments. We have initially identified some possible categories, which are discussed in Tab 0: government purpose, total body irradiation, intentional releases and radiological warfare. We look forward to your discussion of these materials.