Attachment 1
                                 
        Advisory Committee Staff Document Summary entitled
  "Documentation of Manhattan District Biodistribution Program:

   Documentation of Manhattan District Biodistribution Program1

*.1  10/23/45 - 7/21/47 series of correspondence between Drs.
Wright Langham (Los Alamos) and Samuel Bassett (Rochester
Metabolism Ward) regarding the eleven plutonium injection subjects
at Rochester, and the sample analysis conducted by Langham at Los
Alamos.  The series includes a 3/13/46 letter from Dr. Langham to
Dr. Bassett regarding the first terminal patient in the Hp series,
Hp 11:  "Your letter of February 27 regarding Hp 11 was startling,
to say the least...In case you should decide to do another terminal
case, I suggest you use 50 micrograms instead of 5.  This would
permit the analysis of much smaller samples and would make my work
considerably easier.  I have just received word that Chicago is
performing two terminal experiments using 95 micrograms each.  I
feel reasonably certain there would be no harm in using larger
amounts of material if you are sure the case is a terminal one."

2.   6/23/50 - 12/1/50 series of Langham, Bassett, and Howland
correspondence regarding patient followup, including an 10/2/50
letter from Dr. Langham to Dr. Joe Howland, Chief of University of
Rochester's Division of Medical Services:  "I am very glad to hear
that you will manage to get follow-ups on the two subjects.  The x-
rays seem to be the all-important thing, but please get them in a
completely routine manner.  Do not make the examination look
unusual in any way."

3.   7/7/44 letter from Friedell to Mulliken (Project Information
Department) re responsibility of Dr. Stone for the distribution of
Rochester health and protection reports:  "Discretion as to whom
these reports should be forwarded would be retained by the health
director of Metallurgical Laboratory."

4.   8/4/44 memo from Stone to Mulliken re limited distribution of
Rochester reports: "...the Rochester reports are much more limited
in their circulation than the Chicago reports and we will not be
permitted to pass out the information to anything like the group
that are apparently now getting the CH reports in Chicago."

5.   8/29/44 memo from Hempelmann to Oppenheimer summarizing
biological research program decided upon in a meeting between
Stafford Warren, Oppenheimer, Hempelmann, and Kennedy, including
tracer experiments in humans to determine plutonium excretion rate: 
"When satisfactory analytical methods have been developed in the
laboratory the problem of carrying out further metabolic studies
will be turned over to another medical group, presumably the
Rochester group."

____________________

     1 All documents are listed in chronological order except for
the first two series of correspondence between Los Alamos and
University of Rochester, which span a five-year period.

                                 1

6.   12/1/44 letter from Stafford Warren to Dowdy re obtaining
metabolic data on thorium:  "It is the opinion of this section that
a limited number of careful human experiments should be made with
this material."

7.   12/1/44 letter from Ferry (Captain, Medical Corps) to Voegtlin
(toxicologist at Rochester) re thorium data, requesting the
submission of "a memo to this office recommending a change in the
tolerance levels....Since a relaxation in the tolerance levels
would facilitate plant operations, it is recommended that this data
be accumulated with the least possible delay."

8.   3/13/45 letter from Bale to Friedell re polonium tolerance
calculations which "may be useful to you in arriving at a possible
tolerance or permissible dose figures for postum in plant personnel
urine and in plant air."

9.   4/11/45 letter from Friedell to Hempelmann re "protocol of the
clinical experiment....I think that we will access to considerable
clinical material here, and we hope to do a number of subjects."

10.  4/17/45 memo from Stafford Warren to Nichols re Purpose and
Limitations of the Biological and Health Physics Research Program: 
"For consideration of the medical and legal aspects, including
necessary biological research, it should be pointed out, however,
that investigations should be conducted only insofar as they will
augment that data and information available from operating
personnel and from the operating facilities and should be limited
to those features which are deemed most likely to embarrass the
government."

