It could be worse. I know, because I remember when it was.
It was mostly my fault... Someone would want to talk to me about some bit of music business at hand and I would say "listen we're wasting our time with this music thing", and hand them some huge stack of papers from FOIA, saying things like "read this, here's absolute proof that there's implicit White House approval for torture
camps in the Phillipines, no no, look at this, here's a photographic record of the murders of one US-funded death squad in ...(name your trouble spot), or something like the appended below. I'd demand that they read it on the spot, and then berate them mercilessly if they werent immediately prepared to abandon their careers and families for a most certainly doomed effort at exposing whatever horror I'd dug up that week.
Soon they stopped returning my calls.
Can you blame them?
Yours,
David
Anyway, here's a mild and short example of the kind of reading that I used to inflict on the bizboys. It is a 1969 request from a military science agency for funding for a bio-weapons experimental program, namely to find and refine a weapon that will target and destroy the human immune system.
Remember that the army I was trying to recruit consisted of
junkie guitarists, alky drummers, poets, accountants, show-biz lawyers, publicists, promo guys, corpoexecs, and others of the subgenus corpo. Not particularly fertile ground when what you really need is a cyanide-toothed suicide bomber.
You can get an original of this from any library that tracks
Congressional Appropriations.
Enjoy.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-First Congress
First Session
Subcommittee on Department of Defense
George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman
Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California
Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio
George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona
Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin
John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York
Frank E. Evans, Colorado
Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY
129
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise.
Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it
would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural
immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a
program would be. The time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to
biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by
scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive
purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in
certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to
the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10
million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many
highly competent scientisis in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported
from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National
Academy of sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However
decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a
controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaked lest it lead to yet
another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a
weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise defensive
measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological
inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.
Being Well Thought Of
B
Baerwald
(view)
It could be worse. I know, because I remember when it was.
It was mostly my fault... Someone would want to talk to me about some bit of music business at hand and I would say "listen we're wasting our time with this music thing", and hand them some huge stack of papers from FOIA, saying things like "read this, here's absolute proof that there's implicit White House approval for torture
camps in the Phillipines, no no, look at this, here's a photographic record of the murders of one US-funded death squad in ...(name your trouble spot), or something like the appended below. I'd demand that they read it on the spot, and then berate them mercilessly if they werent immediately prepared to abandon their careers and families for a most certainly doomed effort at exposing whatever horror I'd dug up that week.
Soon they stopped returning my calls.
Can you blame them?
Yours,
David
Anyway, here's a mild and short example of the kind of reading that I used to inflict on the bizboys. It is a 1969 request from a military science agency for funding for a bio-weapons experimental program, namely to find and refine a weapon that will target and destroy the human immune system.
Remember that the army I was trying to recruit consisted of
junkie guitarists, alky drummers, poets, accountants, show-biz lawyers, publicists, promo guys, corpoexecs, and others of the subgenus corpo. Not particularly fertile ground when what you really need is a cyanide-toothed suicide bomber.
You can get an original of this from any library that tracks
Congressional Appropriations.
Enjoy.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-First Congress
First Session
Subcommittee on Department of Defense
George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman
Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California
Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio
George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona
Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin
John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York
Frank E. Evans, Colorado
Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY
129
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise.
Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it
would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural
immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a
program would be. The time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to
biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by
scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive
purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in
certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to
the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10
million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many
highly competent scientisis in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported
from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National
Academy of sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However
decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a
controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaked lest it lead to yet
another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a
weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise defensive
measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological
inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.
It was mostly my fault... Someone would want to talk to me about some bit of music business at hand and I would say "listen we're wasting our time with this music thing", and hand them some huge stack of papers from FOIA, saying things like "read this, here's absolute proof that there's implicit White House approval for torture
camps in the Phillipines, no no, look at this, here's a photographic record of the murders of one US-funded death squad in ...(name your trouble spot), or something like the appended below. I'd demand that they read it on the spot, and then berate them mercilessly if they werent immediately prepared to abandon their careers and families for a most certainly doomed effort at exposing whatever horror I'd dug up that week.
Soon they stopped returning my calls.
Can you blame them?
Yours,
David
Anyway, here's a mild and short example of the kind of reading that I used to inflict on the bizboys. It is a 1969 request from a military science agency for funding for a bio-weapons experimental program, namely to find and refine a weapon that will target and destroy the human immune system.
Remember that the army I was trying to recruit consisted of
junkie guitarists, alky drummers, poets, accountants, show-biz lawyers, publicists, promo guys, corpoexecs, and others of the subgenus corpo. Not particularly fertile ground when what you really need is a cyanide-toothed suicide bomber.
You can get an original of this from any library that tracks
Congressional Appropriations.
Enjoy.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-First Congress
First Session
Subcommittee on Department of Defense
George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman
Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California
Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio
George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona
Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin
John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York
Frank E. Evans, Colorado
Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY
129
TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise.
Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it
would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural
immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a
program would be. The time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to
biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by
scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive
purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in
certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to
the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10
million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many
highly competent scientisis in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported
from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National
Academy of sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However
decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program., and our reluctance to involve the NAS NRC in such a
controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaked lest it lead to yet
another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a
weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise defensive
measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological
inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.
