Attachment 3 Executive Panel of the NEPA Medical Advisory Committee. Proceedings. Report No. NEPA 1043-1ER-18. May 14, 1949. Chicago, IL. 105 p. NEPA PROJECT OAK RIDGE TENNESSEE July 8, 1949 Dr. A. L. Holland, Jr. Medical Advisor United States Atomic Energy Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee Dear Dr. Holland: Transmitted herewith for your use is (are) the following document(s). One copy of Executive Panel of the NEPA Medical Advisory Committee, NEPA 1043-IER-18 Please sign the enclosed receipt form and return to D. D. Cowen. Very truly yours, FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION D. D. Cowen Director, Technical Information NEPA Division MEDICINE, HEALTH & SAFETY NEPA Advisory Comm. FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION P.O. BOX 415, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 1 Distribution: 1. Dowdy, Andrew H. U.C.L.A. 2. Anderson, Rupert S. U. of South Dakota 3. Calkins, V. P. NEPA Project 4. Cowen, Don NEPA Project 5. Evans, Titus C. U. of Iowa 6. Failla, G. Columbia University 7. Friedell, H. L. University Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio 8. Kalitinsky, Andrew NEPA Project 9. Selle, W. A. U. of Texas 10. Simmons, Gordon NEPA Project 11. Sims, T. A. NEPA Project 12. Stone, Robert S. U. of California Hospital 13. -25. (NEPA) 2 EXECUTIVE PANEL OF THE NEPA MEDICINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE STEVENS HOTEL - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS May 14, 1949 ******* ATTENDANCE Dowdy, Andrew H. (Chairman) U.C.L.A. Anderson, Rupert S. U. of South Dakota Calkins, V. P. NEPA Project Cowen, Don NEPA Project Evans, Titus C. U. of Iowa Failla, G. Columbia University Friedell, H. L. University Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio Kalitinsky, Andrew NEPA Project Selle, W. A. U. of Texas Simmons, Gordon NEPA Project Sims, T. A. NEPA Project Stone, Robert S. U. of California Hospital 3 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN DOWDY: At our meeting in Washington we arrived at three or four definite decisions. One was that the available data was accepted and recommended to NEPA. Two, that it was recommended by the Committee to NEPA that provisions be made for carrying out human experiments. Three, that we continue compiling the available data in similar form that we have already. Four, that we recommend that NEPA go ahead with the Monte Carlo experiments. We also appointed a small committee of Dr. Failla, Dr. Robley Evans, and Dr. Titus Evans, to meet with representatives from NEPA to discuss the problem of N to r ratio. I wonder perhaps if maybe before we start it might not be a good idea to have somebody summarize that conclusion? MR. SIMMONS: Would you like to do that, Dr. Failla? DR. FAILLA: I think Mr. Simmons should do that. MR. SIMMONS: We met in Washington -- Dr. Failla, Dr. Robley Evans, Titus Evans, Kalitinsky, Dr. Selle, and Dr. Echols of our Theoretical Physics Section -- to discuss the method to attach the Monte Carlo analysis problem relating to this N to r ratio. We went through a lot of revolutions and evolutions in there, but I think the principal objectives that we reached in that meeting were: One, we have now sufficient information into our Physics Department from the Committee to enable them to go ahead and set up a problem to run on the machines, or perhaps even by straightforward analytical methods. We agreed on the configuration of the standard man, I believe -- isn't that correct, Dr. Failla? -- that we would homogenize him and leave the bones out. DR. FAILLA: That is right. MR. SIMMONS: That is the correct decision. And Dr. Failla pointed out that one of the important things that would have to be done would be to explore the distribution of ionization in the body. One of the things that was made clear that I think I and the Physics people had not understood too well was that the factor of 10 that we have been talking about is ion track density rather than the exposure or the amount of energy absorbed from the incident radiation. I think that that was clarified considerably by Dr. Failla and the others. DR. FRIEDELL: Is that right? DR. FAILLA: The factor of 10 is based on equal -- DR. FRIEDELL: Energy absorption? 4 DR. FAILLA: If you have equal absorbed energy, then fast neutrons are assumed at the moment to be 10 times more effective biologically due to the ion -- DR. FRIEDELL: Yes. But on the basis of calculation, equal energies absorbed have a biological difference aside from the difference in ion track density. I want to make sure they are not introducing an extra factor of 10. DR. FAILLA: No, they are not introducing an extra factor. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The question in my mind is whether you are multiplying by that 2.5 in your original calculations. MR. SIMMONS: That does not enter into the calculations. DR. FAILLA: They are not involving the 2.5. MR. SIMMONS: In other words, what we were trying to decide is whether the calculations were replacing the 2.5 or the 10 number; and we find out that the 10 number is entirely outside of the scope of the calculations that we proposed to make. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The physical factor is the 2.5, isn't it? MR. SIMMONS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: And the 10 is the biological? Isn't that correct? DR. FRIEDELL: From their point of view, they don't have to consider that. All they are concerned with is the amount of energy absorbed per unit of mass. MR. SIMMONS: And where in the system it is absorbed, to give a distribution of the location and from what -- whether it is gammas or neutrons. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Providing they actually have direct measurement for energy absorption. DR. FAILLA: If they assume certain cross-sections and so on. MR. SIMMONS: We now have a target body which we can set up and use in the calculations. We have an understanding now of the type of information that is needed by the biological people to interpret these calculations in their areas. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Kalitinsky? MR. KALITINSKY: If I understand it, we also reached, I think, an important decision there, that the factor of 10 was in the opinion of that group good enough for our purposes at the present time; and that there was not much need in trying to refine it beyond that. DR. FAILLA: For whole body irradiation. 5 MR. SIMMONS: It was pointed out that the factor of 10 does vary, and Robley Evans drew a rough curve showing -- DR. FRIEDELL: The thing I am trying to get at: Why should these people at all be concerned with the factors? DR. FAILLA: They are. DR. FRIEDELL: They could avoid it, though, if, for example, in making the calculations, they say so much energy absorbed for neutrons. Then we say, well, for neutrons, that introduces a factor of 10. DR. FAILLA: That is right. DR. FRIEDELL: Therefore, I think it would simplify their consideration if all they would do is indicate what the energy absorption is and where, and indicate what it is for. DR. FAILLA: That is what they do. MR. SIMMONS: That is right. I think we have got that in this meeting in Washington. I think the line you have drawn was definitely established there, and we understand exactly what you said and that is the way we are going about it. DR. FAILLA: But they can't make use of the calculations until they introduce a factor of 10. MR. KALITINSKY: We need it to figure back, because what we might -- DR. FRIEDELL: You don't want to go through the calculations all over again. MR. KALITINSKY: That is right; because actually we start out from the man and figure back to the radiation that we can allow. In doing that, we have to divide by 10, not multiply by 10, to get back at the neutron. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That answered my question. They are interested in energy and so they don't have to fool with that 2.5. MR. SIMMONS: The 2.5 comes out in the calculations, and where we were confused was -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is where we were confused. MR. SIMMONS: -- the 10 and the 2.5. The 2.5 is replaced by the calculations, and the 10 is still a biological phenomena that the calculations do not cover. That is clear to us. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then the next thing that was decided at our Washington meeting was that a small group such as we have here convene with the objective of trying to determine just what our objectives are relative to research; and, if we could, make some recommendations along broad lines in research fields which could be recommended to NEPA. 6 Now, I think if we could crystallize in our mind just what our objectives are in this -- and I have written down there here which I would like to discuss -- if we could definitely put down just what the objectives are, then we would be in a better position to know what it takes to implement these objectives. I don't know that these are correct, but it seems to me that the first and main objective is that we have to maintain the physical fitness of the crew until the mission is successfully completed. By that I mean if it is not humanly possible to deliver these missiles by this method, then there is no point in going ahead with it. I might define what I mean by "successfully completed" here. By that I mean they would be able to arrive at their objective and deliver their load of bombs; but does not necessarily mean that they would be able to return. From a military standpoint that might be na inadequate definition. I mean, they might consider that they had to return to their home base. So I brought that up under the second one, that it is highly desirable that the crew be able to return to operational base with plane intact. I don't know whether that -- DR. STONE: Your first one is not good. Your first one is you want them to be able to come back home perfectly physically fit. That is your first objective. DR. CALKINS: Wouldn't they be sick? DR. STONE: No, if they come back sick, they are done for. I mean, if you give them enough to make them sick and the rest of their life something happens to them -- DR. FRIEDELL: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of policy, I sort of object to this kind of objectives from a medical point of view. That is, I don't think it is any of our business as to whether it shall be decided that the crews will be lost on them mission or whether they will not be lost on the mission. It seems to me that our purpose is to give them the data and say, "Under these circumstances, a man can work so long. He will be physically effective for such and such a period of time. He will have so much chance of being killed by the radiation." I really think this is a military decision. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I disagree with you. DR. FAILLA: This is to maintain the physical fitness. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Let me explain this a little further. If you can't maintain the physical fitness and their efficiency, then the job cannot be done. If this is the main objective, can we arrive at a dosage level or range which we feel by experience are further substantiating data that will permit that to be possible? 7 It is their business to determine, as I intimated, whether they have to have their crew come back, whether they have to save every ship. We do not do that. But if you cannot get them to that point, if it is humanly impossible in our opinion, then why should they go ahead with it? DR. FRIEDELL: I think that is right. But that is one point in the whole general panorama which we should paint for them. In other words we ought to say, "So much radiation over such and such a period of time will permit the crew to operate effectively. So much radiation under such and such conditions will permit the crew to operate at 50 percent efficiency. So much radiation will permit them to operate only for such and such a period of time." In other words, if we can give them all the data, someone else can come along and say, "Under these circumstances on this mission, this is so critical we are just going to have to take the chance." I wouldn't like to put that prerogative in this. At least. I wouldn't want to take that -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think you misunderstand. We are getting ready to go on a trip. We do not know what to take unless we know where we are going. DR. STONE: I see what Dr. Friedell is driving at, if I might give it. We do not know how long a mission is going to take, how far they have got to go or anything else. So we cannot answer your first question here at all. It is not up to us because we do not know the stuff. So what Dr. Friedell wants to get at is, you will say, "Under the following conditions, a man could go for twenty-four hours" -- or let's leave that out. "Under the following conditions, a man could go for a definite period of time without any damage. Under the following conditions he could go for twenty-four hours," or whatever time you want to put in there, or "so much exposure within twenty-four hours, with certain damage." The third point would be with an increased amount of damage, rather than whether the plane will come back safe or whether it won't; because we do not know how long they are going to be gone. So we cannot answer this until they tell us, and they cannot tell us until they find out. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: In our previous ones, though, it has been considered to approximately twenty-four hours. DR. STONE: I say let's not mention planes in there necessarily at all, or crew. Say, "A man can work under the following conditions for twenty-four hours and come back." DR. FRIEDELL: "Such and such a level." DR. FAILLA: I think we are not talking about the same thing. This is primary objectives. All right, these are the objectives that NEPA wants. 8 So now we agree to that and say that is all right. That is what we will try to do. Now the question is: How are we going to do it? Then we discuss what you fellows are talking about. DR. STONE: Then let's say, "NEPA's primary objectives," if you want to. MR. KALITINSKY: There is something I would like to mention. I think we definitely would like to have this information. It is very important. But I think there is some doubt about labeling it as "Primary objectives," because there are certain ethics, just like in medicine, in the design of airplanes. We kill enough people with airplanes as it is. But we certainly always design them so that they won't kill anybody, and that decision is already pre-empted. I mean, we cannot alter it. We will design this airplane so that under normal operating conditions it should return the crew without any harm to it at all from radiation. I mean, we have to do that. There is no alternative. Under military conditions, you might want to use this airplane in such a fashion that -- MR. SIMS: Send the same crew ten times. MR. KALITINSKY: Send the same crew ten times, leave them up in the air for two days on end, or something like that. DR. FRIEDELL: There might be a circumstance where you want to send somebody in and clean up something that is "hot." You have got to have it done. That isn't our job. DR. FAILLA: I think this has nothing to do with our problem. Furthermore, we have already given them certain figures of what 25 r will do; what 50 r will do; what may be expected from 100 r; and so on. As far as we could go today with the existing information, we have fulfilled our mission. Now, it seems to me that the purpose of this meeting today is to see what other experiments or plans can be made to provide better information. Isn't that it? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes. All we want to do here is to get the discussion going in order to determine what course to take. I had to try to crystallize in my mind what the various steps were. Now, if you will turn to the next page, you can probably argue about these, too. DR. STONE: Isn't is sufficiently clear in the record that we consider the primary objectives as laid down to be none of our business for the moment? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I don't know; maybe my mind words differently from you people. DR. STONE: I am thinking about the minutes that are being taken down of the meeting. 9 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Maybe all we have said so far should be off the record. As I look at this, the next two bring out some of the other things. It is highly desirable to get your plane back. Of course, the next thing is Number 3. You can do this; there will be no acute reaction; there will be nothing to that person. On the other hand, it seems to me that information has to be made available so that if Number 1 is necessary, you have some idea as to the risks; the military personnel can determine that; and it seems to me we have to end up with information that will allow the military personnel to operate under any one of these three categories. MR. SIMMONS: I think what you are trying to do is to tie in, as well as the physical risks of the man, the tactical military risk to a radiation level. Is that what it comes to? In other words, instead of saying, "Physical effects;" "tactical hazard." But that is a little different. DR. FRIEDELL: You see, we are primarily physicians and biologists. I do not think that we should in any way intimate -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No, we are not. DR. FRIEDELL: Then I agree that these points should be included some place in what our proposals are. But our proposal should be general and broad and over-all, saying that "Under these circumstances, this is what happens to the best of our ability." Then, if it is sufficiently clear, someone who then knows about the tactical situation and so on can come to this and say, "These are the circumstances from the biological point of view. These are the circumstances from the military point of view. My decision under these circumstances is thus" -- instead of us putting it together. Maybe I don't understand it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Let me have this one thing to say. I think you are interpreting this wrong. I interpret it that NEPA would like from us information, so when they take it, the military commander can take from this information and answer any one of these three, 1, 2, or 3; and he can make his evaluation. MR. KALITINSKY: That is true. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We are not going to say: If we don't have these in mind, how can we arrive and present them with documented data to allow that to answer the question? They are going to answer the question whether we will or whether we won't. But we have to give them information so that they can accurately in their own mind make this estimate. 10 MR. KALITINSKY: I think that is quite true. We definitely do want that information. I do not think there is any question as I can see on the desirability of the information. It is just a question of the label. I think that it would help a lot if we just reversed the order of these things. That is, set as our first Number 1 primary objective, as the one on which we base the design of the plan. There is no harm done. Then say, "Under certain emergency conditions, it might be necessary to find what can the crew stand if we want them to return with the plan intact." And three, "What are the conditions under which they will just reach their target and complete their mission?" DR. FRIEDELL: Theoretically why haven't you got those questions answered by what we already proposed? MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes, sir? MR. SIMMONS: I want to bring up one thing there. It will take just a second. There are two ways we can express this exposure data: One, we can express it as risk for the crew; or, two, we can express it as risk to the airplane. In this I think we have mixed those two modes of expression. In one place we are trying to express radiation level in terms of risk to the airplane, whether it gets back or whether it completes its mission. Mixed in with that is risk to the crew. Of course, the two things are tied together. If the crew is killed, the airplane is lost. But I think we should try to stick to expressing the crew risk rather than the airplane risk. DR. FRIEDELL: That is all I know about, is crew risk. I do not know anything about airplane risk. MR. SIMMONS: We should forget the airplane and stick to the crew. I think that is it, and not try to interpret the effect of radiation on the airplane's operation. DR. TITUS EVANS: It just seems to me that what this is bringing out is that we have three levels of radiation intensity and three levels of biologic effect to consider: one, in which the effect is most likely to be immediate or an acute exposure; the second level is the sub-acute or in which case the latent period is rather short, but there is a latent period; in the third case, in which the exposure is much lower, the effect is chronic and occurs after a long latent period. So we just have three categories. DR. STONE: Four is when nothing happens. DR. FAILLA: He doesn't read the fourth. 11 DR. STONE: It says, "It is desirable to avoid" -- Number 3 is to avoid or minimize. The avoid would be no effect. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What I am trying to do is to get the objectives. For instance, Dr. Failla has asked me three times what are we meeting for today; and he is probably still asking that. But I am trying to crystallize in our mind what we are trying to do. DR. STONE: We are meeting today to discuss problems of research that ought to be considered beyond what has been done or to think of any that have been done that we ought to investigate. DR. FRIEDELL: And to make more secure the estimates that we have made before. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Now then, all I am trying to do: Can we crystallize in our mind that we need that research for? What answers do you expect to get from those research problems? Now then, if we can have clear in our own mind, then we can go ahead and say what research do we need that will implement that. DR. FRIEDELL: Mr. Chairman, I do not think you can answer that question, and I will tell you why. I think the circumstances, the combination of circumstances, could be infinite; and, although you can pick out the most important ones as you have done here -- and I agree that those are very important ones -- I don't see why we should limit ourselves to these. I think that what we need to do, as I said earlier, is to paint a complete picture of what happens to individuals when they are exposed to radiation under various circumstances, length of time, and so on and so forth. Then, if we want to, we can high-light these points, put an asterisk after these various things. In that way we can turn over all the information we have and someone else then can use this information to apply to whatever objectives they have. It would appear to me that that is our primary objective, because I spoke with Mr. Ward during our last meeting and brought up to him: "Why don't we just take three or four points?" He pointed out to me a great many circumstances under which you would have to know different levels of radiation at different periods of time. Supposing one of these planes smashes up in a field that you have spent $20,000,000,000 to build, and you have to come in and clean it up; and people have to work in that area of radiation for a period of time. I don't think you can decide those things. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Let me put it this way. Is there any need of trying to arrive at some objectives here? Or shall we thrash that out, scratch these off and scratch that off the record, and turn over to research? 12 I am still just a little confused. I would like to know where I am going so I know what to take. But if the rest of you want to go along on a different thing, maybe you can see what you are thinking about more clearly than I do. MR. SIMMONS: I agree with Dr. Friedell's philosophy in this pretty well., I think it may be necessary to spearhead the research effort in toward this objective, and to do that we may have to set up some specific problems. But I think essentially Dr. Friedell's philosophy is basically correct. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: For instance, if you arrive at what is going to happen at various levels, you can use that for anything. MR. KALITINSKY: Shouldn't we decide the objectives? I think we all agree that we want spectrum; and therefore shouldn't we divide the objectives simply by radiation levels, by dosage levels? DR. STONE: Dosage time. MR. KALITINSKY: Yes, or dosage time. I think Dr. Evans made that point, that if we are interested, and we are, in, say, 100 r level, then the question of the actual fitness comes in and therefore we should do some research on fitness. If we are just interested in the 50 r level, there would be another thing that would be critical, maybe sub-acute effects. If we are interested in the 25 r level, then still another thing would be critical, maybe very long-range effects. In each one of those levels determined biologically, it would be biological levels rather than operational levels, each one characterized by a certain critical biological effect; and that critical effect should be the subject of some research work. Wouldn't that be a possible approach to this? Then we would avoid this operational conditions question. MR. SIMMONS: I think the operational thing should be divorced from this problem as much as possible. DR. CALKINS: It should come later. MR. SIMMONS: It is too restricting a boundary to try to work within. DR. FAILLA: I would like to defend Dr. Dowdy at this time. He hasn't done anything here except put down certain things that are obvious, that these are the objectives, that this whole program is to accomplish this purpose. All right; we more or less agree with that, that this is a situation we want to provide information that will enable you fellows to go ahead with the plan. 13 Now we just turn over the page and avoid all discussion of that, and it goes on to the specific items to provide more information for you; because we already gave you information based on what is available today and what we may expect from 25 r and twenty-four hours and forty-eight hours, what we can expect from 100 r and so on. Now, that is all you need for the time being. Now you want to have a little additional information in order to close those gaps more closely or to have greater assurance that what we are telling you today is true or isn't true. Now then, the question is: How are we going to proceed experimentally to get this additional information for you? DR. STONE: I don't like to prolong the argument, but I still think that this thing, if it stands in the record at all, should be reversed. Our primary object, if you want to say the one primary object, is to tell NEPA under what conditions the plane can operate, go anywhere it wants, and come back within a certain period of time and have done no harm to the individual; rather than what they can go and have the plane lost and the crew lost and everything else. So our first object here is to lay down the conditions of a tolerance somewhat different than the tolerance that has ever been thought of before, namely, the tolerance of people to whole- body irradiation at a single time or on a few repeated occasions. Then, beyond that, we want to go and say, "If you go beyond this tolerance, thus and so is likely to happen. And if you go still further beyond this tolerance, thus and so is likely to happen." DR. FAILLA: We have done that already. DR. STONE: We have attempted to do it, yes. I am thinking of record purposes. Our primary objective is not to maintain the physical fitness of the crew until them mission is successfully completed. You see, our primary objective is to tell them under what conditions the thing can happen. DR. FAILLA: Mr. Chairman, I move that we do not state what the primary objectives are, because I think we all understand it. DR. STONE: I second it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor of not listing any primary objectives say "aye." (General response: Aye.) 14 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. Shall we move to Page 2? Now, on Page 2 I have attempted to list four or five things that might have to do with physical fitness. I have asked myself the question: Is there any correlation between the sensitivity to carsickness, seasickness, emetic drugs, and radiation sickness? I do not know whether there is or not. If there is, then one might be able to evaluate the sensitivity or rather the physical stability and might be better able to select the pilots. DR. TITUS EVANS: I would be willing to guess that if a man got sick riding in a car, the airplane sickness add to the radiation damage would make him more sensitive to radiation nausea. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any reason to believe that carsickness or seasickness is in any way related to radiation sickness? One is a vestibular thing, and is there any correlation between the two? DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask where are we going by considering these particular problems? Wouldn't these better come in in a discussion of your previously suggested research problems? I don't see where we will get by discussing these unless you want to decide out of these what research problems to do. DR. FAILLA: That, I think, is the purpose, isn't it? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No, we don't want to decide what research problem to do. But I thought -- DR. STONE: What field of research problems. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What field of research. DR. STONE: That is what I meant. DR. FRIEDELL: I read the old notes over, and the Committee did assign some priority to the various ones. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We discussed those, and we got into such a mess that we never did decide to accept the three things I mentioned first. At the April meeting there was a definite decision on the recommendation for human experimentation, broad field, no specific problems within that field. And the next was Monte Carlo. The third was continuing compilation of available date. There was a lot of discussion as to priorities on this other, but the discussion became so confused that we couldn't make heads or tails out of it and nobody wanted to agree. DR. FRIEDELL: I had the impression that they were, but I may be wrong on that. 15 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No. DR. FAILLA: Discussing this Number 1, it is evident there is not enough information today to answer that question. Therefore, some work should be started along those lines, and that is something that could be done in a large radiological clinic. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is what I hope to get at. DR. CALKINS: Is it worthwhile? DR. FAILLA: I think it is. DR. CALKINS: I think it is, too. DR. STONE: In other words, that is Dr. Failla's Number 2, determination of individual susceptibility to exposure; see if you can decide that a person is going to be susceptible. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: All right. Now, there is a field of research that we think more work ought to be done in. So can we accept that work should be done in this field? DR. TITUS EVANS: Yes. DR. FAILLA: I think so. DR. FRIEDELL: Will you read the notes of the last meeting so everybody could be refreshed on this particular point? I am not sure that I have them here. Do you have them? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As far as the essential points, what I said were the specific decisions -- DR. FRIEDELL: There were suggestions, as I remember. DR. STONE: Method of detecting the degree of sensitivity of individual to radioactive exposure. That was Number 1. That was the Number 1 problem. DR. FRIEDELL: It says here, "It was generally conceded that the Monte Carlo calculation be assigned category 7, and that it would have first priority." I think that was the calculation. DR. STONE: We had these seven categories lined up, and that was put in Number 7. DR. FRIEDELL: Then it says, "Dr. Nims recommended that 3 be given second priority, and Dr. Titus Evans suggested that 6 be given third priority. Final action was not taken." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: About that time you suggested that we appoint a small committee, and nothing was done after that. I have given you the three or four definite actions that were taken. Other than that, it was just discussion. 16 Now then, we have agreed that Number 1 falls in a field that should be explored. Is that agreed by everyone? DR. FRIEDELL: When you are referring to Number 1, are you referring to this? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I am referring to the one that I brought today, which you have there; that is a field of exploration -- DR. STONE: To separate these, can we put some label on this? The whole business is proposals for research fields, isn't it? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is right, research fields; that is one field. DR. FRIEDELL: I prefer the broader classification that you had originally. It says, "Methods for detecting the degree of sensitivity of individuals." These are more specific. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I am glad that somebody appreciates the work on that first group. DR. FRIEDELL: I think the proposals that were made then were good ones. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Look, could we do this? Could we just run through. We have okayed 1 here. Can we run through these other four or five and then we can decide how we will label these. Maybe we can bunch some from here and bunch some from the other group. If we can get tentative agreement, whether these are or are not fields, then we can maybe combine them. The next question I have asked myself: What visual motor functions are upset in radiation sickness? How do these correspond to seasickness, et cetera? In other words, if a person has radiation sickness, does that interfere with his visual motor functions? I mean, is he able to see and coordinate in the operations of the particular function he would have to carry out, or any function he might have to carry out? In other words, getting at his efficiency. DR. STONE: I would think that is getting beyond the point where he is of much use to anybody. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How soon does it occur? He might be a little nauseated, but does that little nausea upset him any? DR. STONE: I don't think it upsets your visual motor function. I think any upset in your visual function is when you get so dog- goned sick you don't care to use any visual motor function you have got. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is that an impression now? Just what point along here does the person become inefficient? I mean, if it is all agreed this is not apropos, we will just run a pencil through it. This is not put down here because I hold any briefs for it. I am just trying to get us to thinking. 17 DR. CALKINS: I think there is a good chance that degree of control, coordination, and so on, would be interfered with; and it might be very important as far as flying planes is concerned; the bombardier, too, for example. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It might be that you cannot permit any -- DR. STONE: You could leave visual out of that, and it would be much better; because I don't think that the eye is particularly bothered at all. The problem is behind the eye. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But it may be that when you get sick, those are all pretty well tied together. For instance, when you have alcoholic intoxication, you get to a point where you feel that you are doing everything very, very well, and that you are doing it better than usual. Yet, tests have been run on those -- DR. STONE: That is true, but that is not the eye necessarily. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think tests have actually been carried out on visual -- you think you are seeing all right, and you are not. I think actually tests have been conducted on that very point, with various stages of alcoholic intoxication. DR. CALKINS: I think there the question is, when you are talking about the eye, isn't it in the cortex or sensation of seeing, or what? DR. SELLE: Visual acuity and convergence certainly are affected by general well-being. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It may be that you cannot permit anybody to go on this plane that has any tendency toward nausea. Nausea may so upset efficiency that the whole thing is useless. I don't know. I just pose that as a question. DR. FRIEDELL: The point you are making would be useful from a point of view of selection of personnel for the plane primarily. I am just wondering whether we ought to limit ourselves to visual motor functions, which I think is important, but perhaps put it first on the basis of what broad categories do we think we ought to study. Put it down something like the original; maybe modify it. Then if we can agree on broad categories, then go down to the specific ones as to what we think, like visual motor functions and some other. Could we get better agreement that way? DR. CALKINS: This is quite broad when you consider it, don't you think? DR. FRIEDELL: Well, for example, I think you could lump 3 or 4 together, effect of radiation upon the development of fatigue -- 18 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As a matter of fact, Dr. Friedell, all five of those are related in one sense of the word. When we came up the first time with Number 1, I just couldn't get any reaction except a negative one on Number 1. What I am trying to do today is to avoid negative reactions and come out with something that is useable. DR. FAILLA: Maybe we can find a better common ground here if we go over my list of suggestions, because they are broader, I think. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: All right. DR. TITUS EVANS: I think they are essentially the same thing. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think they are the same. I had yours pretty well tabulated. DR. FAILLA: Take Number 2, which applies to this particular one: "Determination of individuals' susceptibility to radiation before exposure." Now, that involves everything, nausea, visual motor functions, and so on and so forth. You have to study that before you could determine this. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Maybe we are at the point now where we can intelligently consider the original proposals, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I mean, we tried to approach it from the broad standpoint. DR. FRIEDELL: I know I am the culprit. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The last time we tried to approach it from the broad categories. Now we go back and try and pick up two or three of those; maybe we are willing to consider the others now. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Kalitinsky and I have gotten down a list of things in our opinion in the order in the discussion. I would like for Mr. Kalitinsky to read those. MR. KALITINSKY: This is just some very broad categories that we are thinking of. One was the establishment of converting neutron fluxes to roentgen. That, I believe, has been adequately discussed, and we can now handle it, because it is now a problem of converting flux to ionization energy. Two, we thought that the detection of sensitivity of individuals, advance detection, to radiation for the purpose of crew selection, and investigation of any possible methods for reducing that sensitivity. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is Number 1 in our own proposal. MR. KALITINSKY: That is right. Then, three, we thought the longevity studies, and maybe the investigation of the particular effect to measure there. 19 And, four, investigation of the effects on fitness of pretty high doses of radiation in order to answer that tactical problem that we might submit information to the field commanders. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: They are all here. For instance, the first one you mentioned is on 1; and the next one was Number 2; and the next one was Number 3. MR. SIMMONS: Number 2 would include any chemical therapy that would be involved. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 3 is the "Evaluation of the physical fitness following total-body irradiation." DR. FRIEDELL: Where does the experimentation to make more secure the estimates we made on biological effects last week fit in? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 6. MR. KALITINSKY: That would come under three-longevity studies, wouldn't it, in the lower regions? DR. FRIEDELL: No, it would be more acute. Why shouldn't that be given a higher priority? In other words, the thing that Dr. Stone proposed last time, the human studies to make more secure - - CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That has already been decided. That has been recommended. How they work that out, we don't want to get into that now. DR. FRIEDELL: Do we have to give it a priority or not? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is already put in. I don't see we have to put a priority on that. DR. FAILLA: But we have to find somebody that will do it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We have to find somebody that will do it. DR. FAILLA: A number of people that will do it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As I understand that, that has already been recommended, that NEPA will carry that through the proper channels. Maybe they will come back to us and say, "Now then, we want advice on this as to how that should be done." Maybe AEC will do it; maybe some other part of the military arm will do it; maybe NEPA will do it. DR. FRIEDELL: What I am getting at: Do they need advice as to whether it will have to have a priority compared to these others, or not? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I don't think so. 20 MR. SIMMONS: I think if we are assigning priorities, it should be included, shouldn't it? I mean, as long as we start assigning priorities to these things? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We have never assigned any priorities yet. No priorities have been assigned. MR. SIMMONS: We are in that process now, aren't we? DR. STONE: The only priority is that we recommend last time as the only recommendation, human experiments be carried out. That kind of gives it Number 1 priority. DR. SELLE: And also Monte Carlo. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: There is no priority -- MR. SIMMONS: If you have got 1, 2, 3, 4, here, then we could put this A-1. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You can't assign priorities until we know what field you are going to consider. Then if we decide we are going to consider five broad fields, then if we want to come back and assign priorities, all right. Let's decide on what field we are going to recommend. So far we have only recommended -- DR. FRIEDELL: Human experimentation. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: -- human experimentation, Monte Carlo, and the continuation of compiling the data. MR. SIMMONS: That is what the whole thing is about anyway. I mean, the human observations. DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, if we might return to the original list, I move that we consider methods for detecting the degree of sensitivity of individuals to radiation exposure as one of the primary fields. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Will you put that in the form of a motion? DR. STONE: I so move. DR. FAILLA: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition) 21 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we consider pharmacological studies in their relation to radiation sickness as a field to be investigated. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there a second to that motion? DR. FAILLA: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we consider evaluation of physical fitness following total-body irradiation as a field to be discussed. DR. FAILLA: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: This one is out, because that is already -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is already taken care of. DR. TITUS EVANS: Which one? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Four. DR. STONE: Now, 4 isn't taken care of. Additivity, conversion factor, N to r, and additivity. Now, the conversion factor, of course -- do you think the conversion factor is sufficiently covered? 22 DR. FRIEDELL: I don't see why these are in the same category with the first three. I think it is something entirely different that these fellows just have to do in order to give us basic information. I wouldn't even consider it with this same thing. DR. STONE: I would move that the evaluation of the long-term effects of singe or intermittent exposures be considered a field to be studied. DR. FRIEDELL: Make it a little broader. Does that include everything now? In other words, we would like to have this as broad as possible, intermittency being varied and perhaps even continuous exposure. DR. STONE: No, I was leaving out continuous exposure as a thing that is not pertinent to this particular -- continuous exposure is being carried out all over the place; everybody is doing it. DR. FRIEDELL: What is single exposure? Exposure during twenty- four hours? Do you consider that a single exposure? DR. FAILLA: Why not call it acute? DR. STONE: Call it acute, if you want; acute or intermittent exposure. DR. FRIEDELL: "Evaluation of acute or intermittent exposure." DR. FAILLA: I second the motion. DR. FRIEDELL: And long-term effects -- DR. STONE: It is the "long-term effects of." I think we already approve the idea that comes next. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Wait a minute. We want to read this back to be sure we have it. DR. SELLE: There have been some changes. Dr. Stone moved "The evaluation of long-term effects of acute and intermittent exposures" -- DR. STONE: "Be a field of study." DR. SELLE: That is the terminology you want there? DR. STONE: Yes. DR. SELLE: "Be a field of study." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is for what, now? DR. SELLE: "The evaluation of long-term effects of acute and intermittent exposures" -- DR. STONE: "Exposures" -- plural -- when you come to "intermittent." 23 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Exposures to what? DR. STONE: All ionizing radiations. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Do you second that? DR. FAILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: Do we need to consider the compilation of available data? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That was approved. DR. STONE: That was decided on, and your calculation of energy absorption was decided on. DR. FRIEDELL: What does that really mean: Compilation of available data? DR. STONE: Continuing to do what was done. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Trying to put in tabular and corollary form -- DR. FRIEDELL: You mean that those proposals as to how many people will suffer -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No. You remember that long document, that legal-size thing -- DR. SELLE: I might point out that the continuation of compilation of available data was never voted on. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If it wasn't, we should do that now. MR. SIMMONS: Continuation of that work? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You haven't read yours? DR. FRIEDELL: No, I read it, but I didn't read it all. 24 DR. FAILLA: "Continuation of the compilation of available information on the biological effects of radiation." I so move. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there a second? DR. STONE: I second it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: I take it that that means really any or all of us who come across anything that seems to be pertinent to the subject should send it in? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: And we will try and put it in tabular form, you see, so it can be -- MR. SIMMONS: In other words, keeping this up to date like the Encyclopedia Britannica, as new information becomes available. DR. STONE: There is some information out of the past that isn't in there. MR. SIMMONS: That is true, and new information will come about. DR. FRIEDELL: It might be well to assign someone other than myself to kind of look after this things, because if it gets more legal-sized than it is, it isn't going to be very useful. DR. SELLE: It isn't going to be in that form. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is being changed, Dr. Friedell. That was just a matter of the conditions under which we worked. That is the only way I had to put it. But NEPA is going to put that down in a convenient size. Dr. Selle is doing that, and I am doing that; and if anybody who finds anything that he thinks would be pertinent, he can send it in to either Dr. Selle or myself -- or perhaps Dr. Selle, so it will all be centralized. We will get that and try to keep it up, and it will be in the form, and try to do it like we did this other. Now then, Number 5 is the evaluation of long-term effects. 25 DR. STONE: We covered that. MR. SIMMONS: That was the last motion. DR. TITUS EVANS: Number 4 we haven't acted on. I think there was some confusion about what that meant. I think someone confused the physical and the biologic factors. DR. SELLE: That was split up into two groups, you remember, by Robley Evans last time. DR. FAILLA: Did we say anything about additivity? DR. STONE: I think we need a motion that the field of additivity of neutron and roentgen effects be considered as a field that should be covered, biological additivity. DR. FRIEDELL: Do you want to limit it to N and r, or do you want to limit it to various types of ionizing radiation and radiating particles, charged particles? Because you would like to add proton energy to roentgens and proton energy to neutrons -- DR. STONE: The additivity of the effects of various types of ionizing radiation. DR. FAILLA: Let's make it more definite. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: There are a lot of those that are interesting, but we are interested herein gamma and neutron, aren't we? DR. FAILLA: That is right. DR. TITUS EVANS: I think it is inferred that the general problem is neutrons and gamma rays; but what the neutrons produce in the mechanism takes us into protons and everything else. DR. FRIEDELL: And recoil. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is implied in there. DR. FRIEDELL: Okay, I won't argue. My only suggestion is that I don't see why it should be limited there. Other information might be useful to understand the reaction, the additivity between N and r. DR. FAILLA: But that comes in anyway. DR. FRIEDELL: Then make it broad. In other words, just say -- DR. TITUS EVANS: I was thinking we would be less likely to be accused of trying to cover too much. DR. FRIEDELL: All right. I withdraw. 26 DR. FAILLA: "Study the biological additivity of ionizing radiations of widely different specific ionization." DR. FRIEDELL: Right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If you are sure you want it that broad. I was thinking along the same lines that Dr. Evans was. AEC would come along: "What are you doing here? Taking over our field?" DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think you can separate pieces out, frankly. I think you have to understand the whole thing. DR. STONE: I don't think we are taking over any field. In other words, if we can find that AEC is doing that, there is no point in repeating it. DR. FRIEDELL: Sure. DR. STONE: But it is a field of interest to this program, and if somebody isn't doing it, it ought to be done. DR. FRIEDELL: I second Dr. Failla's motion. DR. SELLE: Let's have that restated. I have it here in three or four different forms. I believe Dr. Stone originally made the motion -- DR. FRIEDELL: I assigned the motion to Dr. Failla. I don't think he actually made it. DR. SELLE: As it is now, it is the field of biological additivity -- DR. FAILLA: "Study of the biological additivity of ionizing radiations of widely different specific ionization." MR. SIMMONS: In other words, what we are trying to say, are neutrons and gammas -- DR. STONE: Why don't you put that on the end of it? It makes it clear to any of us who don't understand the terms. DR. FAILLA: Fast neutrons and gamma rays. For example -- DR. STONE: Slow neutrons, too. DR. TITUS EVANS: You see, you are defeating the purpose if you make it specific. DR. FRIEDELL: I like it the way you put it originally, except I would put the word "differing" instead of "different." DR. TITUS EVANS: I also think you might consider saying "The study of relative biological effectiveness of radiation in highly different and specific ionization." DR. FAILLA: That is all right. 27 DR. SELLE: The motion is very badly complicated now. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You really want to get additivity in here, too. DR. TITUS EVANS: But if you study relative biological effectiveness -- DR. FAILLA: It is not the same thing. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: -- it is not the same thing at all. I think what you are taking about, Dr. Evans, is different. You can study the relative effects -- DR. TITUS EVANS: I mean both quantity and quality. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You can do that. DR. TITUS EVANS: If you find that they are qualitatively different, they won't add up. DR. FRIEDELL: You can't add them if qualitatively they are different. DR. FAILLA: You won't find that they are qualitatively different. DR. TITUS EVANS: How do you know? DR. FAILLA: You will discover primarily by the attitude of the experiment. DR. FRIEDELL: You don't have to use additivity alone, though. DR. FAILLA: No, you don't have to; but that is the main point here. How do they add up? That is of main interest to NEPA. DR. STONE: You don't care whether they are qualitatively different or not. How do they add up? DR. FRIEDELL: You can't add potatoes and oranges unless you put them into calories. DR. STONE: Yes, you can. DR. FAILLA: You can use both for ballast. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You can get a gallon of either one or you can get a gallon of mixed. DR. FRIEDELL: You have already introduced a common denominator. You said ballast, or gravity. A gallon by weight, which one has the greater number? I am sure that Dr. Failla understands what we are thinking abut, and he will have a fine -- DR. FAILLA: Here it is: "Study of biological additivity of ionizing radiations of different specific ionizations, or having different specific ionizations." 28 MR. SIMMONS: Are they additive? We are trying to find out whether they are additive. DR. FAILLA: You are studying it to see whether they are or not. MR. SIMMONS: In other words, the effect of the two may be greater than the effect of the sum of the two. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "Study the biological additivity of ionizing radiations of different specific ionizations." DR. STONE: "Having different specific" -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "Having." You had better write that down. DR. FRIEDELL: Do you have to have the word "additivity" in there? DR. FAILLA: I think we know what we are talking about. MR. SIMMONS: If they are additive, there is no problem. DR. STONE: You are studying to see whether there is any additivity, if there isn't any additivity; and if there is, how. DR. TITUS EVANS: There may be additivity in different proportions. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: One-tenth, two-tenths, and so on. DR. TITUS EVANS: They may still be additive, but of different proportions. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there a second to that motion? You should be able to second that. DR. FRIEDELL: I second it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: The pharmacological studies of radiation reaction -- we didn't exactly have that in. It is in indirectly, but it is very indirectly. I am not sure that it shouldn't be in directly. MR. SIMMONS: Your statement, I think, is a broad expression, and that would include -- 29 DR. CALKINS: How does that read again? DR. STONE: Could you read us the Number 2? DR. FRIEDELL: I think it reads just as is. DR. SELLE: Yes, that we consider the pharmacological studies of radiation reactions as a field of study. DR. FRIEDELL: "With specific reference." DR. CALKINS: "Pharmacological" certainly does make that point there. DR. FRIEDELL: Couldn't we say "specific reference to"? DR. STONE: We are past that. MR. SIMMONS: We are trying to keep it broad. DR. STONE: The point the Admiral, I think, is making is definite. We haven't said specifically methods for trying to reduce -- MR. SIMMONS: In other words, we are trying to get some broad -- DR. CALKINS: You are right. It could be treatment. DR. FRIEDELL: "With special reference to." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Gentlemen, under that we have, (a) counteracting biological effects resulting from radiation; and (b) biological program with suggested pilot checking antitoxins. That is all of the program which was recommended. DR. STONE: If we change the wording of that to "Pharmacological studies with reference to radiation reactions" -- DR. CALKINS: But I would like to bring out a point. When you leave it like it is, you include treatment and pre-fortification. DR. STONE: Because this is pharmacological studies of radiation reaction, as if we were studying what happens from the reaction. MR. SIMMONS: It doesn't include the pre-fortification. DR. FRIEDELL: It could. MR. SIMMONS: It could. DR. FRIEDELL: You are not studying it disinterestedly; you are studying it in order to do something about it. 30 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Could I just recapitulate what we have decided here and what we approved last time and this time. Is there anything else? DR. STONE: We have one more. DR. FAILLA: One more to add. "Studying methods of counteracting radiation effects." Do you have that DR. SELLE: That is included in Number 2. DR. FRIEDELL: That is pharmacological studies. DR. STONE: That is in Number 2 as it is down here, but it doesn't naturally follow from the title. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: All right, let's give that another one. MR. SIMMONS: Why don't we tie this in with Number 2? We might even make Number 2 cover this specifically. DR. FAILLA: Because I don't think it is only pharmacological methods. There might be some others. DR. STONE: There might be psychological methods. DR. SELLE: What is that motion, then? DR. FAILLA: Study methods of counteracting radiation effects. DR. FRIEDELL: I would like to include it under 2. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Wait a minute, now; counteracting -- DR. FAILLA: Radiation effects. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That assures that the radiation -- DR. STONE: In order to fit with the previous schedule, can you not move that as an amendment, that this be added as part of Number 2? Number 2 is pharmacological studies of radiation reaction, including methods of counteracting radiation effects. DR. FAILLA: No, because a pharmacological study may not reveal this. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "Study methods for preventing and counteracting" -- DR. STONE: Could we leave "pharmacological" out of that second one? DR. FRIEDELL: "Studies of radiation reactions, including such and such." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "Their prevention and correction." DR. CALKINS: "Prevention and correction or treatment or counteracting the effects of radiation" -- 31 DR. STONE: That is pretty well covering the whole field at the present time, isn't it? DR. FRIEDELL: Yes, and not leaving anything out. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We will try to find something that will increase the patient's resistance. DR. FRIEDELL: Why should you limit it to pharmacological? You might properly say biochemical. DR. TITUS EVANS: The way I think of it is experimental modification of radio-sensitivity. That is what this all is. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think this is a good way of expressing it: "The prophylaxis and treatment of radiation reaction." Isn't that all right? DR. FRIEDELL: Well, you want to study the radiation reactions, too. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "Study the mechanisms" -- DR. FRIEDELL: "Studies of the mechanism of radiation reaction, including prophylaxis and treatment." How is that? MR. SIMMONS: And this pre-fortification, too. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Prophylaxis, is that? MR. SIMMONS: That is usually after the act, isn't it? DR. FRIEDELL: No. DR. SELLE: What was that last? DR. FRIEDELL: "Studies of the mechanism of radiation reactions, including prophylaxis and treatment thereof." DR. STONE: That is too broad. That is the whole field of radiation study in that one sentence. DR. FAILLA: Certainly. DR. FRIEDELL: Do we want to leave anything out? DR. FAILLA: "Study methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects." DR. STONE: That could go in as Number 2 instead of the present Number 2. DR. FAILLA: Instead of? DR. STONE: Yes. 32 DR. FAILLA: Don't you want "pharmacological studies"? DR. STONE: That is what we wanted them for. That is all Number 2 is for. DR. FAILLA: All right. DR. STONE: He is moving a substitute motion for Number 2. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Let's read it to be sure we got the motion right. DR. FAILLA: "Study methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We want that as a motion that this is to substitute for Number 2 or the pharmacological studies? DR. FRIEDELL: That is a substitute for 2? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes. DR. FRIEDELL: Read that again. DR. SELLE: Dr. Failla moves that we study the methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think that is broad enough. DR. STONE: Accept that and then move something else if you want, will you? DR. FRIEDELL: I would like to modify that. DR. STONE: Let's accept that. That is a definite field. DR. FAILLA: That is a definite field. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is not the motion that Dr. Failla moved. DR. FAILLA: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It is only part. Dr. Failla moves this, to replace -- DR. STONE: Substitute for Number 2. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Substitute for Number 2. We don't want to have two in here of the same thing. One is merely an amplification. DR. TITUS EVANS: Why don't you offer it as an amendment? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No, that has already been accepted. DR. FRIEDELL: Let's not stand on parliamentary rules. If everybody wants that, let's just substitute it and there will be an end to it. 33 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there a second to that motion? DR. FRIEDELL: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. Now then, before we go further, could we recapitulate here what we have done. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't want to leave out that study of radiation reactions. Let's not forget about that. You see, here we have only talked about prophylaxis and treatment. I think that we ought to understand something about the mechanism of radiation reactions. DR. STONE: Dr. Failla, I think that we want to remember that what we are trying to do is a small segment of the field of radiation. Now, the Atomic Energy Commission have taken that as their big broad field, and it is being thrown to them by the Committee on Growth, by the National Cancer Institute, by the National Institute of Health as a whole -- everybody. When a problem comes up to study radiation reaction, they say, "This is something for the Atomic Energy Commission," and it goes right over. DR. FRIEDELL: As you proposed earlier, we could put this down and say, "this is being covered by the Atomic Energy Commission." DR. STONE: If somebody comes up here under this method of preventing and curing radiation reaction with wanting to do some fundamental investigation on that problem, they can do it under that. It doesn't stop them. But it doesn't set us up as trying to pre-empt the field. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What I would like to do now, if we can, is to get down here so that everybody understand what we have approved; and then we can consider whether we have considered and covered the field adequately, whether we should add more; and then we should decide whether we want to assign priorities or not. Now then, we will have to go over this rather slowly here to be sure that Dr. Selle has all of it. This was recommended in our last meeting and this one, too, you see. 34 Number 1 recommended human experimentation. This Number 1 and 2 have nothing to do with priorities. Two, we recommended Monte Carlo calculations. Three, continuation of compilation of available data. Four, methods of detecting degree of sensitivity of individuals to radiation exposures. Three was this motion that -- DR. SELLE: "Study methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The next one was to study the additivity of ionizing radiations -- DR. FRIEDELL: "Of widely" -- DR. FAILLA: I think I left out the "widely." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The next one is the evaluation of long-term effects. DR. SELLE: The one just prior to the study of the additivity? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That was the valuation of the physical fitness. DR. STONE: It is now Number 6 on the new numbering. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is long-term effects. DR. TITUS EVANS: We had it "Effects of acute and intermittent exposure to all ionizing radiation." DR. FRIEDELL: Do you have that there? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is this one right here. DR. SELLE: We have that; but the one before that. DR. FRIEDELL: You mean this additivity thing? Are you still no that? DR. TITUS EVANS: No, this is evaluation of long-term effects. DR. SELLE: It is "evaluation of long-term effects of acute and intermittent exposures." Wasn't that the way it was stated? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How many does that make all together? DR. SELLE: Eight, I have. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Where did you get the eight? DR. FRIEDELL: You have six right here. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: There are six here. You know, human experimentation -- 35 DR. STONE: One of these six is also Number 1 of what we added. DR. FRIEDELL: No, this is right. I would like to ask a question. Why did we specifically make a point of the Monte Carlo calculations? I mean, after all, those are things that are just basic to the whole thing. I am just curious. That is why I am asking. What difference does it make? DR. STONE: We are just offering encouragement. DR. FRIEDELL: All right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What I am trying to do now is to enumerate what was decided last time and this time. What are they? Now then, are there any other fields that should be considered in recommendations, or have we covered it? MR. KALITINSKY: I wonder, on the Monte Carlo, it is not very well understandable to somebody who does not know what we are talking about. Couldn't we just amplify that by saying "Monte Carlo calculations of the ionization produced by various neutron fluxes in tissue?" DR. FAILLA: Energy absorbed. MR. KALITINSKY: Energy absorbed by tissues." MR. SIMMONS: It very well may not be Monte Carlo. I mean, the physics people have some feeling now that they may be able to handle this particular problem by other means than Monte Carlo. DR. FRIEDELL: Why don't you leave the word "Monte Carlo" out? MR. KALITINSKY: "Analytical calculations of the energy absorbed in tissues." MR. SIMMONS: "Energy absorption and distribution of ionization in a body." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That will require a motion to correct our minutes, because I remember -- DR. FRIEDELL: I so move. DR. FRIEDELL: That is only a type of calculation. MR. SIMMONS: There are other ways. MR. KALITINSKY: We used that for convenience. DR. STONE: Actually you don't need a motion on that. That is something you are doing within your own group rather than anything we are recommending to be done, other than what you are doing. 36 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What we want to do now is, we want to define what we meant by Monte Carlo last time. MR. KALITINSKY: That is right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: So it needs no motion. Just put in the definition of Monte Carlo. DR. FRIEDELL: Let's change this to avoid -- Monte Carlo is just one type of calculation. There are other analytical methods for determining this. Let's just make it broader, the way it should properly be. MR. KALITINSKY: I think it reads more easily if you say just what you want: "Analytical calculations of energy" -- DR. FAILLA: "Distribution of energy in a medium simulating the human body." MR. KALITINSKY: "Under neutron exposure." DR. FAILLA: Leave out the neutron. MR. SIMMONS: "Under radiation," because we think this will also be applicable. DR. FRIEDELL: "Analytical calculations of the energy absorbed by" -- MR. SIMMONS: "Absorption and distribution." The distribution is the -- DR. FRIEDELL: "Analytical calculations of the absorption and distribution of energy in a medium simulating the human body from neutron fluxes." MR. SIMMONS: No, it is neutrons and gammas, too; high energy radiation. We want that in there because we decided, you know, the thermal range was something we would omit from this -- DR. FAILLA: Any medium simulating -- then you don't have to say in there, "Any radiating medium simulating the human body." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: While he is copying this, I understand that this motion be put in the form. DR. SELLE: There have been several changes. As I have it: "The analytical calculation of absorption and distribution of energy in a medium simulating." -- DR. FAILLA: "Any radiated medium." DR. SELLE: "Any radiated medium simulating the human body." DR. FAILLA: The change was made so as to shorten it up. 37 DR. FRIEDELL: Would you read it again now, please? DR. SELLE: "The analytical calculation of absorption and distribution of energy in an irradiated medium simulating the human body" -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As I understand it, Dr. Failla moves that this - - DR. FRIEDELL: No, I think the motion should come from these gentlemen here. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Wait a minute. I want to be specific what we are doing here now. This motion as embodied is that this is to replace the motion -- DR. STONE: I don't think it needs to replace anything. We are now deciding that there are the fields that this meeting today considers are to be covered. Number 1 was human exposure; number 2 was this; number 3 was continuation; number 4, and so on and so forth; without regard to any previous, you see. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes, but the other committee has already approved three things, and we can't go back on that. DR. FAILLA: Why don't we comply with the Chairman's request? MR. KALITINSKY: I will move that this wording be substituted for the previous wording on Number 2. MR. SIMMONS: I second the motion CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. If we don't, we will be messed up here with Monte Carlo and this, too. DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, there are various wordings in here in which some of them say "study" and some of them say "method" and so on. I move that the Secretary be empowered to unify the thing so that it all looks the same; that the idea is that the following are the suggested fields of study, and then you will name the field in saying study of methods repeated in the thing. Than can be easily done, but it requires somebody to sit down and do it with it all written out. 38 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What we will have to do is circulate this group again to be sure that we have got this wording right. DR. FRIEDELL: I think I would like to empower the Chairman to act for the Committee. I am sure he can straighten that out. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What I would like to do: Is it the desire of this group that we should put these in the form of what we feel are the relative importance, in other words, as to rate? DR. FAILLA: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Personally I don't think it is either, but that question has come up once or twice. MR. SIMMONS: Are they all equally important? Can we say that? It is a parallel program. There are no sequential elements in this. We want them all to go forward. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It seems to me that these all should go forth as rapidly as they could. MR. SIMMONS: Go forward in parallel. DR. FRIEDELL: If NEPA doesn't ask for priority, we can't give any. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, I will make the motion that we recommend this be carried out as a parallel program specifically, that these research fields be explored simultaneously. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there a second to that motion? DR. FRIEDELL: Why should we make that statement? Let's do it as it comes along, and what is easy to do. DR. STONE: If you assign a priority, it automatically goes the other way. DR. TITUS EVANS: Would you care to suggest that all these be carried on as soon as possible.? DR. SELLE: In other words, you are not assigning any priority? MR. SIMMONS: "Work shall be initiated in all of these fields at the earliest possible date." DR. FRIEDELL: That is sort of understood, isn't it? Why don't we leave it alone? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think what we said, these are all pertinent fields that must be explored. I think probably that takes it. I don't think that priorities are necessary, and we have intimated these are the important fields. The speed and the number that will be done will depend upon the interest of the people you get to do them that are interested in particular problems. 39 MR. SIMMONS: That was one of the things I wanted to try to adduce, was that some of these problems are more interesting than others, and the more interesting problems will be taken up first. However, I think that some recommendation should be made to not try to select them on who is interested, but try to make some positive effort to get even the uninteresting ones under way, if they are not already under way. See what I mean? DR. STONE: I see what your point is. The Committee recommends that NEPA make efforts to see that all of these fields are investigated, rather than just stating that they are fields of interest. What you want to do is see that somebody takes them up. Some of them are directed research, shall we say; and others are research; and the directed research won't get taken up unless you put some little sugar ball on the hook. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Would you like to word that in the form of a motion? DR. STONE: I move that this Committee recommend to the NEPA organization that they attempt to initiate research in all these fields. DR. TITUS EVANS: Do you mean by that you are suggesting that NEPA do research in all of these fields? DR. STONE: That NEPA see that research is done in all of these fields. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It is up to them to decide where and how -- DR. FRIEDELL: We hand this to the main committee first, you know. We are acting as a separate committee. MR. SIMMONS: One of the things we asked the Committee in the beginning was not only to recommend a research program, but to recommend the facilities most capable of carrying the program out. As I remember, in the initial -- DR. FAILLA: But that will come later. MR. SIMMONS: So it isn't entirely NEPA that is going to decide where this work is done. I mean, we want recommendations of the Committee. DR. STONE: NEPA is interested in seeing that it is done, and they should see that it is done, if it isn't done elsewhere. MR. SIMMONS: But we do want the Committee to advise us on the places. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If they can't get them done, you will have to do them. DR. SELLE: Dr. Stone, do I understand that you move that this Committee recommend to NEPA that they attempt to initiate research in all of these fields? 40 DR. STONE: No. That they attempt to see that research in all of these fields is initiated. If it is being done somewhere else, then they don't want to do it. They attempt to see that research in all of these fields is being initiated or is being done, let's say. MR. SIMMONS: Why should this just be a recommendation? I mean, why doesn't the Committee just make an abstract recommendation that positive effort be made to initiate work in all of these fields at the earliest practicable date? DR. STONE: That is the idea. DR. FRIEDELL: That is good. Put it that way: "Positive effort be made" -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: This just gives NEPA a guide to what programs to look at over the country to see that this is being done. DR. FAILLA: I am not sure that is a good way. I think first they ought to explore and see whether it is being done, and that is not included in this, you see. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: There are two things. These seven or eight problems here are the ones that are important. DR. FAILLA: In fields which are not being adequately covered. DR. TITUS EVANS: Do you think it would be feasible to have some committee work with NEPA in analyzing the fields to see what work is being done, and where? DR. FAILLA: Yes, but that comes next. That is the next thing we have to discuss after this. DR. SELLE: Who wants to be credited with this final motion? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Stone. DR. FAILLA: We haven't finished it yet. Why don't we put it in a negative way: "An effort should be made to see that no important item is omitted from a research program." DR. TITUS EVANS: Whose research program? DR. FAILLA: The one we have recommended. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Wait a minute. We are going to become greatly confused and fouled up. DR. FRIEDELL: "Positive effort to see that work is initiated or has been initiated." MR. SIMMONS: "Initiated or is in progress in all of these fields." How would that be? "Positive effort shall be made to see that work is initiated or is in progress." 41 DR. CALKINS: Or that adequate work is in progress. MR. SIMMONS: "That adequate work is initiated or is already in progress in all of these fields." DR. SELLE: "It is recommended that positive effort shall be initiated" -- MR. SIMMONS: "Shall be made" DR. FRIEDELL: All right. MR. SIMMONS: "Adequate work is either in progress or is initiated in all of these fields at the earliest practicable date." DR. SELLE: "That adequate work is in progress or is initiated at the earliest possible date." DR. FRIEDELL: "Practicable." DR. SELLE: "That positive effort shall be made to se that adequate work is in progress or is initiated at the earliest practicable date." DR. FRIEDELL: "In these fields." DR. STONE: How do you start that? DR. SELLE: "It is recommended that positive effort shall be made" -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "That NEPA" -- MR. SIMMONS: We might do this with a subcommittee DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think it has to be that specific. DR. STONE: See if this strikes a favorable note: "This Committee feels that work in all of these fields should be done and an effort should be made to see that work is initiated in such fields as are not already being covered adequately." DR. FRIEDELL: I like the first one better, I think: "Initiated or is in progress." DR. CALKINS: Would you read that again, Dr. Stone? DR. STONE: "This Committee feels that work in all of these fields should be done and an effort should be made to see that work is initiated in such fields as are not already being covered adequately." DR. FAILLA: I think that is all right. Who moves that? DR. FRIEDELL: Dr. Stone. I second it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Who seconds it? 42 DR. FRIEDELL: I do. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary? (There was no opposition) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. This really ought to go before all those points. DR. FAILLA: Afterwards, but it doesn't make any difference. DR. FRIEDELL: Let's not try to put sentiment down in words. We feel a certain way, and it is going to be awfully difficult to put in accurately down into words. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Now, before we dig up something that calls for anything else, I would like to ask an opinion. If these are merely put down and indications made where it has already been acted on by the main committee, indications where this committee has modified an action of the main committee, such as in re- wording of the Monte Carlo experiment, don't you think we could send this out to all the members of the main committee for a vote on this, and then it would obviate the necessity of calling a second big meeting here in the summer, which is going to be almost impossible to do? DR. FRIEDELL: I would recommend that when you send it out, say if they don't reply, you assume that it is a vote. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes, so that we can be sure of a definite action on this; and if it comes from a majority -- MR. SIMMONS: Send them a business reply postcard with a Yes or No check on it so they can just drop it in the mailbox. DR. STONE: I don't think you need to indicate any changes. This is a new action of the whole Committee. So just send out this as a summary of what was recommended. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Here we will get confused, that two or three things have already been acted on. DR. STONE: That doesn't matter. Let them act again. They can do it twice. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But I don't want them to feel that this small group -- DR. FRIEDELL: Has pre-empted their authority? 43 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes; what they decided isn't right. I would live to make it perfectly clear that this is a summary of all the things that were decided by the main committee, and the rest of these are recommendations by this Committee to them to approve. MR. SIMMONS: What we have done here is a legitimate and reasonable function of an executive committee. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it is, too; but we have got to get their approval. MR. SIMMONS: That is right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Don't you think we can probably get this approved by mail without another meeting? DR. FRIEDELL: Oh, sure. DR. STONE: You could very easily send it out with a Yes or No opposite each one if you wanted to. Send them duplicates, one to be returned and one to kept for their files. They can vote Yes or no on any item down the line. DR. FAILLA: Supposing they don't reply at all? DR. STONE: Then you assume a Yes for all of them. DR. FRIEDELL: "If you don't reply by such and such a time, we will assume that this is satisfactory." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "That you approve." DR. FAILLA: Then you have the votes. The other way you couldn't count them. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Another way to be sure they get this, we can send this by registered mail, if you want to be specific. MR. SIMMONS: The signature on the return receipt is the vote. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Are there any further suggestions or business to come before this Committee? DR. STONE: Yes. I think that we can very profitability consider the greater detail that was put down in your previous report and in Dr. Failla's report as to how we think we can proceed on these things. I don't know that we can come out with as concise a things as you have here. MR. SIMS: I would like to raise that issue, too. We have stated these matters in rather broad terms -- the human experimentation, for example. The gentlemen in the military service to whom that recommendation on human experimentation was called to their attention, were very much interested in the program; but they have to know a little more about the matter and they would like an understanding on more details of the program on carrying out human experimentation. 44 I would like to hear some discussion on how we want to pin some of these things down more precisely. What is the mechanism of the working of this Committee? What are the possible approaches? DR. FRIEDELL: I would think in that particular instance, if they are interested in the program, you have to fit it into the circumstances. I would think that they would do well to have some member or a couple of members serve as an advisory board to whoever is going to do it. MR. SIMS: That is just precisely what I am talking about. What is the mechanism of arriving at that? DR. STONE: I would think this Committee has been brought together and represents quite a few of the things that enter into this field, that we could put down or discuss suggested programs without any idea of dictating to anybody how they are to do, but suggested programs of what might be done to implement these various items. So if we could take the items one by one and see what we have to suggest on them right here and now -- DR. FRIEDELL: In the specific case of the human experimentation -- you were the chairman of this committee -- I would think that it would be more profitable to the armed forces to, say, have Dr. Stone as a consultant to them so that the program could be laid out with him, with his advice, so he could examine the specific details and say, "This is good or this isn't good, or this is what we are thinking about." DR. STONE: We have already got a committee here right now that can discuss somewhat of what is good rather than any one individual. DR. CALKINS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a question here. Why wouldn't it be more feasible to appoint a subcommittee to examine some of the results that may have been done over in the old country, before the war, that Germany did, first, before you do anything at all? Then from that, determine some type of a program. DR. SELLE: It is going to be awfully hard to get information on that. DR. STONE: It may take longer. DR. CALKINS: I don't know. If we went about it in the right way, I sort of doubt whether it would be too difficult. DR. FRIEDELL: Of course, I think that is understood in any research program. You always examine what has gone on before. DR. CALKINS: This is a little bit different, though. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We tried to get that. We discussed that yesterday. I think that will automatically go on. I have not been able to get it, and I have tried it. 45 DR. FAILLA: I haven't been able to get it either. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Failla hasn't been able to get it. DR. FAILLA: I know one man who did experiments of that type in Germany. He so stated in a paper that he wrote. We haven't been able to question that man, either in Germany or the United States. There has been talk about bringing him over. There has been talk about somebody going over there. Nothing has happened. MR. SIMS: Do you remember his name, Dr. Failla? Do you recall his name? DR. FAILLA: Yes, I know his name. DR. STONE: Is it a secret? DR. FAILLA: I don't know. DR. STONE: I mean, did you see it in a paper, a secret paper, or an open paper? DR. FAILLA: No, the paper the armed forces captured after the invasion. i will think of the name in a minute. They were going to get him over here. DR. CALKINS: Couldn't we make a more concerted effort, though, if we did appoint a committee to look into it? This is going to involve some traveling, of course, for somebody, probably. DR. FAILLA: I know the man very well. I have known him for many years. DR. CALKINS: Wouldn't you agree, Dr. Failla, that probably more than one man has done this work over in Germany? DR. FAILLA: I don't know of any other, but this fellow said that he had done work on prisoners. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Wouldn't there be any point in considering sending somebody over to talk to him? MR. SIMS: We are getting down to details now. Obviously the first way to approach any research problem is see what has been done. DR. CALKINS: This is probably even more critical in this cases. DR. FRIEDELL: Then you would have to examine the circumstances under which he did it. I think you might -- DR. FAILLA: Can you get the truth, anyway? If the man tells you that, he is implicated immediately as having done experiments on prisoners. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think it should be predicated on what we find out from these people, anyway. If we can get it, fine; if not, fine, too. 46 MR. SIMS: The question I wanted to ask: Do I have the permission of the Committee on Human Experimentation to make their services available in an advisory capacity to the Air Surgeon to get this program going? DR. FRIEDELL: I will give you Dr. Stone's permission. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As I understand, all these members and results you have are at your disposal as consultants in all of these fields that you want here. MR. SIMMONS: This is just a suggestion. It may not be agreeable to the Committee. But, in general, I mean including the human experimentation, or the human observations -- that is what I meant -- as well as the other fields, the members of the Committee as a whole might look on these fields of research and themselves decide what problems they would be willing to undertake as individuals investigators or as representing their institutions that they could take out of this general broad program that has been outlined. That might be the first approach to the problem. Then we can see what is left. DR. FRIEDELL: Don't we have a specific problem here, though? MR. SIMMONS: That would be included in this screening by the Committee. Much of this work falls into fields that many of you people are now working in. Some of you might be willing to actually undertake some of the research that has been proposed here and set up a specific program for it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Immediately following the answers to the Committee on approving these, then we could write back and notify the members, "This has been approved by a vote of the members. Now then, in any of these specific fields, do you have any specific problems which you would like to carry out? If so, would you write them up and submit them." DR. FRIEDELL: I would like to get back to the specific proposal made here. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then you have got something to handle here. MR. SIMMONS: This includes the human experimentation as well? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: In other words, we are going to circularize the members: "These are the eight points. We want your vote within fifteen days, Yes or No." When they come back, we will compile those. Then we will notify everybody as to the status of the thing, as it were. At that time we can say, "Under those specific headings, does your group wish to propose specific problems under any of these categories? If so, we would like those in at a certain date." DR. FRIEDELL: I think that is all right. 47 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then when we got those -- MR. SIMMONS: In answer to the Admiral's proposal, I mean I think that should be treated, too, about the advisory service of the Committee on Human Observations, because this thing will probably have to be handled through the Air Surgeon's office. MR. SIMS: The Air Surgeon wants to know just what that program represents. MR. SIMMONS: In addition to being advisory, somebody might be willing to work on it. MR. SIMS: How many subjects? DR. TITUS EVANS: Don't you feel we have already committed ourselves by proposing the work on humans to be done? DR. FAILLA: You have a practical problem here. Admiral Sims goes to the Air Surgeon and says, "Now, this committee has recommended human experimentation." He says, "Well, what do they want to do? I can't say Yes or No until I know what the proposal is." So I think the Committee should make a plan. MR. SIMS: He say, "What does it mean?" DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think it ought to be a plan in writing. I think it ought to be a plan in consultation with some members of the Committee, appointed members of the Committee, who can then review this thing; because really he may decide that it is practicable to carry it on either under his own auspices or farm it out to the University of Podunk or something like that; and he ought to be guided by some group that will tell him, "This is the way the program ought to be done," and something like that, rather than putting it down in writing." DR. FAILLA: Set down the objectives. Just say, "So far we have this information. This information does not apply to human beings. Therefore, it is essential that we carry out certain experiments." Then say, "We think that experiments of this type should be conducted involving 25 r, 50 r or 100 r, " or whatever it is, you see, and "We feel that this is harmless; but when we get into this range, there might be some harm to those," and so on. Then the Surgeon General has something on which to decide whether he wants to do it or doesn't want to do it. DR. FRIEDELL: But I don't feel that you can accurately reflect the way you think and feel about something by a couple of pages of written paper. DR. FAILLA: The other thing comes next. 48 MR. SIMMONS: How about a proposal along this line, that the Committee on Human Observations prepare a proposal -- DR. FAILLA: That is right. MR. SIMMONS: -- let's say, with the Air Surgeon's Office in mind; a proposals to the Air Surgeon for a program in human observation. DR. FRIEDELL: I would rather turn it the other way around. DR. FAILLA: They can't prepare it. DR. FRIEDELL: No, no; prepare it after consultation with some duly appointed members of the committee if they want to accept them. In other words, if they want it in writing, sure. But I think it should be done only after they have consulted with them and talked with them and freely exchanged ideas and clarified certain hiatuses that may exist; and then if it needs to have a written proposal, fine. But I don't think we ought to write up a proposal and say, "Here it is." And here will be a wall between us and this fellow will look at it and we have written it and maybe there is not the complete understanding. DR. STONE: You are thinking of a specific proposal. I think what the Admiral has in mind is very definite, in general what -- MR. SIMS: "Where do we go from here?" MR. SIMMONS: What is the next step? MR. SIMS: We just recommended that human experiments be done. All right; they are interested in it. Now, "What is it? How much does it cost?" MR. SIMMONS: "Who is going to do it?" MR. SIMS: "How much does it cost? Who is going to do it? So far we have just laid it in their laps. Now, I asked a question, whether it would be agreeable to you gentlemen on the Committee of Human Experimentation, if you would be willing to serve in an advisory capacity to the Air Surgeon for formulating a program and following -- MR. SIMMONS: And following through with it. MR. SIMS: Help him get it started somehow under his auspices. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is what I was going to suggest; that the Committee or members of the Committee meet with the Air Surgeon and air group, which takes in what Dr. Friedell is talking about, discuss the problem; and then, following that discussion, the Committee write up a broad proposal and then offer that proposal to interested people for actual detailed protocol. 49 Is that agreeable? Or we can be more specific. We can say "Why not designate Dr. Stone to meet with the Surgeon General and discuss the thing in broad outlines and he can convene his Committee" -- DR. STONE: I can say now the Committee is very widely divergent. DR. FAILLA: Who is on the Committee? DR. FRIEDELL: Cantril is on the Committee. I think I am on the Committee, am I not? DR. STONE: You are on the Committee. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It is Stone as Chairman; Dr. Friedell; Sid Cantril; Shields Warren. DR. FRIEDELL: Shields Warren is on the Committee? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: And Bob Newell. MR. SIMMONS: Is Stafford Warren on it? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No, he is not on it. Is that your Committee? DR. STONE: I think so. I don't have the names of the Committee here. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I am sure the Committee is Stone as Chairman; Friedell; Shields Warren -- DR. STONE: I don't know that Newell is on it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I believe you are right. He just came up that day. DR. STONE: I don't think he is on it. But there is somebody else. There were five. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I was on it, sub rose. DR. STONE: No, you were on it. DR. ANDERSON: You started to say something about the divergences within the Committee. DR. STONE: On the data that was sent in to me at the time that were wrote to the Committee before the last meeting, some of them, for instance, were not willing to go above 25 r exposure to a human; and others wanted to go up to 250 r exposure to a human. So I think the Committee ought to, before they meet with the Surgeon General, try to come out with something so that we wouldn't get in front of him, as it were, and then start all this round-the-table conflab, so that he would say, "Well, gentlemen, beat it and decide amongst yourselves, and then come back." DR. FAILLA: That is right. 50 MR. KALITINSKY: I think that is a very good point. MR. SIMS: For a mechanism here rather than any precise answer. We are going to have the same problem with every one of these. Just read any of your fields there; take Number 3 and read it. That is a very desirable field for activity for the aircraft program; but where do we go from here? DR. FRIEDELL: I think I would be willing to move that any or all of the members of this Committee should be willing to serve in consultation with any of the executives that will carry out this program. If we are willing to propose it, we ought to be willing to serve in consultation to set up the program. DR. STONE: There is something more than that, though. I am not sure if NEPA, after they have looked over this program, want to really branch into the study of biological work; that they are not going to have to set up a more functioning body that this body that meets three times a year or so. MR. SIMS: That is right. What I am getting at, should we take each one of these fields of work and have smaller groups made up of our main medical advisory panel and have smaller groups serve under each one of those to more clearly define the objective that are to be reached, more precisely set down the specific projects that should be undertaken in these broad fields? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What you want is an advisory group which can be a functional group -- MR. SIMS: I don't say what I want. I am just throwing the problems on the table for discussion here. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: -- which would function in each one of these specific fields. MR. SIMS: Should we review our committee assignments at this time with the idea of reaching a mechanism for carrying these on, the next step? DR. STONE: Actually you come to the question whether this Committee has completed its job now, and whether it should -- MR. SIMS: It hasn't completed its job. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Re-orient. MR. SIMS: It should re-orient. DR. TITUS EVANS: That is an idea. We could have three names under each one of these things. They are to work up a report for the larger group on what they think is being done and what should be done. 51 MR. SIMS: What should we do next? What is the next step? DR. ANDERSON: I don't know if this is the place to begin talking about it or not, but if we are through with the human experimentation or observation side, which I think is something quite distinct from these others -- this is only a small part of the Committee competent to have anything really to say on that-- DR. STONE: That is one group of studies to be done that fits in with the rest. DR. ANDERSON: So far as these others are concerned, although this may not be the time to bring it up, these are on the separate fields, and we should recognize immediately they are inter-related and set it up in that way. Somebody has to -- it seems to me -- relate these in some kind of a sequence as far as the actual approach is concerned. What I mean specifically is this: To me the one listed under 4 is without any meaning except in relation to some criterion; and the two criteria which we have set up primarily are listed under 3 and 5. So, in considering 4, it must be done with relation to 3 and 5, it seems to me. DR. FRIEDELL: Not necessarily. DR. ANDERSON: If it is to serve the purpose of this particular group. Now, there may be other studies in addition in the broad biological field, of course. But what one wants to know specifically for this particular group is what the factor is under specific conditions with respect to the criteria which we are interested in; and those two criteria primarily so far as listed under 3 and 5. I think the same thing is true to varying degrees with 1, 2, and 6. It seems to me that 3 and 5 are the key -- DR. STONE: You are talking about the old numbers on here. DR. TITUS EVANS: That has been changed. DR. ANDERSON: I am sorry. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is all right. We know what you are talking about. DR. ANDERSON: Perhaps it isn't intelligible. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes, it is. DR. ANDERSON: But, at any rate, whatever used to be under 3 and 5, first evaluation of physical fitness and longevity effects, those were the criteria; these others are characteristics which may apply only to those specific criteria. They may be different for other criteria. 52 DR. STONE: That is true in almost any field, but the fields laid down here are really in a sense what that particular experiment is aiming at. You are getting down to the details of how they are going to do it. DR. ANDERSON: As I say, it may be premature to talk about this, but all I am saying is one can't consider these by small groups, can't do this independently. There has to be some unifying group at the start on these. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We have a subcommittee on Human Experimentation. Getting around to what Mr. Sims said, is it advisable now to make a similar group for each one of these? For instance, when it comes to evaluation of long-term effects, I have worked and studied on that for three or four years. I mean, I would be perfectly willing to be a member of a group on that. Well, there are various members around here that are particularly interested in various fields. Maybe we could pick out men in this and the larger group who could act to each one of these such as Stone's group does to human experimentation. They could formulate some policies and programs. That is what you had in mind, wasn't it? MR. SIMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then they could act directly with the Air Force. DR. FRIEDELL: Is it enough to say now that the appropriate members of the Committee will serve as consultants? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How would this be? DR. FAILLA: That is understood. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Would you agree with this, that we send out and get the main committee's opinion. Then the next thing is, say "This has been approved," and to certain members, "Would you be willing to function as a subcommittee relative to working on more details for each one of these specific things, just as Dr. Stone's committee will for the human experimentation?" Would that answer your question? MR. SIMS: Yes, sir, I think so. I think we are going to have to breach this down into smaller subcommittees for each specific topic here, of about eight different subcommittees. As Dr. Anderson says, the work is going to have to be correlated there, either through executive committees or a meeting of the whole group. DR. FAILLA: We may have overlapping membership. 53 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Could we do this? Of the people who are here today, I have expressed the fact I would be willing to certainly act on this chronic thing. Dr. Stone on the Human. Do any of you here have any particular ones that you had rather function on that others? Then, if we can get this group settled, if we can, what of the other main committee would you like to have work with you on these particular things you are interested in? DR. STONE: It seems to me there is a more major problem here. Is NEPA willing, able, or desirous of proceeding now into this field to take up anything that is left out? MR. SIMS: We can, sir. DR. STONE: What I am getting at is, the only way to do it would be to have, as I see it, a director of the program whose job it would be then to specifically decide what is going to be done. The advisory committee can advise all it wants, but it seems to me that somebody has to got to take a more specific action now, and that is the only place you are going to get the work done, is by assignment to somebody; and an advisory committee meet and talk like we are doing here and wonder where to go next. But somebody has got to be given the responsibility of doing it. MR. SIMS: That is my next note on the bill here. I feel that we need the advise of this group for a permanent staff of NEPA to handle the problem. So far we only have the part-time services of Dr. Selle and Dr. Anderson here. It is highly satisfactory -- DR. STONE: As far as it goes. MR. SIMS: As far as it goes, yes, sir, for several days out of the month. Dr. Anderson was with us for a six-months' period, but he has gone back to the University now. He was in a consultant status. Dr. Selle was with ut for several months, and he has gone back. When are you coming back? DR. SELLE: In June. MR. SIMS: For the summer? DR. SELLE: Yes. MR. SIMS: Now, we have these specific fields laid out. What do we do about them and how do we do? DR. STONE: There is a committee set up under the armed forces under the Research and Development Board which they call the Panel on Atomic Medicine, I think. I believe Joe Aub took the chairmanship of the panel. They are specifically assigned the objective of reviewing both what is being done in the armed services and in civilian institutions of all the programs that are being covered. 