11.  5/21/45 letter from Langham to Friedell re future of plutonium
injection project, further human studies, and the establishment of
a working tolerance for plutonium of one microgram.

12.  5/31/45 documentation of Warren's trip to clear Dr. McCann at
Rochester for handling and knowledge of classified materials in
connection with human volunteer experiments.

13.  6/2/45 memo from Friedell to District Engineer, New Mexico re
future experiments with plutonium (response to Langham's 5/21/45
letter) and two future injections into humans.

14.  6/5/45 memo from Dowdy to Bale re expanded metabolism program
at Rochester, initiated by Stafford Warren, increasing number of
subjects for studies using plutonium, polonium, Cpd 22 (probably
uranium), thorium, lead, and radium.

15.  7/26/45 memo re determination of policy on cases of exposure
to occupational disease, which discusses an employee with
nephritis, probably due to occupational exposure to thorium and 


                                 2

other materials, who was "unaware of her condition which now shows
up on routine physical check and urinalysis."

16.  8/17/45 response from Stone to Warren's 4/17/45 memo, stating
his opinion that research should not be done "to strengthen the
government interest's from the medico-legal point of view. 
Research should be done to establish the facts...If the health and
welfare of the workers are the main objects, the medico-legal
aspect is automatically taken care of."

17.  "Detailed Plan of Product Part of Rochester Experiment,"
Hempelmann and Langham, providing the ten subjects from the
Rochester area for the plutonium studies, and fifty (five groups of
ten) for the overall long-lived radioisotope metabolism program.

*18. "Revised Plan of 'Product' Part of Rochester Experiment," 
Langham, based on a September meeting with Rochester staff and
Captain Bryan representing Colonel Warren's office.  On selection
of subjects:  "The selection of subjects is entirely up to the
Rochester group.  At the meeting it seemed to be more or less
agreed that the subject might be chronic arthritics or carcinoma
patients without primary involvement of bone, liver, blood, or
kidneys.

19.  Contributions of the Division of Special Problems to the
Manhattan Project," Bale, including polonium metabolism in human
subjects and human tracer studies with plutonium and radium.

20.  10/6/45, "Tolerance and Permissible Concentration of Polonium
in the Water and Air," Morgan, citing Bale and Fink's polonium work
at Rochester.

21.  10/24/45, table of contents of "A Study of the Excretion and
Distribution of Plutonium in a Human Subject," Nickson and Russell
(Argonne), including "Possible value in using a cancer patient."

22.  12/5/45 letter from Fink to Friedell, forwarding summary of
Rochester work with polonium:  "We trust it may be of use in
connection with the forthcoming conference on polonium tolerance."

23.  5/13/46 record of plutonium ingestion experiment using six
subjects.  Unknown source (possibly Chicago).

24.  5/31/46 report "A Comparison of the Metabolism of Plutonium
(Pu 238) in Man and the Rat," Scott, Hamilton, et al., describing
injection and tissue collection from one human subject, and
comparison to rat data.


                                 3

25.  9/13/46 letter from Dowdy to District Engineer, Oak Ridge re
possible declassification of certain compounds:  "We should like to
raise again the question of declassifying our polonium studies
inasmuch as the original decision on the subject may have been due
to a misapprehension as to the nature of the work....The work has
been carried out with less than two millicuries of polonium, an
amount obtainable with relative ease during the war, and
accordingly it would appear that the requirements of the
Responsible Reviewer's Declassification Guide could be met in
reporting these studies."

26.  9/24/46 letter from Keller (Deputy Declassification Officer)
to Dowdy, recommending that the polonium studies be submitted to
Friedell for declassification.

27.  10/22/46 letter from Dowdy to the Area Engineer, Rochester re
clearance for Bassett to discuss Rochester uranium studies at a
departmental seminar:  "He will not mention any other substances
which he has similarly used on humans and which have not as yet
been cleared."

