|
My name is Leonard A. Cole, and I teach science and
public policy at Rutgers University in Newark. My research interests
include biological and chemical warfare policies, and I have written
in particular about testing done in the U.S Army's biological defense
program.
I appreciate your invitation, Senator Rockefeller, to testify about
experiments involving simulated biological and chemical warfare
agents. These agents, which the army calls simulants, are intended to
mimic more lethal bacteria and chemicals that might be used in actual
warfare.
As described in my book, Clouds of Secrecy, the army began a program
in 1949 to assess the nation's vulnerability to attack with biological
weapons. During the next 20 years, the army released simulant agents
over hundreds of populated areas around the country. Targets included
portions of Hawaii and Alaska, San Francisco, St. Louis, Minneapolis,
New York City, Washington, D.C., Key West, and many other cities. The
purpose was to see how the bacteria spread and survived as people went
about their normal activities.
Evidence suggested that the tests may have been causing illness to
exposed citizens. Nevertheless, as army spokesmen subsequently
testified, the health of the millions of people exposed was never
monitored because the army assumed that the bacteria and chemicals
were harmless.
Vulnerability testing continues at Dugway Proving Ground, 70 miles
from Salt Lake City. Several smaller communities are closer to the
base, and Dugway itself is home to hundreds of civilians and military
personnel and their families. The stated purpose of the tests is to
evaluate biological detector systems and protective gear.
Since tests involve spraying simulants outdoors, it is important to
understand how much risk they pose to humans who are exposed. Official
statements have not always been dear on this matter. A July 1993 news
release by the Dugway Public Affairs Office indicates that "no
specific safety controls or protection are required for testing with
simulants." The statement implies, erroneously, that the simulants are
harmless.
In fact, during 45 years of open air testing, from time to time the
army has stopped using certain simulants for reasons of safety. In
each instance the army belatedly recognized they could be causing
disease and death, although such information had long been available
in the medical literature. This was the case in the 1950s when it
ceased using the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus as a simulant. The
fungus had long been known to cause aspergillosis, a disease that can
be fatal. Similarly, in the 1960s the army stopped using zinc cadmium
sulfide, a chemical that had been known for years to cause cancer.
In the 1970s, the bacterium Serratia marcescens, a source of
infections that can lead to death, was taken out of service as a
simulant. And in the 1980s, dimethyl methylphosphonate, a chemical
known as DPP, was removed from use as a simulant because of its
carcinogenic and other toxic potential. I understand that one of
today's witnesses, Earl Davenport, was exposed to DMMP at Dugway in
1984 and may still be suffering health problems as a result.
Indeed, simulants now used at Dugway continue to pose risks. The
chemical ethylene oxide, which is present in some of the mixtures used
in outdoor spraying, is a known carcinogen. The bacterium Bacillus
subtilis, while not generally seen as dangerous, is cited in medical
textbooks as able to cause serious infections. In truth any
microorganism that seems harmless under some circumstances may cause
illness under others.
Exposure to high concentrations of any microorganism can be critically
dangerous to people in weakened conditions. The elderly, the very
young, people with AIDS and others who have weakened immune systems
are more susceptible to life threatening infections. Nevertheless, the
army has not monitored the health of citizens who may have been
exposed during its tests while maintaining that its bacterial agents
cause no harm.
In addition to people who are unwittingly exposed to the army's
bacteria and chemicals, human research subjects may not be receiving
appropriate information. A test at Dugway in November 1993, for
example, raises important questions in this regard. The test was
intended to assess the ability of chemical agents to penetrate
protective clothing.
Test subjects wore special outer garments and were then sprayed with
chemicals in simulated battle conditions. An army Environmental
Assessment before the test indicated that some of the chemicals could
be toxic. Yet the consent form that the subjects signed in advance of
the test said nothing about any of the chemicals.
Subsequently, two of the test subjects said they were asked to sign
another consent form sometime after the test had been completed. The
second form described the chemicals. But having the subjects sign a
consent form after an experiment, rather than before, makes little
ethical sense. The procedure renders meaningless the notion of
informed consent.
Finally, several physicians at the University of Utah Medical School
in Salt Lake City continue to express concern about the tests at
Dugway. They do not feel they have information that would enable them
optimally to handle infections and complications that might be caused
by the tests. Dugway officials have thus far not satisfied their
concerns either about field tests involving simulants or indoor tests
with highly pathogenic agents.
These are a few of the disconcerting issues associated with testing at
Dugway. If such tests must continue, several policy suggestions seem
appropriate:
|
