There is no real evidence, but this is one of the documents that continues to fuel the questions. In this instance, the word "agent" means weapon. "refractory" means leading to disintegration.
yrs
db
Editor's Note:
The transcript that follows is taken from the June 9, 1969 Senate testimony
of Dr. Donald MacArthur, a high-level Defense Department biological research administrator. For those who hold the theory that AIDS is the result of a U.S. biological weapons program--this testimony is a smoking gun, or smoking petri dish as the case may be. We present it without further comment. Judge for yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 which 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 undertaken 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.
No real evidence.
B
Baerwald
(view)
There is no real evidence, but this is one of the documents that continues to fuel the questions. In this instance, the word "agent" means weapon. "refractory" means leading to disintegration.
yrs
db
Editor's Note:
The transcript that follows is taken from the June 9, 1969 Senate testimony
of Dr. Donald MacArthur, a high-level Defense Department biological research administrator. For those who hold the theory that AIDS is the result of a U.S. biological weapons program--this testimony is a smoking gun, or smoking petri dish as the case may be. We present it without further comment. Judge for yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 which 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 undertaken 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.
yrs
db
Editor's Note:
The transcript that follows is taken from the June 9, 1969 Senate testimony
of Dr. Donald MacArthur, a high-level Defense Department biological research administrator. For those who hold the theory that AIDS is the result of a U.S. biological weapons program--this testimony is a smoking gun, or smoking petri dish as the case may be. We present it without further comment. Judge for yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 which 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 undertaken 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.