*28. 10/24/46 Area Engineer Office memo re Dowdy's 10/22
request:"... it should be borne in mind that all the work performed
by Dr. Bassett was performed at the request of the Manhattan
District Medical Section.  This seminar is to be conducted for
persons who are all Doctors of Medicine and it is doubtful if this
information would get out to any of the families of the patients or
the patients on whom the experiments were performed....Other
substances besides uranium which Dr. Bassett used are still on the
classified list and this information will not be divulged at the
seminar.
     "At the time these experiments were started, this office was
given strict orders that the information should not be released to
any but authorized persons.  Almost all the correspondence and
result of experiments were exchanged between Dr. Wright Langham at
Santa Fe and Dr. Bassett of the University of Rochester.

29.  12/24/46 memo from Brundage to Cooney (MED Medical Director)
re progress report from the Berkeley area:  "...I am attaching a
letter for the signature of Colonel Nichols advising that work
described in this paragraph cannot be made a part of the Manhattan
Engineer District program.  This letter is intended to be director
to the Area Engineer of the Berkeley Area.
     "The work in question in the progress report is the
intravenous administration of certain Manhattan District products
to human subjects."


                                 4

30.  12/24/46 letter (attached to 12/24 memo) from Nichols re
Berkeley work:  "After discussion with Colonel James P. Cooney,
Medical Director, Manhattan Project, it is felt that such work does
not come under the scope of the Manhattan District Program and
should not be made a part of its research plan.
     "It is therefore deemed advisable by this office not only to
recommend against work on human subjects but also to deny authority
for such work under the terms of the Manhattan contract.  You will
take immediate action to stop this work under this contract, and to
report to this office upon compliance."

31.  2/13/47 memo from Armstrong to Marsden re Report of the 23-24
January 1947 of the Interim Medical Committee, abstracting parts of
the recommended programs for 1947-48 which involve use of human
subjects at University of Rochester, University of California, and
Los Alamos, and citing them as "applicable to the present
discussion of medical research policies."

32.  2/18/47 letter from Dowdy to Friedell re inclusion of the data
from the Oak Ridge plutonium subject in the plutonium report.

*33. 2/18/47 letter from Dowdy to Bradbury (Los Alamos) re the
distribution of the plutonium report (which would remain
classified):  "There is one limitation which I should like to
impose on the report which will emanate from the Los Alamos
Laboratory and that is that it not be declassified for general
distribution outside the Atomic Energy Commission without our
foreknowledge.  I make this suggestion because of possible
unfavorable public relations and in an attempt to protect Dr.
Bassett from any possible legal entanglements."

34.  3/7/47 memo from Burling (AEC Legal Division) to Huddleson
(Deputy General Counsel) re clinical (preceding Wilson letter to
Warren re consent and therapeutic purpose), recording a conference
between Huddleson, Burling, Warren, and Brundage:  "The Legal
Division...expressed the view that it was most important that it 
be susceptible of proof that any individual patient, prior to
treatment, was in an understanding state of mind and that the
nature of the treatment and possible risk involved be explained
very clearly and that the patient express his willingness to
receive the treatment.  On Dr. Warren's recommendations, you
authorized omission to obtain written release but urged that in
every case at least two doctors certify in writing to the patient's
state of mind to the explanation furnished him and to his
acceptance of the treatment."

35.  University of Rochester "Proposed Research Program and Budget,
July 1, 1947 - July 1, 1948, including human tracer studies using
polonium, plutonium, uranium, thorium, radiolead, and radium. (p.
25)



                                 5

36.  3/19/47 memo from Brundage to Armstrong, approving the
Rochester "Proposed Research and Program and Budget,"  and pointing
out parts implying possible human work.

37.  4/30/47 letter from Wilson to Warren reiterating the policy on
consent recorded in the 3/7/47 Legal Division memo, and further
stating that "treatment (which may involve clinical testing) will
be administered to a patient only when there is expectation that it
may have therapeutic effect."

38.  5/7/47 letter from Lilienthal to Gregg proposing a Medical
Board of Review to evaluate the report and recommendations of the
Manhattan district Medical Advisory Committee.

