© 2006/2007
J.S. Ketchum
J.S. Ketchum
Documenting a Lost Decade of Clinical Research
Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten
Review by Harlan Linsley
I have received my copy of your book. Thank you for the personal inscription. I read the book over the weekend. It is very informative and also entertaining. I could not put it down. It brought back many pleasant (and no unpleasant) memories. Much of the content was new to me. You describe people and discuss events of which I had no knowledge. I was at Edgewood from October 1964 until early August 1966. Most of the contents cover events outside that time period.
Your book is a significant (not just statistically significant) and a definitive contribution to the scientific knowledge of incapacitating agents and to the historical record of chemical warfare research. You have written a book that no other author, lacking your knowledge and abilities, could have written. There is only one criticism that I would offer. I wish that you had included an alphabetical list of references.
When I read the Prologue: “Hot Night in Halifa,” my immediate thought was, why is such a scenario not possible, and even probable? Unfortunately, political considerations and the current illogical attitudes toward chemical weapons are likely to prevent the development of any such forms of more humane warfare. We share similar views about chemical agents and particularly about incapacitating agents. Chemical agents should not be labeled as weapons of mass destruction, that label should be reserved for nuclear weapons. Research and development of incapacitating agents should be supported and continued.
In my opinion, no research, using human subjects from the Volunteer Program, conducted at Edgewood Arsenal was ever unethical, immoral, or without proper informed consent. The responsible authorities at Edgewood, including yourself, would not have allowed it. Persons who make allegations to the contrary are uninformed, ignorant, biased, or perhaps all of these. Activities of the CIA are in their own unique category. I have always suspected that the CIA engaged in some covert “experiments” that may have been unethical and improper if not illegal, but I never knew anything specific. Chapter 21 is very informative. Some of their activities were truly appalling. Changed attitudes toward human research have made all kinds of human research unnecessarily difficult to conduct. At most universities, including the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, approval of detailed research plans is required from the Human Subjects Research Committee, even when there are no conceivable risks of any harm or embarrassment to the subjects. Also, it is no longer politically correct to refer to the subjects; they are now called the participants.
I was not at all upset by your comments concerning some psychologists. Presumably, you were referring primarily to page 185. The events you discuss there would have occurred in the new Clinical Research Building several years after I left Edgewood. While I was there, we were still in the old “barracks” buildings. The new building was constructed after I had left.
One psychologist of those described, that I would have known, must have been LTC George Crampton. He arrived at Edgewood in spring 1966 to be Chief of the Psychology Branch in the Experimental Medicine Division.
At that time, I was assigned to your Psychopharmacology Branch, where I remained until I left Edgewood. I remember that LTC Crampton could be very competitive. The “particularly irritating” psychologist you describe, who teamed with a new psychiatrist, is not someone I would have known. From your discussion of their activities, it would appear that they might have violated some professional ethical standards.
Your book is a significant (not just statistically significant) and a definitive contribution to the scientific knowledge of incapacitating agents and to the historical record of chemical warfare research. You have written a book that no other author, lacking your knowledge and abilities, could have written. There is only one criticism that I would offer. I wish that you had included an alphabetical list of references.
When I read the Prologue: “Hot Night in Halifa,” my immediate thought was, why is such a scenario not possible, and even probable? Unfortunately, political considerations and the current illogical attitudes toward chemical weapons are likely to prevent the development of any such forms of more humane warfare. We share similar views about chemical agents and particularly about incapacitating agents. Chemical agents should not be labeled as weapons of mass destruction, that label should be reserved for nuclear weapons. Research and development of incapacitating agents should be supported and continued.
In my opinion, no research, using human subjects from the Volunteer Program, conducted at Edgewood Arsenal was ever unethical, immoral, or without proper informed consent. The responsible authorities at Edgewood, including yourself, would not have allowed it. Persons who make allegations to the contrary are uninformed, ignorant, biased, or perhaps all of these. Activities of the CIA are in their own unique category. I have always suspected that the CIA engaged in some covert “experiments” that may have been unethical and improper if not illegal, but I never knew anything specific. Chapter 21 is very informative. Some of their activities were truly appalling. Changed attitudes toward human research have made all kinds of human research unnecessarily difficult to conduct. At most universities, including the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, approval of detailed research plans is required from the Human Subjects Research Committee, even when there are no conceivable risks of any harm or embarrassment to the subjects. Also, it is no longer politically correct to refer to the subjects; they are now called the participants.
I was not at all upset by your comments concerning some psychologists. Presumably, you were referring primarily to page 185. The events you discuss there would have occurred in the new Clinical Research Building several years after I left Edgewood. While I was there, we were still in the old “barracks” buildings. The new building was constructed after I had left.
One psychologist of those described, that I would have known, must have been LTC George Crampton. He arrived at Edgewood in spring 1966 to be Chief of the Psychology Branch in the Experimental Medicine Division.
At that time, I was assigned to your Psychopharmacology Branch, where I remained until I left Edgewood. I remember that LTC Crampton could be very competitive. The “particularly irritating” psychologist you describe, who teamed with a new psychiatrist, is not someone I would have known. From your discussion of their activities, it would appear that they might have violated some professional ethical standards.