39.  6/20/47 report of the Medical Board of Review:  "The need for
medical and biological research on the various effects of
radioactive substances and atomic fission is both urgent and
extensive." (p.3)
     "...Those activities involving classified materials or
operations must be supported by and carried out within Atomic
Energy Commission installations.  It will also be desirable to
encourage and, where necessary, support with funds correlative
studies at universities, contributing to knowledge on the
biological and medical effects of radiation but not involving the
use of classified materials or information." (p.5)

40.  10/14/47 letter from Lilienthal to Brereton (Chairman,
Military Liaison Committee) and attached Oak Ridge staff study on
the feasibility of radiological warfare (Aebersold, Morgan et al.)
analyzing polonium's biological effectiveness as a potential
radiological warfare agent (using human kidney tolerance of
polonium).

41.  12/2/47 memo from Bassett to Bale re proposal of work for
Metabolism Section:  "In the autumn of 1945 the Section on Human
Metabolism was activated under your direction at the request of the
Manhattan Engineer District to carry out certain tracer studies
with long-lived isotopes.  As you know, this program was
discontinued in the spring of 1947 under a directive from the
Atomic Energy Commission although we were instructed to keep the
personnel of the section intact."  Bassett goes on to propose a new
program for the section involving investigation of radiation injury
treatments.

42.  12/3/47 memo from Bale to Dowdy re 12/2 memo from Bassett: 
"The general work outlined has my approval, and I suggest that it
be accepted as the project research program of the Metabolism
Section until our position with regard to tracer studies with heavy
elements is clarified."




                                 6

43.  1/6/48 memo from Blair to Bale re Human Metabolism Program: 
"By phone on January 2nd, Dr. Wolf stated that he had received a
decision from Dr. Shields Warren that the human metabolism work
under Dr. Bassett was to be discontinued.
     Consequently, unless some new program is presented, it will no
longer be necessary to retain Dr. Bassett's nursing personnel.
     Dr. Wolf would also like Dr. Bassett to write a complete
history of the work done to date to be kept on file."

44.  2/29/48 "The Experimental Use of Radioactive Materials in
Human Subjects at AEC Establishments" (handwritten date), Committee
on Isotope Distribution (at the request of Dr. Shields Warren) re
use of radioactive materials in normal human subjects and patients,
consent, necessity of preliminary animal studies, and radiation
dose limits:  "Radioactive materials should be used in experiments
involving human subjects when information obtained will have
diagnostic value, therapeutic significance, or will contribute to
knowledge on radiation protection."

45.  5/11/48 letter from Bassett to Langham re Bassett's plans to
move away from Rochester and join the "California Group," and
regarding classification of the final joint Rochester-Los Alamos
plutonium write-up.

46.  6/25/48 report "The Excretion of Haxavalent Uranium Following
Intravenous Administration II:  Studies of Human Subjects"
(declassified 8/23/56), Bassett et al., reporting metabolism
studies of enriched uranium in six non-terminal patients:  "The
experimental subjects were chosen from a large group of hospital
patients.  Criteria of importance in making the selection were
reasonably good kidney function with urine free from protein and
with a normal sediment on clinical examination." (p.8)  Patient
descriptions and dosage levels are included; there is no discussion
of consent or of informing patients of the nature of the
injections.

47.  1/4/49 letter from Blair to Shields Warren, with three
accompanying memos from Bale, Hodge, and Howland, in response to
Warren's request for information regarding Rochester's work with
uranium, polonium, and the clinical metabolism ward.

48.  "A Report of the Past, Present, and Future Research Activities
for Project 48-A-1,"  Hamilton, outlining the Berkeley project on
"metabolism of the radio-elements produced by nuclear fission and
a number of the fissionable elements, notably plutonium." (p. 1)

*49. "Excretion of Plutonium Administered Intravenously to Man. 
Rate of Excretion in Urine and Feces with Two Observations of
Distribution in Tissues," partial draft version of the 1950 report: 

                                 7


"The individuals chosen as subjects for the experiment were a
miscellaneous group of male and female hospital patients for the
most part with well established diagnoses.  Preference was given to
those who might reasonably gain from continued residence in the
hospital for a month or more...The necessity of studying urinary
and fecal rates of excretion of Pu automatically excluded cases of
advanced renal disease or disturbance in the function of the
gastrointestinal tract.  Patients with malignant disease were also
omitted from the group on the grounds that their metabolism might
be affected in an unknown manner."  (p.2)  Patient descriptions and
dosage levels are included:  there is no discussion of consent or
of informing patients of the nature of the injections.

50.  1950 published report "Biological Studies with Polonium,
Radium, and Plutonium," Fink outlining polonium metabolism studies
under five terminal cancer patients as subjects:  "It seemed
desirable to have some data on the human excretion of polonium
after the administration of known doses in order to obtain a
correlation with the more extensive data on rats.  Inasmuch as it
was not possible to determine accurately the amount of polonium
already present in laboratory personnel or to rule out the
possibility of subsequent accidental exposure of persons working
with polonium, such personnel were not suitable subjects for
excretion studies of this type.  Accordingly, the general problem
was outlined to a number of hospital patients with no previous or
probably future contact with polonium.  Of the group who
volunteered as subjects, four men and one woman were selected for
the excretion studies outlined below." (p. 122)

51.  4/23/69 letter from Patricia Durbin to John R. Howard (U.C.
Medical Center re possible reason for continued classification of
plutonium data:  "Most of the patients injected with Pu were
studied at other hospital around the country, and although most
were elderly and expected to have short life expectancies at the
time of injection, some were misdiagnosed.  Because of this, there
was an understandably great uproar when the civilian AEC took over
from the Manhattan Engineer District.  As a result, the human data
thus obtained was classified as 'Secret,' and so it remained for
some years."

*52. 12/9/71 report of Patricia Durbin on her visit to Rochester
and her discussion with Dr. Waterhouse, a resident at Rochester
during the Pu injections, regarding followup with three surviving
plutonium injection subjects:  "[Dr. Waterhouse] believes that all
three persons would be agreeable to providing excretion samples and
perhaps blood samples, but they are all quite old--in their middle
or late 70's and cannot travel far.  More important, they do not
know that they received any radioactive material."


                                 8


*53. 12/10/71 report of Patricia Durbin on a telephone conversation
with Dr. Langham:  "Classification (prolonged) and the passage of
many years before even classified publication of the findings led
to his eventual responsibility for analysis and publication of the
results.  He is, I believe, distressed by this and other aspects of
the study itself--particularly the fact that the injected people in
the HP series were unaware that they were the subjects of an
experiment."

54.  IG plutonium investigation document, recording comments on a
meeting with Dr. Hempelmann on 4/17/74: "...Dr. Hempelmann thinks
that Dr. Bassett prepared the solutions to be injected, prepared
the syringes and handed these to a physician for injection of the
patient.  He is quite positive that the latter physician did not
know of the contents of the syringe.  In addition a deliberate
decision was made not to inform the patient of the nature of the
product that was injected."

55.  IG plutonium investigation document, recording comments on a
meeting with Dr. Howland on 4/24/74 regarding the Oak Ridge
injection:  "Dr. Howland emphatically stated that no consent was
obtained from the patient at any time and that as far as he knew,
the patient had no relatives in the Oak Ridge area."

*56  "Briefing on Plutonium Project by Dr. James Liverman on April
29, 1974,"  outlining Liverman's plutonium inquiry:  "In
interviews, CHR administration offered the following explanations
for failure to present the plutonium studies to Argonne Human Use
Committee in February 1973: (1) Their opinion that the studies came
under the scope of a protocol approved by that Committee in 1971. 
(2) The nature of the studies was to be suppressed to avoid
embarrassing publicity for the AEC." (p.7)


                                 9