54 DR. FRIEDELL: I am a member of that Panel, and they haven't had a meeting yet; so nobody knows what is going to be done. But apparently it is advisory to the Research and Development Board, of course. MR. SIMS: It is, and somebody has to make out the objective for them to consider. Someone has to write out these items that are put on the agenda for discussion. DR. STONE: They approached me once about taking the chairmanship of that. As I saw it, if it was to do what they wanted it to do, it was a fulltime job, not a parttime job. I didn't see how anybody could possibly carry it as a parttime job or any committee could carry the functions set out for it. DR. FRIEDELL: Joe Aub talked to me about being a member, and I think the other members are Franklin McLean and Mayo Soley. I discussed that at quite some length with Dr. Aub. He said that this would be purely advisory. They would serve only in a consultative capacity, and they would not meet more than three times a year. If it was more than that, he said he would resign and he would expect the resignation of everybody else. I don't see how the other members or I can take it on more than that. DR. STONE: Three times a year? DR. FRIEDELL: They do have an executive secretary who is suppose to handle it all the year round, takes care of the information. The way it is made up, they have the Panel. Then they have deputy members. Then they have associate members. In other words, it all forms about fourteen or fifteen people; and I presume that the idea would be that the other services and agencies would sort of provide the Research Development Board with an over-all picture of what is being done and where the hiatuses are. I don't think they have any responsibility with regard to setting up research programs. DR. STONE: You have to approve the budget of the armed forces for their programs. MR. SIMS: That is it. DR. STONE: The budget can't go through presumably without your approval. DR. FAILLA: That is right. DR. FRIEDELL: Without Joe Aub's approval, I think. DR. STONE: Yes, it is the chairman that does it. 55 DR. FRIEDELL: That Joe Aub is willing to do all that work, fine. I don't get the other members of the committee to do it. DR. STONE: You are on the committee that knows anything about radiation effect. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't ILLEGIBLE Aub has had a fair amount of experience with it. Mayo experience with radio-iodine. DR. STONE: Not with DR. FRIEDELL: Sure ILLEGIBLE run down our committee like that now. Maybe I will ILLEGIBLE if they cured cases with half a millicure of iodine. What I ILLEGIBLE is how they cured these cases with small doses. That ILLEGIBLE on the committee. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: ILLEGIBLE NEPA needs is somebody fulltime to sparkplug this thing. DR. FAILLA: How is ILLEGIBLE get the money for this work? DR. FRIEDELL: NEPA DR. FAILLA: How is ILLEGIBLE get the money for this work? MR. SIMMONS: Dr. Friedell ILLEGIBLE the committee that approves the military budget for work. (Discussion off-the record by Mr. Sims.) DR. FRIEDELL: I really don't think the problem is so much of provision of funds, but the problem you made of continuation of funds. But the other thing is, who are going to get to do it? Of course, there is no experience like your own experience; and in my own particular case, I frankly couldn't see how I could take on any of these activities now because we are so much up to our ear in all the other things we are doing, and I presume a great many of the people are in the same position here. I don't know. MR. SIMMONS: Isn't this problem of continuation of funds a universal problem, irrespective of where you are operating, what agency? DR. FRIEDELL: No. The university funds, for example, of course, are dependent upon whether they can invest their bonds and get a reasonable income. But the assurances are much different than a yearly review by some agency. There is no review in university funds. They can say eventually boys, no money today. Our bonds didn't turn up," or some such thing. But under these circumstances with all Government agencies, at the end of the year some agency -- well, this committee I am going to serve on; I don't know how we are going to feel that that day. 56 We may say, "Well, we don't think much of this program any more; no more funds." What happens? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Of course, there are two of these programs there is no use in starting unless they can be carried through on a long-term basis. That is human experimentation and long-term evaluation. That has to be made quite clear to any sponsoring agency, that these are no one-year experiments or ten-year experiments. DR. STONE: Now, the U.S. Public Health Service has finally come around to -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Five years. DR. STONE: -- five years; and some of the programs which they think are particularly valuable are of no value except for long- term, let's say. They are even attempting to finance by advance financing, and Congress has given them power to -- what do they call it? -- contract -- MR. SIMS: Contract authorization. DR. STONE: Contract authorization to go on for two or three years beyond the present year. DR. FRIEDELL: What is the limitation? I heard it was four years or something like that. DR. STONE: At the fifth year the thing is reviewed as if it is a new program coming in for the first time. But if you state on a program that it is going to take you five years to do this program, they say that they have accepted the moral commitment to continue. But just to show you how difficult it is to get to that point, I was just day before yesterday sitting on a committee at the University where we couldn't get the guys there to agree to finance anything beyond a year, even though it looked like it ought to go beyond a year. It would be useless to do that. They said, "No, we want to review it at the end of the year." DR. FRIEDELL: You mean your own university? DR. STONE: Our own university, with funds coming to us for cancer research. DR. FAILLA: Funds coming from an uncertain source? DR. STONE: That wasn't the trouble. It was just the fact that this body sitting there said, "No, we are not willing to agree that Dowdy has a program there that is worth carrying on for five years. Let him come up at the end of this year as if it is a new program." DR. SELLE: A general research committee for the whole university? DR. STONE: Cancer research committee for the whole university. 57 DR. FRIEDELL: We don't want to go into the philosophy of that; but one of the attractive features about a university is that these things are antonymous and they say, "Here is the money for an indefinite period of time, dependent upon certain features like the bond issues and so on and so forth. "You go ahead and you carry out your research program, and we are not going to be reviewing this every fifteen months." You might just as well be working with the U.S. Public Health Service as far as I am concerned, if you are going to work under the circumstances which you outline. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Of course, you are talking about a private university. He is talking about a state. DR. FRIEDELL: Even a state institution. DR. TITUS EVANS: There are certain things that you can count on; but you are subject to review in a state university, that is, every two years. We get a new budget. Every year we get a budget, but every two years we get appropriations from the state. DR. STONE: Of course, you can commit yourself provided funds are available, whether private funds or Governmental funds. I think the important thing here would be that if these programs started, that they would be just the same as NEPA itself doesn't want to go ahead unless it has some assurance that it is going to go beyond a half a year. The same here. They wouldn't want to go ahead unless it was said, "Well now, this program will go ahead for five years if funds are made available to us." That is true in any business or industry or anything else. DR. FRIEDELL: I suppose in the last analysis we shouldn't even request that any special arrangement be made here, although we ought to have some tacit understanding about this continuing on, if possible; because we will have to do this with a certain amount of confidence, a feeling that it is going to go on and work on just the way you proceed in our daily lives. You don't know what is going to happen tomorrow or the week afterwards. DR. ANDERSON: There is a certain distinction, though, between types of research where you can get results from year to year, which may continue for five or ten years; and the type of research where you get no result virtually short of the lifetime of the animal. DR. FAILLA: That is right. DR. FRIEDELL: But you make the assumption that people will appreciate the fact that results are going to be available or not going to be available in a short time, and will be available in a long time. If you have no confidence in anybody evaluating that, then I think you cast aspersions on the general conduct of all our affairs. 58 DR. ANDERSON: Yes, but couldn't that be emphasized at the time the program is set up to whoever furnishes the money, that that is the nature of a large part of this program? MR. SIMMONS: Wouldn't the first thing we would have to know would be how much we expect to spend and over what period of time? Then, in the light of that, you could evaluate the probability of having the funds to carry it out. Isn't that the first step? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Stone and his group could tell you, after some discussion, how much money would be involved and how long a period, couldn't you? DR. STONE: No. That would be extremely difficult. You could make an estimate. It would depend on where it is done; how it is done; and everything else. DR. FAILLA: The point I wanted to bring out is that we wanted to know who is getting to eventually decide how much money is spent in this kind of work, whether it is done by NEPA, Atomic Energy Commission, Public Health Service, or whatever it may be; because I think there is a tendency now to concentrate all the power in the Research and Development Board as to what money is being spent for all sorts of activities, and unless we know who are the people that are going to decide that, I don't think we can say anything but the assurance of the continuity of funds. So I believe all this thing should be coordinated with the work of the AEC, and then make a joint effort to see that funds are available to the AEC and to NEPA and to other organizations for the continuation of this work for a definite period. Unless we do that, we really can't make very definite plans. MR. SIMS: You take the mechanisms of coordination out. You can't necessarily coordinate something just on a broad field of interest here that we have set up. You have to be more specific. DR. FAILLA: The broad field of biological effects of ionizing radiation. How much is the AEC going to cover, and how much is NEPA going to cover, for instance? Then, this other thing, the RW business. They are doing a lot of work. They have ambitious plans. DR. FRIEDELL: What is RW? Radiological warfare? DR. FAILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is right. DR. FAILLA: That is only one phase of this. There are a lot of other things here that have to be done. Somebody has got to do them. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: They haven't been very active in getting chronic long-term experiments done. We have been needling them for two years. 59 DR. FAILLA: Suppose we say, "You don't do anything in that. We will do it." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: So there are two that look as if they are going to have to fall on NEPA's shoulders. We can tell you right now those are two -- or at least certainly as far as the chronic ones are concerned -- where concerted effort will be required by NEPA to get them to do anything about it. DR. FAILLA: I agree to all that. That is not the thing -- DR. FRIEDELL: I don't know, though, that this doesn't require further analysis if most of the funds are going to come from AEC for this biological work. It would be a strange situation indeed in their own program if they won't approve of something and then they will give NEPA the money to do something, approve of something they have reviewed and considered not satisfactory. MR. SIMMONS: We have examples of this, though. DR. FRIEDELL: It is occurring all the time? MR. SIMMONS: I won't say all the time. I know of one specific example. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it is possible that AEC might in some way furnish the money for human experimentation where it is hidden in there some place. DR. FAILLA: I am not interested in human experimentation because that is only one small phase of the whole problem. I am talking in general. There is a lot of work to be done, and it won't be done unless it is pushed. Now also, it won't be done if there is some misunderstanding or some idea in somebody's mind, say the Committee of the Research and Development Board, that there is going to be a lot of duplication in this field, and therefore that too much money is being spent. I have exactly the same situation right now with the radiological instrumentation program. I am trying to coordinate that for the Navy, Army, and Air Force. That is one back of a job, and the Research and Development Board say that too much, entirely too much, money is being spent in that field, that the AEC is doing it, and so on and so forth. Why should the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force do it, too? DR. FRIEDELL: Is that a good question? DR. FAILLA: It is a good question in a way, but they don't know what is to be done. They haven't the slightest idea. MR. SIMS: Have you been able to find out specifically what work is being accomplished? 60 DR. FAILLA: Yes, I know what is being done. We are going to have a meeting next week lasting three days. Each one is going to explain what he is doing. MR. SIMS: If we get together and prepare programs and we find that the program of what we propose to be accomplished is over here, and some other agency produces a rather fuzzy program, they don't mesh. DR. FAILLA: That is the difficulty. I think we have got to face it, and the earlier we face it, the better it is, because the people that decide on the appropriation of funds, for instance, and the Committee on Atomic Energy, just don't know what the technical problems are. Yet they decide well, one million dollars ought to be enough for all this radiological instrumentation. That is what they say. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It gets back to where more and more research is dictated by one committee; and the longer it takes them to decide on it, the longer it takes to get back, and you are standing for a year or two years, unless you have some funds available. These recommendations have finally to go up through the Medical Advisory Committee of AEC. You figure out it would be two years before you get anything done. DR. FAILLA: I wrote Shields Warren not so long ago in connection with the long-term business. He ought to call a meeting of all the people that are interested in the study of biological effects of ionizing radiation and decide on an over-all program which we could all approve and push, and then he would have the backing of everybody, that this is the thing that has to be done. Now, some of it will be done by AEC and some of it will be done by contract and some of it will be done by NEPA, and so on. Unless you do that, I am afraid that you are going to have the trouble every year of justifying the budget, and it is going to be a heck of a problem. You can't promise anybody that it is going to have funds for five years, ten years, or even two years. DR. STONE: Of course, you are going to have the other problem that comes in here, and I don't know where the two you are talking about are going to jibe. While I was connected with Argonne, they told the Manhattan District that it was none of their business. Essentially they didn't put it in so many words, but what biological work they did, their biological work was based on the needs of covering the people that were working with them as regards to what was being done. The same thing applies here to NEPA, that the biological program and the rest of it has specific application. They cannot go ahead with their program unless they have this information to go ahead with. 61 DR. FAILLA: That is fine. But in the budget they are going to state one million dollars is for radiological research. Then they have to justify that. Somebody will say "Oh, all that work is being done by the AEC or the Argonne National Laboratories," so on and so forth. "We don't see why you need a million dollars," and they are going to have a tough time -- DR. FRIEDELL: You will never divorce authority and responsibility from this sort of funds, and I don't think we would want it this way. I want to hold the guy who is going to allocate money responsible for the program in all phases, in every activity. That is, I want to say to you, if you are allocating money, that I hold you responsible for the money. I don't want you to be able to say, "My responsibility is ended. I have given away so much money." I want you to be directly responsible for the funds which you dispose or allocate. DR. STONE: You can't do that. Your Manhattan District tried to do that, and there is nobody capable of having sufficient knowledge to do it. DR. ANDERSON: That is the dilemma of centralized knowledge. That is the basic difficulty. DR. FRIEDELL: Exactly. But I don't want him to be spending my money without my being able to hold him responsible. I mean that. DR. ANDERSON: Which means centralized control. DR. FAILLA: That is where the trouble is. DR. FRIEDELL: That is a serious dilemma. DR. ANDERSON: You bet it is. DR. FRIEDELL: Nevertheless I am not willing to turn over my taxes year after year to somebody who will not account for them. DR. STONE: You can account for them. DR. FRIEDELL: All right. As long as you account for them, that is fine. That means you have to have authority and responsibility. DR. STONE: You go to NEPA and say, "Here, we want you to develop an engine and a plane and use it and the whole works, and it is your responsibility now to see that can be done satisfactorily," and you give them that responsibility. Then they do what they see is necessary. DR. FRIEDELL: Supporting NEPA says, "In order to do this, I need $100,000,000,000," which is 50 percent of the total effort of the United States? They have $200,000,000,000. So then what do you do? 62 DR. STONE: You ask them what they are spending it for, of course; but you don't go into the complete detail of the thing. DR. FRIEDELL: Sure. But then you say, "Well, $100,000,000,000 represents 50 percent of our effort. Wait a minute now. Let's examine this again." DR. STONE: You decide whether it is worth 50 percent of the effort. DR. FRIEDELL: Exactly. DR. STONE: But you don't investigate this screw to see whether it fits in the right spot or not. DR. FRIEDELL: Sure. I agree that you have to have some point whereby you don't get into the details. Otherwise you can't make decisions. But I would like to reiterate that I would like to hold you responsible for spending 50 percent of my effort for this. I want to go to you, and I don't want the responsibility shifted down to a hundred million people and no responsibility exists at all. I think that is the only way, as long as we have a centralized organization, that it can be conducted. DR. STONE: Do you want a Hitlerian government? DR. FRIEDELL: I am not going to turn over 50 percent of my effort to you without you accounting for it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I agree with Dr. Stone here in that NEPA may be given a job to do; and now then NEPA has been working on it and they review the problem, and they say, "In order to do this, we must have certain information and we have to have control of that information. We have to have it where we can get it. A lot of it has to be directed." "Now then, in order to do this problem, it takes so many million dollars." "How are you going to spend it?" "I am going to spend so much on reactor; I am going to spend so much here; I am going to spend so much on designing; and a certain amount of it goes into this. We have to have it." Supposing they say, "It is going to take two million dollars to get these answers. All the rest we do are no good unless we have those answers." Then NEPA is responsible, and in that way I think their responsibility lies. Beyond that point, as to whether you put the nut on the left hand or the right is none of their business. DR. FRIEDELL: Nevertheless you have made a decision as to what their sphere of responsibility is, and the same thing goes from every position on upward. I want to hold the President of the United States for all the responsibilities that are assigned to him, and I don't want him to come to me and say, "This is not my responsibility because I delegated it to fifteen other guys, and these fifteen other guys delegated it in turn." 63 DR. FAILLA: He has to do that. He can't do it any other way. DR. FRIEDELL: Oh, yes, but I want him responsible. DR. STONE: Let's not argue. DR. FRIEDELL: That is the point. DR. FAILLA: How are you going to settle this particular problem? Let's come down to the concrete example here. What do you mean in this connection? DR. FRIEDELL: I mean essentially this -- DR. FAILLA: You are talking in generalities. DR. FRIEDELL: If the funds are coming from the Atomic Energy Commission for this, or the military -- I don't know; a combination of the two, I presume -- we are not going to be able to divorce our activities from their policies. I don't see how you can do it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Here is what NEPA wants to do. We have given them these eight fields. NEPA wants to say, "How much money is that going to cost us to get this information so we know how much we have to add to our budget request next years, and we ant justification for this million and a half or two million dollars." That is what you want to know, isn't it? MR. SIMS: We have determine what is reasonable for accomplishment in one particular year; what are your objectives, what you are going to undertake in this particular field. Now, my question is: What is your mechanism for arriving at that? DR. TITUS EVANS: The first thing we have to do is to see how much is being done, going to be done, by other agencies. MR. SIMMONS: Oh this human problem, don't we have a pretty fair idea of that right now? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We know that. That is what I have been trying to say. We know that on the long-term. DR. FAILLA: Let's cross out the human problem. Dr. Stone will take care of that. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Now then, certainly there is a lot of this being done. There is hardly a program you can mention on some of this pharmacological stuff that isn't being studied. It is probably being studied in a dozen different places. So in that I think you don't have to go much into it to try and find out and keep abreast of what is coming out and what is being done. 64 DR. SELLE: I think we have a pretty good idea now. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We have a pretty good idea, and nothing has been accomplished so far, very much; but that doesn't mean that a lot of effort isn't going into it and it doesn't mean that tomorrow or the next day something won't come out of it. I think that maybe if we get the ones that are interested in special fields here in a group, then they could formulate just exactly what ought to be done, and try to put down an estimate in dollars and manpower. I am sure that Dr. Stone can come up with that with his committee, something in the manpower, something in the expense. I think that with a group, the same thing can be done on this long-term thing, and certain ones of the others. I think that is our next step after we get our approval from the general committee, is to get two or three people working on each one of these. MR. SIMS: Then it is my recommendation when you send these fields of work out, you poll the various members of our Medical Advisory Panel to see which field they are particularly interested in. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: And if I could get from this group here, the ones that are here, what fields they would be interested in; we will say, would each one here be willing to chairman -- I don't know whether Dr. Stone is willing or not, but he is stuck with it. He is chairman of that other one. These other members here -- who in the over-all big committee would they like to work with them on that particular problem? Then they would be responsible for giving something in terms of manpower and Monte Carlo value. Is that a reasonable procedure? MR. SIMMONS: It seems so to me. DR. SELLE: I think so. DR. FAILLA: Actually this group can formulate a program that would be very good; and the Atomic Energy Commission or anybody else would simply have to say it good and would have to support it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: They would have to support it to get their own work. They have to go to these same people. DR. FAILLA: They really haven't made any attempt to coordinate this thing. DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we adjourn for lunch and come back and go over these particular fields. We are getting a little bit argumentative on details here. 65 DR. FAILLA: I would like to add to that suggestion that we have these things typewritten so we can have them. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Have these eight recommendations indicated so we can make necessary corrections -- DR. FAILLA: At any rate, so we can see what fields we have and some of us can say we can do something along those lines or not. DR. FRIEDELL: What is on the agenda besides these eight things? Anything else? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If we can do just what I said here, get those out and get a chairman for each one of those and let him recommend who he would like to serve with him of the main committee, if we get that done, then I think that will be about all we can accomplish. That would be enough. DR. FRIEDELL: In other words, what we will try to do is to work out some little panel or group that will come forward with proposals for each one of these eight things. Is that right? DR. STONE: Any suggestions we can get from the people that are here. We have come together. We might as well do something. DR. SELLE: These ideas are in the rough, as they were originally prepared. DR. STONE: Take them in the rough as they are. DR. FAILLA: Just have them typewritten. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What we want is to get these eight things down specifically, so we can assign chairmen for the panels. At this time we will recess for lunch. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Committee recessed for lunch.) 66 AFTERNOON SESSION (2:00 p.m.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: May we come to order. We are all here except Dr. Evans, and he will be back in just a minute. You have before you now a copy of those recommendations. They are not worded as they will have to be worked; but if there are any major changes in them, we will have to make them. The first one is human experimentation, the second one, analytical calculation of absorption and distribution of energy in an irradiated medium simulating the human body. The third one, continuation of compilation of available information on biological effects of radiation; four, methods for detecting degree of sensitivity of individuals to radiation exposure. Five, methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects; six, evaluation of physical fitness following total-body irradiation. MR. KALITINSKY: I wonder if it wouldn't be more precise to say, "During and following"? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Which one are you talking about? DR. STONE: "Before, during, and following." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Which one are you on? MR. KALITINSKY: Six. DR. FRIEDELL: Evaluation of physical fitness. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: "Following total-body irradiation." MR. SIMMONS: "During and following." MR. KALITINSKY: "During and following." DR. CALKINS: "Following" there, of course, means during. DR. STONE: The minute you start, you are following. MR. SIMMONS: I think everybody knows what this means. DR. STONE: The point is, if this falls into somebody else's hands like this Board -- MR. KALITINSKY: I think there is a point here, because the physical fitness is most important while the radiation is going on. DR. FRIEDELL: It is important only after he has received radiation. MR. KALITINSKY: That is why I say "during." 67 DR. FAILLA: His point is well taken. The observation should start as soon as radiation is received. DR. STONE: "During and following." DR. ANDERSON: Experimentally it would be very difficult to actually have the radiation going on, and it might be interpreted in that way. MR. KALITINSKY: I think it is important. There might be some effects that are present while the radiation is actually going on and disappear the moment -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How are you going to detect it, though? DR. ANDERSON: Who has been able to detect it? DR. FAILLA: Immediately following total-body radiation and later. DR. FRIEDELL: I think it is clear enough. DR. STONE: Say "during and following." You have accomplished everything you want. DR. FAILLA: Dr. Anderson raises the question "experimentally." MR. KALITINSKY: If you are making animal experiments, can't you make an animal perform certain task during irradiation? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The only experiment I know of in which that was done irradiated the animal continuously until death, and they observed the convulsions. DR. FRIEDELL: You could have them run a maze. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: During -- DR. FRIEDELL: Yes. DR. FAILLA: Why during? DR. ANDERSON: It would certainly complicate it, and what would it accomplish? DR. FRIEDELL: Why don't you leave this along? Everybody knows what we mean. DR. STONE: Wait a minute. Lorenz had an experiment running where he had animals live in a radiation field, and they lived and ate and bred there. He found out that insemination occurring during radiation was okay; they still went on all right. DR. TITUS EVANS: Very low intensity. DR. STONE: Four r per day. 68 DR. ANDERSON: It is two very different things. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I would say we leave it out because that puts in a new type of experiment entirely. MR. KALITINSKY: That brings up an interesting point, though. If it is a very different type of experiment, is there any chance that the results will be different? And if the results will be different, then definitely the experiment should be made, because the pilot is not going to fly his plane after he has been irradiated. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: He may. DR. ANDERSON: The point you are raising is essentially this, isn't it: Can one say absolutely that all of the effect of irradiation is due to the accumulated effect previous to the incident you are considering, or is there some due actually to the instantaneous irradiation? That is the question that is being asked really. I think most people would answer that no, but I think it might be difficult to prove. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think you are opening up to another field which is very difficult to evaluate and probably has no meaning so far as this is concerned. DR. STONE: I don't know. You are deciding ahead of time. Let's say you are running some long-term experiment where you radiate animals for eight hours a day. You could test some of their reactions during the eight hours, and after them, and see whether there is any difference. DR. FRIEDELL: Let's not waste our time on trivia. Anything you want to put down will be all right, I am sure. DR. STONE: "During and following." MR. KALITINSKY: That leaves the question open. DR. STONE: Leaves it open. You don't have to do every experiment. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Why not change to "total-body irradiation"? That changes the meaning entirely, doesn't it? DR. STONE: Say, "As a result of total-body irradiation," and you can do it either, during or after. DR. FRIEDELL: "Effects of total-body irradiation on physical fitness." MR. KALITINSKY: That would be all right. DR. FRIEDELL: "Evaluation of the effects of total-body irradiation on physical fitness." 69 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 7: "Biological additivity of ionizing radiations having different specific ionization" -- "having different degrees of specific ionization." DR. FRIEDELL: Let's have it the way it is. DR. STONE: "Biological additivity" might be disputed, but I don't know it is worthwhile. The additivity of the biological effects. DR. TITUS EVANS: We differentiated from physical measurements there. DR. FRIEDELL: Let's make it "Additivity of biological effects of ionizing radiation." DR. STONE: Let it ride. Don't get into an argument about it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Okay. "Evaluation of long-term effects of acute and intermittent exposures of ionization." There is one field of investigation here which I have followed many times and mentioned, which we have entirely neglected. Should there be an exploration of how to pick people from the psychological standpoint with this particular hazard, which is entirely different? The psychological response is entirely different to this particular -- MR. SIMS: I think that is a good point, and it might well be -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I have that down here on one of these. DR. FRIEDELL: I think you ought to have a psychiatrist handle this. I don't think anybody here - I speak for myself -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is the point. Should we recommend to them that they have some psychiatrist start on this? That is my point. DR. TITUS EVANS: Couldn't that be part of the human experimentation? DR. STONE: Human experimentation is an entirely different thing. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 5 on the one I brought today, "Method of Selection of Pilots for a Mission with this Particular Psychological Hazard." DR. STONE: Hasn't the Air Force medical corps worked out a technique of selecting pilots? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Not for this particular hazard. MR. SIMS: Yes, sir, they have. The Air Force has what is known as a 6-4 examination for selection of flight crews. The psychiatric tests are a very important part of those tests. There may be something here in connection with radiation that has some peculiar bearing on psychiatry. 70 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it is different. I think it is entirely different, and I have this worded -- MR. SIMS: What we are generally trying to do is to put tools in the hands of the flight surgeons to enable them to select the crew with greater precision for this peculiar problem. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think this is entirely different. You will run into a burning building. Maybe you have only a 50 percent chance of escaping, but you will run in to resume someone. But when you get out, if you get out unharmed, you know you are all right. Now, that is an entirely different psychological hazard from this. Walking into a place where you are reasonably sure you will get out, you won't notice anything. But you have got twenty or thirty years to think about it, and it is an entirely different psychological hazard. I think we should consider that this is one field that NEPA should keep in mind. DR. FRIEDELL: If you go into a burning building -- assuming a burning building has noxious later effects -- and come out, it is too late to think about it. He has accomplished the mission that he is useful for. If you say he won't go into the burning building because he has twenty or thirty years to think abut it afterwards, that is another problem. Maybe that is what you meant to say. DR. FAILLA: That is what he means. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But the hazard is entirely different. For instance, in ordinary flight, if these boys went their fifty mission and there were no casualties -- DR. FRIEDELL: I think it is much more complicated than that, in that generally we don't come to an individual and say, "These are what the risks are, and this is the character of the risk." You don't set before them the whole spectrum and all the possible chances. It is just like doing an appendectomy on a patient and saying to him, "In 1 out of 400 cases," or whatever it is, "this anesthesia will kill you. In one chance out of a hundred you may develop mesenteric thrombosis. In one chance out of such and such you will develop this." You don't do that. You have weighed that all beforehand, and you come to him and say, "This is what we need to do. We have weighed it all. We have done the best we could do under the circumstances," and that is it. I don't know. First of all, many of these things are man-made. We are now coming to a point where we are saying the longevity is reduced by so much, by so much radiation; something we don't now anything about, really. 71 The proposal has been made on a basis of extrapolation down to low levels from other data. We say that the carcinogenic effect is such and such from total-body irradiation. The carcinogenic effect we are thinking about is leukemia, and the basis is on statistical studies. I think the whole thing is not yet secure enough. The only thing we really know something about is, if they get enough radiation, they will probably be sterile, because the amount of radiation to produce sterility is fairly low, and we are not sure of that. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You are talking about this from a factual standpoint. I can give you an example of one of my personnel who got a little bit of contamination. It wasn't enough to do any damage, but that individual was practically hysterical. Certainly that type of a person who is going to react in a hysterical -- MR. SIMMONS: Wouldn't he be likely to be hysterical with other things as well, if he was hysterical? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No. DR. FAILLA: Wait a minute. We can't do anything about this except to recommend to NEPA that some such thing as radiation hazards should be considered by the psychological tests. DR. FRIEDELL: That is right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is all. DR. FAILLA: So we so recommend. I move that we make that recommendation. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there a second. DR. CALKINS: I second it. DR. STONE: That is really something that should go over to the Air Corps, isn't it, to do something in? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That aspect of the problem must be considered, and all we are recommending that they do is consider it. Point out to them that there is a possibility there is a difference here; of the hazard that ought to be considered in their selection of pilots. DR. STONE: I would like to get clear the difference that you are making here. These things are things you are recommending that they investigate as a program of their own, or secure the information from programs that are going on? DR. FAILLA: Yes. DR. STONE: The other thing you are recommending is that they do it or find it out. I don't quite see what the difference is. We are not going to tell them to do all these things. 72 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: This is in the same category as all these others, as far as I am concerned. DR. FAILLA: This is something we are familiar with. Therefore, we say that we feel that there is something here that ought to be investigated. We suggest to them that they look into it. DR. STONE: Through other channels. DR. FAILLA: Through other channels. DR. TITUS EVANS: I wonder if it couldn't contribute to nausea of radiation? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I know it does. DR. TITUS EVANS: Isn't it a contributing factor to radiation effects? DR. STONE: But there is an effect beyond, over, and above that. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We are not -- at least I am not -- competent to evaluate this problem. But they ought to seek somebody who is competent to evaluate this particular psychological hazard, and this be recommended just like any of the other eight. MR. KALITINSKY: I would like to make the suggestion that for two reasons: One is that there is a definite tie-up between this psychological effects and purely physical effects like nausea; and the other on the basis of the experience with the selection of flight crews. There the psychological tests and the purely physical tests are all very intimately tied and are considered as a whole. So I think that this part of the program really ties in with item 4, which is "Methods of detecting the degree of sensitivity of individuals." That item is really aimed at the selection of crews, and it is my feeling that this is a very important part and should be considered together with that, so that you can really look at the whole picture of both the physiological sensitivity and the psychological sensitivity and their interaction. DR. STONE: On the other hand, in animal experiments, which most of this is going to contemplate, you can't get much out of the other factors in the -- MR. KALITINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Maybe I am saying it another way, is that we have as a consultant and a member of this committee a psychologist. Did I understand that you feel this is already covered in -- MR. KALITINSKY: Not necessarily covered, but I think it should tie in with that, or Number 4 might be amplified. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: A motion has been made, and I believe seconded, that we recommend -- 73 DR. SELLE: I didn't get that down. I thought it was a suggestion rather than an actual motion. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Here is the way I have it worded: "Method of selection of pilots for a mission with this particular psychological hazard." DR. FRIEDELL: Why don't we just make a suggestion instead of giving it the formality of a motion, that someone convey this information to the Air Force, or whoever is involved, that the psychological aspects of this particular hazard be investigated? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it ought to be formal, because I am afraid that is a point we just sort of toss around that doesn't mean anything. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think it weighs equally with the things you have put here. DR. TITUS EVANS: It was pretty important at Bikini. Some of the guys were scared to death. They wouldn't have been any good if it was a real emergency, ordinary seamen. DR. STONE: I heard second-hand that at Eniwetok some of them were just scared to death. DR. CALKINS: I think it might be even more important than some of these things. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it bears equal weight. DR. TITUS EVANS: In selecting the crews to go down into the lagoon the first time, the man in charge -- whether he was a Navy man or an Army man -- had five people to select from ten. I just noticed that unconsciously they picked the five that were fairly settled and they weren't excited and so on. So that is a sort of a practical thing, and I think men will select their crews with that in mind anyway. But I think it is important. DR. FRIEDELL: I think it is a part of a general over-all program anyway that has very little to do with this narrow field. I admit, I recognize, that there is an unusual hazard in that theoretically the results will occur over a long period of time. But if you weigh the whole psychological impact of this fellow taking part in such an activity at such a time, it is going to be pretty small. I would leave that entirely to the psychiatrist to decide. DR. FAILLA: How would you like to have it worded, Admiral Sims? MR. SIMS: What we are trying to do is to provide the flight surgeon a mechanism for crew selection. DR. FAILLA: Yes. 74 MR. SIMS: Certainly it looks as if the psychological aspect should be considered in crew selection. There may be peculiarities dealing with radiation. I do believe that it might not be as important a field for investigation as these others are; but I certainly think it is something that should be pointed out to the flight surgeons. DR. FAILLA: How do you want this to be worded in order that we may point it out to the flight surgeons most effectively? As a motion or a suggestion? We already have the suggestion, so we could go ahead and do it. MR. SIMS: We do have a suggestion to point it out, but is it of the same category that these other eight fields are? DR. FAILLA: In a sense it is; but since we don't have any experts in that field here, we don't feel that we can act on that with the same authority as we can act on these others. MR. SIMS: Why don't we state just that, then? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You have three people here who have had experience with patients, and a lot of patients who are perfectly stable to ordinary types of things. The minute they understand they are going to get X-ray treatment, their reactions are entirely different. If you say, "You are going to have an appendectomy," it is an entirely different thing. It is a mental association with it. Maybe it is a lack of understanding. But their reactions are an entirely different thing to this sort of thing than saying, "You are going to have your appendix taken out." DR. STONE: You can go back to Hanford at the time of the end of the war when the bomb dropped, and the fear engendered in the workers there was so great that they found it necessary to put out an educational pamphlet to tell them that they hadn't been subject to all of these terrible things that they were talking about in the bomb, when they knew they had made it. But I think that is a matter that should be handled within the Air Corps. They should be cognizant of it, and they should think about it in their own psychological tests and so on. I don't think it is anything we can experiment with particularly. It is a factor, and it is a big factor; but it will be a factor in selecting the crews which are not subject to the type of experimentation we are thinking about. So it doesn't really belong in our program, but it does go to the flight surgeon as a possibility. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Where we are having trouble is; we are not psychologists. if you had a dozen psychologists, they might tell you, "Sure, there is a way of getting at that, and you can evaluate it." 75 We are not psychologists, so we don't know, and we are saying it can't be done. DR. STONE: We are not saying it can't be done. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We are not saying it can't be done. We are saying we don't know, and we can't do it. Therefore, it is not important. DR. FAILLA: No, we are not saying it isn't important. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Not important, but -- DR. STONE: It is important to the air service's program in selecting the crews to fly these ships if and when they are built. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then I think it assumes relative importance with these other eight in recommendations. We can't do it. MR. SIMS: There is no psychiatrist on this particular panel. However, we do believe -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Advice should be sought from a psychiatrist. You need experts in that field the same as you need them in what we are dealing with. In that relation, then, it become, I think, a recommendation of similar importance to the seven that we have, or eight. DR. STONE: Of course, it is actually beyond NEPA's -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes, but it is as important to them as some of these others, and maybe even more so. DR. TITUS EVANS: That is what I wondered. MR. SIMS: Why don't we disqualify ourselves from that standpoint, and still point out that there may be important aspects to consider, and recommend that it be brought to the attention of the Air Surgeon of the Air Force. DR. FRIEDELL: I so move. DR. FAILLA: I second it. DR. SELLE: Do you want to state that in a few words? MR. SIMS: Mr. Kalitinsky, you can phrase that better than I can. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I would go just a little stronger than the rest of you and put this down as Number 9: "It is recommended that evaluation or selection of pilots for a mission with this particular psychological hazard in mind be considered." Now, we can't do that for you. We can do that for you, but I am afraid that if it is just a little recommendation, that will get pushed off some place; and I have a feeling, gentlemen, that it is an extremely important factor. 76 I can't evaluate it. I don't think any of us here can. But somebody should evaluate it. DR. TITUS EVANS: I think it should be taken into the human studies that they do, a psychological study on these people to see if it makes any difference in their -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Whoever is doing these should have the advice of a psychological in certain aspects of it to see if they can -- DR. STONE: Let's get clear what these human studies are. The human studies, as we understand them, as they were set up, is the question of doing some experimentation with radiations on prisoners. Now, in all of these other programs there will be human studies, if you can work them in, on patients that are being treated for disease or anything else; so that the human study is not limited to this human experimentation, you see. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: And there are a number of those others in which the psychological aspect should be kept definitely in mind. We should have consultants or somebody who would help us, just like we are trying to help one another with this. MR. KALITINSKY: Could something like this be made as Number 9? it is really a recommendation: "It is recommended that the advice of specialists be sought on the psychological problems of pilot selection and on the advisability of specific research in this field." DR. SELLE: That is good. DR. STONE: if that goes to the Air Force, they will say, "Well, that is what we have been doing all during the past war." CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It isn't, though. DR. STONE: "With respect to the psychological hazard;" if you will add that." DR. FRIEDELL: Read that again. MR. KALITINSKY: "It is recommended that the advice of specialists be sought on the psychological problems of pilot selection and on the advisability of specific research in this field." DR. STONE: "Relative to the hazards of radiation." MR. KALITINSKY: We will put that "psychological problems of pilot selection" -- DR. FRIEDELL: "Relative to the hazard of radiation," which has been raised. 77 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: It is already raised. You can't shut your eyes. It exists. We are not raising it. There it is. DR. STONE: The pilot that went fifty times over Germany in the past war has come back with psychological damage that he never gets over any more than you get over the physical damage of irradiation. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I understand that. DR. STONE: The permanent damage has already been done. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But it is of a different nature. DR. TITUS EVANS: I was thinking in terms of research. Wouldn't help psychologically to try to educate each pilot to understand what the hazards are, or not? That is a point, as to which is better. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: May we have that motion read, and this is a motion from you? MR. KALITINSKY: I want to read it first. I am a little dubious about the English now. "It is recommended that the advice of specialists be sought on the psychological problems of pilot selection relative to the special hazards of radiation exposure and on the advisability of special research in this field." DR. FAILLA: That is all right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That sounds good to me. Is there a second to that motion? MR. KALITINSKY: I so move. DR. FRIEDELL: Do I understand that that will be Item Number 9? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes. DR. STONE: No. MR. SIMS: I don't think that is Item Number 9 at all. DR. STONE: That is a recommendation from this Committee to NEPA. DR. FAILLA: That is right. MR. SIMS: I don't think that is Item Number 9. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Weren't all these other recommendations, too? DR. STONE: Well, yes; but these are recommendations regarding the program which they must do or see done. This thing, it seems to me, is beyond NEPA. This is the Air Force's job when they get this plane to use. The only thing is, from this other program we can tell them -- 78 DR. FRIEDELL: We are alerting them to the fact that this special psychological hazard may exist, and let them work it up. DR. FAILLA: There isn't very much distinction between the two; but I don't think it is important enough to really worry about. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then, if I understand you, Dr. Stone, that goes to the Air Force -- DR. STONE: This goes to NEPA. They can do anything they please with it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We are no longer concerned about that as an integration to some of our problems? DR. FAILLA: Not necessarily. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then why isn't it Number 9, then? DR. FAILLA: In some of these studies, it involves some psychological tests. DR. FRIEDELL: There is a little difference in handling. First of all, we are going to try to set up some panel or headings for each one of these groups, and we are going to discuss specific things. This is something that nobody here knows anything about. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think NEPA, then, should turn around and appoint somebody who could meet with certain members of this group on certain of these problems, which we will come to, who can advise and do know something about it. That is my feeling, and to do that, it has to become Number 9. MR. KALITINSKY: I am rather in favor of making it Number 9 because it is a tentative recommendation for a field of research. It is only hedged by the fact that -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We don't have anybody in here that understand that field to argue for that. MR. KALITINSKY: I move that it will be Number 9. DR. STONE: I will second it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? (There was no response.) CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If not, all those in favor say "aye." (General response: Aye.) 79 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Contrary. DR. FRIEDELL: Aye. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The motion is carried. DR. STONE: The other thing I would like to see -- I don't know whether it is necessary -- but I would like to see that brought more specifically to NEPA's attention in the program as a whole. Will you take that sufficiently directly yourself, or should we? Because I think it is something that needs to be passed along to the Air Surgeon, whereas a lot of this other stuff doesn't need to be passed along. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it is up to them whether this should be passed along or not. But I feel that that is part of NEPA's responsibility; if they are going to design this thing and get the answers, that is one of the answers they have to have. DR. STONE: If you put it as Number 9, it is buried in this program we are thinking of doing. I would like to see it get -- DR. FRIEDELL: I move we make it Number Last. I really don't think it belongs with this program; but the will of the Committee will, I am sure, prevail. MR. KALITINSKY: Isn't it true, though, that we will have to dig certain things out of this program to bring to the attention of the Air Surgeon anyway? Number 1, the human experimentation, will have to be taken up with him; certain items out of 4; and this Number 9. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think we can take care of this when we come down there in line with this other; that maybe somebody should bear the cross on this Number 9, of getting some group work on that like the other. DR. FRIEDELL: If you want a recommendation, I will make one now. I would recommend that Professor Douglas Bond, who is an Air Force surgeon in the Reserve Corps, and who is a psychiatrist, be considered as someone who ought to work on this. MR. SIMS: Where is he now? DR. FRIEDELL: He is Professor of Psychiatry at Western Reserve University. DR. TITUS EVANS: We will withhold recommendations as to personnel until -- DR. FRIEDELL: I would think so. I withdrew the motion. DR. TITUS EVANS: Have the information, is one thing, when they ask for it. 80 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What I would like to do is to take the group that is here and assign each one of them as chairman of some particular one of these eight or nine problems; and ask them who they would like to have serve with them on this subcommittee to work out a more detailed broader thing as to what this would mean in total number of years; how much could be done in one year on some of the non-long-term; what is means in relationship to manpower and in annual cost and total cost. I think we can start with Number 1. Dr. Stone is chairman of that, and I would like to ask him if he would like to revise or do anything about the membership that he has now. DR. STONE: By the way, I dug out of the minutes the membership: Friedell, Cantril, Warren, and Newell. You are on only ex- officio. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is Newell a member? You raised the question. Did you look that up? DR. STONE: Yes, Newell is there. Newell is on the big Committee, you see. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Would you like to leave that as it stands, or would you like to augment that or alter it in any way, shape or form? MR. SIMS: I would like to bring out one thing, that you are going to have about eight subcommittees here. You may not be able to afford more than about three members on each subcommittee. DR. FAILLA: They will be overlapping, anyway. MR. SIMS: They are going to be overlapping, it is true. DR. STONE: If they are going to have to meet at the same time, you are not going to be able to get them together. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think you ought to figure the ones you can get together with, who would be most efficient. I would say you know more about this than anybody else. Who do you want to handle that with you? If you want those, all right. If you want some others, all right. DR. STONE: That is a fine committee. I see no reason to alter this committee unless you need the people. Newell and I are in the same town, and Cantril is on the same coast. DR. FRIEDELL: Why don't we make it a West Coast committee? It would be easier for them to meet and get everything ready. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think the person who is going to be chairman is where the brunt of the thing falls. You should say whom you want. DR. STONE: Let's decide how big committee you want. You are going to have trouble dropping these people off of a committee. 81 DR. FRIEDELL: You are not going to have trouble with me. I resign. DR. STONE: We don't want you off the committee. DR. FRIEDELL: No. I think it would be better to function as a West Coast committee. I am three thousand miles away from the chairman. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: If you want to do that, leave it Stone, Cantril, and Newell, which would be three in the same neck of the woods. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The only hurdle is Shields Warren. I think he ought to be on that committee. DR. STONE: Yes, if you can get it; he has so much to do. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You still have a quorum. DR. STONE: Leave the committee as is, then. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: The next one is analytical calculation of absorption and distribution of energy in an irradiated medium simulating the human body. I don't know of anybody better than Dr. Failla. DR. FAILLA: Why don't we let the NEPA people run that, and maybe some of us will help? MR. SIMMONS: I think we should have someone in this group here in contact with that work. I think we should have a committee or someone in the medical panel herein connection with this, even though we are going to do the spade work on it. DR. FAILLA: One of you fellows can be chairman, however. That is what I had in mind. Or how about Robley Evans? MR. SIMMONS: Robley Evans or you. I think you or Robley Evans - - DR. FAILLA: I suggest Robley Evans. MR. SIMMONS: -- would be a completely adequate chairman for that. DR. FAILLA: All right. Robley Evans is chairman. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Who should we pick for him? DR. FAILLA: Let him pick his own. DR. FRIEDELL: I think properly these fellows are going to do the calculations primarily. Why not let one of them be the chairman? DR. FAILLA: That is what I suggested first. DR. TITUS EVANS: Robley Evans is too busy. He won't do them. I would be more efficient to -- I meant, you want it to work right away. 82 DR. FRIEDELL: One of these fellows ought to be the chairman. DR. FAILLA: That is what I suggested first. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Here is the problem that they have raised. They are specifically not actually members of this advisory committee, and you wanted a chairman who is. You are going to go ahead and do the work, but you want a chairman -- DR. STONE: They are members of the advisory committee, aren't they? MR. SIMMONS: No, we don't consider ourselves members of this committee. DR. FRIEDELL: Is there any reason why the members of the committee have to be chairman? I don't see any reason for that at all. DR. STONE: You might have a committee that has nobody on it. MR. SIMMONS: I think the committee on this Item 2 could be very small, any perhaps Robley Evans, if he is willing to accept the chairmanship; and perhaps one other. I think Dr. Failla and Dr. Evans together would be an adequate committee, and work with the NEPA people; not consider us as a part of the committee. DR. STONE: I think you should be on this committee. This committee essentially reports back to the advisory committee for action. Really this is just a problem that you are going to work out with the advice, anyhow. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As far as I am concerned, it is up to NEPA to say whether they wanted one of their men to be chairman. MR. SIMMONS: I don't think we want to be chairmen. DR. FAILLA: How about Mr. Simmons being chairman of this committee? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it is up to NEPA to decide whether they want to do that or not. MR. SIMS: I should think it would be desirable to have some gentlemen from the advisory panel proper as chairman. MR. SIMMONS: I will be glad to serve on the committee if either Dr. Failla or Dr. Evans will accept the chairmanship. DR. FAILLA: I will serve on the committee, too. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: All right; Dr. Failla; Mr. Simmons. Number 3, continuation of compilation of available data, information, and the biological effects of radiation. There is no harm in you serving as chairman of that, is there? DR. SELLE: I will be glad to. 83 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Does anybody see any harm to that? Do you need any help? DR. STONE: Put Dowdy and Anderson on your committee. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 4, methods for detecting the degree of sensitivity of individuals to radiation exposures. MR. SIMMONS: What disposal did we make of three? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Selle as chairman; Dowdy, and Anderson. Methods of detecting; what is wrong with T.C. Evans on that? DR. TITUS EVANS: I am not especially fitted for that. DR. SELLE: You are familiar with physiological techniques. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I quote you quite frequently along those lines. DR. TITUS EVANS: "Modifications of sensitivity," but this is detecting. Sure. DR. FAILLA: This would involve medical work, doing it on patients. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is right. DR. STONE: Who is going to do the work? That doesn't necessarily correspond to the committee at all. The committee can suggest how it is to be done. DR. SELLE: I think Dr. Friedell should be one there. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is he agreeable to you? DR. TITUS EVANS: Yes. DR. ANDERSON: Someone who has a lot of erythema work would be very appropriate on that. DR. FRIEDELL: Dr. Stone could serve on that committee. DR. STONE: I would like to do some work on it, but I don't know that I want to -- DR. FRIEDELL: If I have to serve on two committees, I would rather serve on 7, when it comes under discussion, because we are doing some of that work now; not with neutrons and gamma rays, but with some other things. DR. TITUS EVANS: I want to do a little bit on all these. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is all right. But we are going to tie this down as to the responsibility some place. 84 DR. TITUS EVANS: Our responsibility is simply to try to evaluate the importance in regards to time and money and personnel in these problems. Isn't that right? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: And approach. DR. STONE: Dowdy, Selle, and Robley Evans were the three who suggested this as a program in the first place. DR. SELLE: It was merely a suggestion. DR. TITUS EVANS: Have we got Stafford Warren on anything yet? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: He is busy. DR. TITUS EVANS: I think it ought to be radiologists all right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How about Friedell and Stone? Methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects? How about Anderson? DR. ANDERSON: Oh, no, that is one in which I am least competent and interested. DR. TITUS EVANS: You are more competent than the rest of us. MR. SIMMONS: I think Dr. Selle. DR. SELLE: I would act. MR. SIMMONS: And Dr. Calkins. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How about Anderson, Selle and Calkins? DR. STONE: There is one thing that enters in there, and that is that some of this is going to be clinical work, if there ever was any. MR. SIMMONS: This is one of the areas that you are particularly interested in, isn't it, Dr. Selle? DR. SELLE: That is right. I think we should have a MD on this, too. DR. STONE: Dowdy is currently writing a lecture on the subject. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: All right. There is one other here I want, too. DR. STONE: You have got to write a lecture on this anyhow. You have got to think about it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 6, evaluation of effects of total-body irradiation on physical fitness. This is my baby, isn't it? DR. STONE: Who do you have down as chairman of Number 5? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Anderson is chairman of Number 5. This is the baby I have been nursing for years. 85 DR. FAILLA: Which one? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Six, effects of total-body irradiation. DR. ANDERSON: What are you going to do when you come to the longevity? This is his particular field, too. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Longevity is the one I wanted on. I got confused here. DR. SELLE: Number 6 is a very difficult one. DR. FRIEDELL: That is a physiological problem primarily. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How about Zirkle? DR. FRIEDELL: No. Austin might be interested in it, but this is again an animal problem; and I really think that probably this particular one is one that is almost pure physiology because you set up standard radiation conditions, and the critical things are measuring the physiological effects. DR. FAILLA: Somebody at the Radiological Research Laboratory is doing that work now. I don't know the name. MR. SIMMONS: That is an area you are interested in. DR. TITUS EVANS: He will be chairman of two different things. DR. ANDERSON: No, that is quite out of the question here. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Let's think about it. DR. STONE: Wasn't it Thompkins who devised that experiment down at Oak Ridge? DR. FAILLA: Wait a minute. Do you want members of this Committee, or can you go outside? I mean the large committee, not necessarily this group here; but the large committee has lots of other members. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: There is Brues, there is Zirkle -- MR. SIMS: I think we should name the chairman regardless of where they come from. DR. STONE: The chairman could name other people. DR. ANDERSON: Nims would be good for that. He has done a lot of animal work. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is a good suggestion. L.F. Nims, chairman. Shall we ask him to suggest from the large committee other members? I don't like to saddle somebody. DR. ANDERSON: The people who actually do that kind of work I should think needn't be on the committee at all. You could get people who had actual experience. 86 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is right. But unless they want to enlarge their main advisory committee -- we shouldn't lose track that this is about only a third of the total committee, and there is a lot of talent in the rest of that committee that we shouldn't overlook DR. STONE: Might I bring up a practical point in handling these committees? Will it be possible to bring them together at the expense of NEPA? MR. SIMS: Yes, sir. DR. STONE: Would it be more difficult, then, to bring in people who are not on the committee? Would they have to be appointed in some way? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: They would have to be cleared and so forth and appointed. DR. STONE: It would be easier from the Committee's point of view to take people that are already committee members. MR. SIMS: Yes, sir. DR. FRIEDELL: I really think it would be easier to do what we can do with the members of the Committee now; because once you begin to enlarge this, it can get pretty unwieldy. DR. TITUS EVANS: Isn't Nims on the Committee? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes. And he can pick his members from anybody on the total Committee. We will send him a list of names. DR. STONE: You might even send him some suggestions if anybody has any. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Seven, the biological additivity of ionizing radiations having different specific -- Zirkle has done work in that. Zirkle is chairman. DR. FAILLA: Is he on the Committee? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes. DR. ANDERSON: May I ask as a point of information: By that, you mean that the ratios of neutron and gamma ray effectiveness will not be expressed in that form, but the other experiments will include both gamma rays and neutrons; and then if they are additive, you get a certain result? That is, this is a great modification of the first thing, but it means the same thing? Essentially it means neutron and gamma ray effectiveness? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Not the same thing. DR. FRIEDELL: No, it is broader than neutron. DR. FAILLA: Not the same thing exactly. 87 DR. ANDERSON: But it does include that? DR. FAILLA: Yes. DR. TITUS EVANS: You would have to do that first, I would think. DR. STONE: What they would do here would be to not necessarily cover all the field, but cover what they can to see where additivity comes in. DR. SELLE: Our original title on that was Conversion Factors -- N to r and additivity. DR. FRIEDELL: First we were primarily interested in neutrons and gamma rays, and then we decided to enlarge it so we wouldn't -- DR. TITUS EVANS: In a sense it still means that. DR. ANDERSON: Providing it includes that. That is all that is needed. DR. STONE: N to r, the N has practically gone out as a measure except for historical -- DR. FRIEDELL: I am interested in that problem. I would like to nominate myself as Number Last on that committee, if it is all right with Zirkle. DR. TITUS EVANS: You are interested in that. I am interested in it. Failla is interested in it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Why don't I suggest to him, then, Friedell, T.C. Evans, and who else? DR. TITUS EVANS: You. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No, I have enough here. DR. FRIEDELL: Put Failla on it. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Friedell, T.C. Evans as members; or I will tell him those are members. DR. TITUS EVANS: Let him pick them, as far as I am concerned. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Number 8, I would like to take. Does anybody have any objections? (There was no response.) Dr. Failla has done a lot of studying on this, and has some ideas. If he doesn't object, I think you and Shields Warren. DR. FRIEDELL: You are not going to get Shields to do very much. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: He should be interested in this. This problem has been presented to him. I don't know whether he is personally interested in it or not. 88 DR. TITUS EVANS: Is Boche a member of the large Committee? DR. FRIEDELL: No. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Would you be willing to serve on there with him, Dr. Stone? MR. SIMMONS: Put Hollaender on this committee. DR. STONE: I wish we could get Hollaender on. Oak Ridge is the logical place to do a lot of this stuff. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Stone, would you be willing to serve with me on this? DR. STONE: I don't know that I could help you much. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But you would be willing to try? How about Hollaender, then? DR. FRIEDELL: I tell you who might be interested. How about Austin Brues? DR. TITUS EVANS: We have him as chairman. DR. ANDERSON: Someone said Boche is doing work like this. DR. FRIEDELL: But he isn't on the Committee. DR. ANDERSON: After all, he is the outstanding person apart from yourself and Lorenz. Those are the three: you, Lorenz, and Boche. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Boche, I am not sure, is particularly interested in this. DR. FRIEDELL: He just took the data together and -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: This is something we had organized, and it was going a year; and Boche came in and said, "Here, this you must do." So I am not sure that Boche per se is interested in this type of work. DR. ANDERSON: He is interested in more fundamental stuff. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Very fundamental stuff. This was a chore which he had to do. DR. SELLE: I saw him about two weeks ago, and he is planning to do this sort of thing at Argonne. Whether he likes it or not. I don't know. DR. STONE: Of course, the Argonne is another place; when they get their new laboratory set up, they ought to do it. DR. FRIEDELL: I tell you someone who could perhaps serve on this longevity committee. That is Lauren Donaldson. He is doing it with fish, but he is a member of the Committee. 89 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I would be very glad to have Boche. DR. FRIEDELL: Why not Lauren Donaldson? I was giving to say if you wanted to clear Boche and have him brought in on the Committee, I would be very happy to have both of them. DR. STONE: How were Klinger and these other fellows brought in on the last Committee? MR. SIMS: Klinger was just brought in as a guest for this discussion, because we were doing certain work of interested in this group. DR. SELLE: He is with the Navy now. DR. STONE: Was with the Navy. He was right in Washington when we met. MR. SIMS: He was just a guest for that particular day. DR. ANDERSON: You are going to have Boche and Donaldson? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That suits me fine. We have all worked on this problem. Will it be all right to invite Boche? DR. TITUS EVANS: Is Stone still on? DR. FRIEDELL: I think Dr. Stone ought to be on this. DR. SELLE: What about having Hollaender? It seems to me he could be used very effectively in Oak Ridge. DR. CALKINS: Along this line I would like to suggest for long- term work, it certainly would be good to have two sets of runs going on in different parts of the country. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That has nothing to do with this. DR. CALKINS: I know, but it might be wise to have the person who directs the work on the Committee at the beginning. DR. FRIEDELL: Why don't we put Hollaender on it, and that will make the Committee too big. You can leave Boche off. He isn't on the group anyway. You will have Lauren Donaldson and Hollaender, and Stone -- DR. FAILLA: They are running long-term experiments on genetics. DR. SELLE: We, too, should be doing long-term quantitative work. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I don't want to get the Committee to big. DR. FAILLA: Put Hollaender on. DR. CALKINS: Hollaender said on April 3 he sort of liked that work there, he told me. 90 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Hollaender. How about leaving Boche off at this time? DR. TITUS EVANS: I am not certain that Donaldson would help much in this. Is he conversant with animal work? DR. FRIEDELL: Donaldson has done a lot of work on long-term effects on fish. I think he has more data and better controls probably than anybody else. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Why not leave Boche off, Dr. Stone, and you stay on? When it comes to having the work one, if Boche is going to do some, fine. Are you agreeable to that, Dr. Stone? DR. STONE: All right. DR. SELLE: That consists of Dowdy, Hollaender, Stone. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Could we appoint a chairman for that Number 9? MR. SIMMONS: I suggest that Dr. Selle carry the ball on this psychiatric problem. At least, I mean in the sense of getting out and contracting the potential talent. This is a function of the Secretary, to get o ut and round up some talent for this problem. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Friedell has suggested someone, and others of us will probably give you additional names. MR. SIMMONS: You will not have to do it yourself. DR. SELLE: Incidentally, I would be very happy to have any further suggestions of individuals especially qualified to assist on 9. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We have covered the committees. Is there anything else that we can do? DR. STONE: How soon do you expect these committees to act? You are going to have a problem when you put on the committees a bunch of busy people. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I will have to circularize these various recommendations to get approval. We don't have t have the approval of the main committee to the appointment of these committees. When that comes back and it is okayed, I will send out and say, "Here are the various chairmen and members," and those one or two in here that are left for them to select their committee members. DR. STONE: Should we see that the members of the main committee are on at least one of the subcommittees? DR. TITUS EVANS: Is there anybody who didn't get on one? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We got Zirkle on. 91 DR. ANDERSON: Brues isn't on one. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Where would Brues fit in? DR. STONE: Long-term effects. DR. FRIEDELL: That is where I thought he was, on long-term effects. He would be very good on long-term effects. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is Austin Brues interested in that? DR. STONE: He has done a lot of long-term of carcinogenic radioactive substances. DR. TITUS EVANS: You could put him on this physical fitness thing with Nims. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I have a feeling that Brues would be more interested in one of these others rather than that, from what I have know about his work. DR. ANDERSON: Has he ever done anything on the pharmacological side? DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think so. I thought Austin was interested. DR. TITUS EVANS: How about Number 7? Who do we have on there with Zirkle? We have just one there. DR. SELLE: Titus Evans and Friedell. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Could we suggest Brues in there, along with Evans and Friedell? DR. TITUS EVANS: He could take my place. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I don't think he is particularly interested in that particular field. I didn't know he was in the long-term. DR. STONE: He has been interested in the carcinogenic effect in these things. Dr. Failla brings up the point that radiological warfare has that laboratory at Chicago. DR. SELLE: Brues gave a talk in Detroit on this very subject. DR. STONE: He has written up the carcinogenic effects on long- term stuff; so that I think you might drop me off that committee. I will be glad to help any, if I can. But put Brues on. You are going to get too big a committee. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there anybody else on that main committee we can sandwich in here on some of these others? MR. KALITINSKY: What sort of work is Joe Hamilton doing now with the cyclotron? 92 DR. STONE: Joe's work is nearly all with radioactive materials. DR. FRIEDELL: Joe really doesn't do biological work. He does tracer work, biochemical work, in a sense. DR. STONE: He is interested now in localization of radioactive materials in tumors. DR. FRIEDELL: Yes, but not the effects. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: How about suggesting evaluation of effects of total-body irradiation on physical fitness, putting him on that committee? He wouldn't fit there very well. DR. SELLE: It seems to me Brues would be very good on that, too. DR. FAILLA: We haven't given Holland anything; Wright Langham. DR. STONE: They are not on the Committee. MR. SIMMONS: I think you could consider them in the same light that we considered Hollaender, Brues, Nims; and I mean they are AEC fulltime people. DR. FRIEDELL: What are the members of the Committee? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Some were members and some were consultants. DR. SELLE: How do we consider Shields Warren on this Committee? DR. TITUS EVANS: Members are Cantril, Robley Evans, Failla, Friedell, Hamilton, Newell, Stone, Stafford Warren -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: These others were consultants: Zirkle, Evans, Anderson, Donaldson. Guests were: Brues, Hollaender, Holland, Nims, Shields Warren, and Langham. I think it actually has appeared in different forms at different times. I don't know whether it is official or not. DR. TITUS EVANS: This was at the first meeting? MR. SIMMONS: This was the original structure. If it is necessary to change it, I guess we can. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You can still put these on without changing that. MR. SIMMONS: Sure. I don't think we have to worry about that. DR. SELLE: I believe Austin Brues would be interested in physical fitness. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Physical fitness? 93 DR. SELLE: Yes. Of course, that is for Nims to decide. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is there any place we can put Joe Hamilton? DR. FAILLA: I don't think so. He is not interested in radiation effects. Or is he? DR. ANDERSON: How about Number 5? Methods of preventing and counteracting radiation effects? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: He is interested in preventing some of these things. DR. FRIEDELL: He might be interested in this continuation and compilation of continued information, because it has to do with distribution of radioactive substances. That is 3, sub-heading 3, continuation of compilation of available information of the biological effects of radiation. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Shall we put him down there? DR. FRIEDELL: That would be through radioactive elements and therefore distribution, and that is one thing he is very much interested in. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Is everybody agreeable to putting him in there? DR. ANDERSON: Yes. DR. FAILLA: You are writing Hamilton under 3 now? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Yes. When we circulate, does this have to go to the members, or does it go to the consultants, et cetera? That is important. MR. SIMS: I think it only has to go to the members, but I think you should ask each member of their particular interest. We might have a few of them that aren't here that expressed their desire to do some work in Number 2, for example. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Now, to get a vote, I think we ought to take in -- MR. SIMS: I think for voting purposes you don't have to consider the consultants. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But they were there -- Nims and Hollaender. I think it would be very bad -- they were at this meeting when we started this discussion. So I think we ought to go through and circulate this to the consultants for a vote. MR. SIMS: Those whose names were listed, yes. DR. SELLE: It is Mr. Simmons' interpretation that consultants are members of the advisory committee. 94 MR. SIMMONS: The line you draw between consultants and members is rather fine. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We didn't draw it. This was just the way it was handled. MR. SIMMONS: That is principally the basis of the way the retainers were set up. MR. SIMS: Those gentlemen were on the fulltime payroll of AEC at the time, and they were interested in this field. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Then we should circulate clear down through guests. MR. SIMMONS: I think you could even include the guests, if they are willing to serve. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: To whom shall I send these eight propositions for their okay? I say clear down through guests. MR. SIMS: Clear down through the consultants. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I would take it down through the guests -- Brues, Holland, Hollaender, Nims, Shields Warren, and Wright Langham. MR. SIMMONS: Instead of guests, couldn't we change that to "associates" or something like that? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Whatever you want to do. DR. STONE: They are not on any retainer basis. MR. SIMMONS: They are AEC furnished. I mean, they are paid by the Commission as fulltime employees on the AEC payroll, so to speak. DR. FRIEDELL: Therefore, you couldn't very well reimburse them - - MR. SIMMONS: That is right. In other words, it is a little different than you relation to AEC. They ar actually employees of the Commission. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I will circulate for their vote clear down through and including them. That should be done. DR. FAILLA: Why couldn't they be members? They don't have to be paid necessarily to be members. DR. STONE: Just so long as your organization -- MR. SIMMONS: What about that, Admiral? DR. TITUS EVANS: Could you call them "affiliates"? MR. SIMMONS: That is sort of an organizational policy question. MR. SIMS: I see no reason why they couldn't be called members. MR. SIMMONS: Members or associate members. 95 DR. FAILLA: If you say associate members, it implies a lower level perhaps. MR. SIMMONS: Not necessarily a lower level. Something that implies a different relationship, and there is a difference in the relationship, I think, between a fulltime employee of the AEC and someone on a retainer to NEPA. MR. KALITINSKY: If you want to make a difference, why not call them consulting members? That implies no lower level. It just make the difference between the people who are retained. DR. FRIEDELL: Associated consultants. DR. ANDERSON: It might make a different in the matter of responsibility. That is, if they were going to be fully responsible as they are -- MR. SIMMONS: That is where the word comes in. The responsibility is not there in that case, where they are a fulltime employee of AEC. DR. ANDERSON: It is for the opinions expressed, though, isn't it? Certain things will go out from this Committee. Don't they stand back of those and in equal degree to a person, such as Dr. Failla and Dr. Stone? DR. FAILLA: They should MR. SIMMONS: I wonder if they do. DR. CALKINS: For their own prestige I think they would, particularly if you call them consultants. MR. SIMMONS: As it stands now, I wonder if that is right? DR. ANDERSON: I don't know. But that is the important part of the Committee, not the way in which we are retained, I would say. MR. KALITINSKY: Why don't we ask Dr. Dowdy to call them consultant members? DR. CALKINS: I think it is a very good idea. MR. KALITINSKY: That implies no distinction in rank. It just implies a slightly different association. MR. COWEN: We already have a group called consultants. DR. FAILLA: It seems to me the Committee should actually include some of these fellows like Brues and Hollaender, even though they are paid by the AEC. DR. FRIEDELL: Zirkle is not paid by the AEC. 96 MR. SIMMONS: I think what we should do is to have two names for the people associated with this work. Those people whom we now call consultants that are suitable to be members, I mean they aren't a fulltime employee of the Commission, be called members, such as Zirkle and the other group. Then use the term "consultant" for Brues, Nims, Hollaender, Jerry Holland, Shields Warren, and people in that category. DR. FRIEDELL: I think that is a good idea. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion, that all of the people associated with this program who are directly compensated by NEPA by any type of contract or retainer be called members of the Committee. Those people who are not directly compensated by NEPA who are associated fulltime with the Commission be called consultants. Consultants would include Brues, Nims, Shields Warren, Hollaender, Holland, Wright Langham, that group. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I don't think you need any motion. All you have to do is just send us a revised list of what you want. We are going by what you handed me originally. MR. SIMMONS: I see. Then you think we just change that ourselves? The Committee doesn't have to deliberate on the membership? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No, that is your own business. DR. FRIEDELL: With regard to membership, I would like to throw out this little point. I don't know how many members there are, but I think all of us have lots of activity. I for one would like to see some program set up whereby the membership of the Committee is gradually changed, so that people drop off and other people come in. MR. SIMMONS: The original group that we gathered in Chicago for the first meeting, those that we had retainer agreements with, we set up as members; the people who have come in since we have not added as members of the Committee. I think that was done on some basis of saying that the original Committee which NEPA did ask to gather should then have some jurisdiction over who it included in its membership. In other words, all we did was get together the first group, and from then on, we felt that group should have some degree of self- determination as far as its membership was concerned. Since then we have put no one on as a member. DR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up the idea that it seems to me after this program gets organized, the continuance of the Medical Advisory Committee might go out of existence. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is what I think. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think that is possible from the way this is being set up. Instead, I would rather see that the members be gradually replaced so there be some continuity and at the same time new people be brought in and some of the burden of the others be relieved. 97 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Can't that be the responsibility of NEPA? If they see other people of value on this Committee and some that are not, they can drop them and add. DR. SELLE: If you get a program stared, though, it makes it a little difficult to shift. MR. SIMMONS: I think that we have tried to assemble a group of people here, and I think that everybody agrees that we have succeeded, who cover the field very thoroughly. Whether substitutions can be made on that or not, I don't know. We have a Committee now that is pretty thoroughly familiar with the problems that we have and understand our side of the thing; and it takes a great deal of time to get any group of people, no matter now intelligent, up to that degree of understanding. In other words, NEPA has a big investment in this group now in getting a basis of mutual understanding to what the problems are and our philosophy of handling them, and we understand your philosophy from the other side. I think that that is a very valuable relationship that would probably be very disadvantageous to upset. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think that your new members and this think will take care of itself, because some of this work may be done by somebody who is not now a member; but they will take some of these problems and become conversant with this, and later you may want to make them a member, you see, when somebody else drops off. MR. SIMMONS: I don't think we need to do this consciously or deliberately. I think there may be from natural causes a certain turnover perhaps in the membership in a period of years. But I don't think we should deliberately plan on such. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I don't see how you could right now until the program is more definitely formalized and you get some research work started. DR. FAILLA: I think what you will have to take pretty soon is a permanent organization, and this would serve as an advisory committee. But there would be somebody to really keep track of all these problems; because coming in once in a while we really don't have our mind on this problem most of the time. DR. ANDERSON: Did you say anything about this 5 here? In my original suggestion to you, I suggested that that was one of the things where you could hardly formulate the program. It is moving rapidly. It is in a state of flux. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You are chairman of that, and you will have to sense that and formulate that as best as you can. DR. ANDERSON: I will do my job if I make such a statement to the Committee in a report? 98 DR. FAILLA: No, you can't get away with that. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Admiral Sims asked to have information eventually to hand on. They say, "All right, you made these. Just what is your scope in that? What is it going to cost in manpower and money this next year and so on?? DR. ANDERSON: That is one of the things where you can't say that. DR. TITUS EVANS: Dr. Calkins' work comes in under that, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Dr. Calkins is on your committee. DR. ANDERSON: Most of these things have boundaries. This has no boundary. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: But you can set a limitation on how much you are going to spend, how much you are going to put into that, maybe two or three or a half a dozen different things from what you know are promising. DR. TITUS EVANS: You can make a practical boundary. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You can make an approach that way, you see. You may start out and find that is no good and shift to something else. Anyway, you can say, "This is going to take $10,000, and these are the things that seem most promising at the moment." DR. ANDERSON: This has a unique quality that none of the others have. I am sorry I was put in charge of that, because I would like to wash my hands of that one, above all others. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think you did a wonderful job in review with Calkins and Selle, and I will answer your letters. DR. ANDERSON: You are not suggesting that the reverse isn't true? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: No. DR. STONE: Did you reach any conclusions on the membership business, or are you going to reach any? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: NEPA is going to reach that. MR. SIMMONS: In other words, you say it is all right for us to go ahead and delineate members and consultants? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I mean you can set them up in accordance with your internal policy. MR. SIMMONS: We certainly want to be sure that if we say someone is a member of this Committee, that it is satisfactory to the Committee as a whole. We haven't felt we were n a position to appoint people to your group. 99 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: As a matter of fact, recommendations have been made. For instance, I recommend that Lauren Donaldson be included on this. MR. SIMMONS: I think recommendations for membership should come from the Chairman of the Committee. DR. FAILLA: Why don't we go through this list? It is very simple. Some of them are already members. Now, why don't we make these consultants members of the Committee. MR. SIMMONS: That is what I suggested about it. That is agreeable. DR. FAILLA: The ones that are listed now as consultants, make them members of the Committee. MR. SIMMONS: All right, I so move. DR. FAILLA: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Do we have to be that formal about it? DR. FAILLA: No, we don't have to have this in the form of a motion. Now then, you have guests. What are you going to do with those who are listed now as guests? MR. SIMMONS: Make them consultants. DR. STONE: Those are all AEC employees at the present time? MR. SIMMONS: Fulltime employees of the Commission. DR. FRIEDELL: What about guests you had at the last meeting? MR. SIMMONS: They were guests in the sense of the word guests, whereas these people --- DR. FRIEDELL: The original meeting of the Committee, so to speak; and the distinction will only be on the basis now of how you reimburse them fitting in with your internal policy? MR. SIMMONS: That is right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: We have so treated them from our correspondence angle as though they all had equal vote. MR. SIMMONS: The only difference between a member and a consultant is how he gets his pay. DR. STONE: The guests don't get any pay. DR. FAILLA: The guests can decide from time to time -- DR. STONE: These guests here should be consultant members. 100 CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I would like to outline to you what as I see it, as I am supposed to do now -- Dr. Selle will get these motions, all except the first two which have already been acted upon the main committee; and we don't have to send that to these people for a Yes or No answer. Dr. Selle will furnish me with a uniform way of expressing the rest of these. He has recommended that. I will circularize these to everybody down through the guests of the original list. DR. FAILLA: Now consultants. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Who are now consultants. I will just handle it all the same, ask them for a Yes or No vote on each one of these within, we will say, two weeks. As soon as that vote comes in, then I will notify Dr. Selle that these have passed. Then I will immediately write another letter to the chairmen and the members within each group, notifying them that they have been appointed as members of subcommittee to come up with: one, a method of procedure, keeping out of details; two, the cost in manpower and money on an annual basis. I guess that it all. Then it is up to the chairmen to formulate that; and as soon as they can, then shall we have another meeting? Or is that necessary? They send those into NEPA as such, because it will take two or three days if we go over budgets and manpower. Or should the chairmen of these committees meet? DR. FAILLA: Let's see what happens before we decide. MR. SIMS: I think that can wait, yes. I think perhaps after you get all the committee constituted and they meet to start assembling their ideas of what a program should be under each of these fields, you might want to call a big meeting of the whole board to go over their work. After all, they are subcommittees of -- CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think we want to call one of the chairmen of the various subcommittee to see how they add up; and I think you would want to do that before you called the big board. DR. STONE: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I believe in preliminary meetings. For instance, if the entire committee comes in to discuss a five or six million dollar program and the chairmen haven't been previously informed of the needs of the other committees, confusion and great disagreement may result. DR. FAILLA: One question you should ask is, to point out where work of a similar nature is being done and what additions they like to make to fit in with their requirements for their particular problem. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: That is, the chairman of these various committees? DR. FAILLA: Yes. 101 DR. STONE: Actually that fits in somewhat with a suggestion I was going to make; and that is, as far as Number 3 is concerned, that is, the assembling of further data, continuance of compilation of available information, it is pretty nearly going to be up to these various committee to look around and see what is being done; and they ought to be able to help the committee on assemblance of further available information when they get together on their particular subject and find things that aren't listed already or that should be listed and so on and get them in. DR. TITUS EVANS: I was wondering if we could write Dr. Selle and say, "We would like to know what work is being done in various installations on radio-sensitivity," and he would put that question in his letter to the various places and we wouldn't have to write them directly? They would handle it all to him and answer him at the same time, and he could answer us specifically. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: You are just shifting work. I think the chairmen -- DR. FAILLA: Everybody will want to know that information, and you are shifting the work to him. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think it is going to be up to the chairmen to find out: Is this work being done? Is it adequate? Should we augment it? DR. TITUS EVANS: Then someone like Brues will get ten letters from these ten committees. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: A lot of them know, anyway. DR. TITUS EVANS: Shall these committees also attempt to solicit laboratories and investigators who would be interested in doing something on that? CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think that is probably too early. DR. FRIEDELL: I think so. I think these committees ought to come up with general proposals of more fairly specific proposals of what kind of program ought to be done. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: Not the protocol, but the specific methods of approach under each one of these. DR. FAILLA: Somebody will have to spend a lot of time looking up the AEC projects, for instance. DR. FRIEDELL: Well, of course, the various committee members are fairly familiar with what is going on. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: They know pretty well what is going on in their own field. I mean, we tried to put chairmen of these particular ones who would know. For instance, Stone knows on the human. DR. FRIEDELL: I don't think the AEC knows what is going on in their own program. 102 DR. FAILLA: The AEC is handing out money of the order of ten, twenty, thirty thousand dollars to a lot of small universities right now on a lot of these projects. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: They don't know how far they are getting on them or doing anything. DR. FAILLA: That runs up into millions. DR. FRIEDELL: Supposing when the programs are formulated they could maybe be submitted to the AEC for comments to see whether they are doing anything or have done anything or proposed -- DR. FAILLA: That is why I say someone ought to be specifically charged with that duty of looking over their projects. DR. STONE: Aren't the people that Shields Warren has got under him in physics and biology and medicine fairly cognizant of the over-all picture? Or have they not had time enough to get that? That is the point. It is a tremendous job. DR. FAILLA: Some of them haven't had time to know what is going on. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I think the chairman of each one of these groups will have to use his own judgment how to get this information, how to evaluate progress. We know pretty well what some are not doing. They are not doing the one on longevity. When it comes to one like yours, Dr. Anderson, we will have to decide there are two or three things that ought to be done. Are they being done some place else, these particular approaches? Are they getting any information, or aren't they? DR. ANDERSON: In that connection, incidentally, the literature from all these various places in the forms of reports is very large, and it is very complicated. it is practically impossible to find your way through it. This, of course, is out of order, I suppose, in this meeting. But to people who are used to the older regular literature, you could follow it and you knew when you had covered a particular year. In this kind of business, you have no way of knowing. Can any of you do anything about that? DR. SELLE: NUCLEAR ABSTRACTS is doing a pretty good job of handling that information. DR. ANDERSON: Does it cover it completely, including reports? DR. STONE: They have that biology and so on section of it, too. DR. SELLE: We are covering that; and I can turn over to you at least a hundred references on this literature. 103 DR. ANDERSON: Does that cover those quarterly reports that Argonne National Laboratories -- DR. FAILLA: Brookhaven does a pretty good job of that every week. They issue a long list of stuff that appears in all the periodicals -- DR. FRIEDELL: If it is published. DR. FAILLA: Even the quarterly reports. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: NUCLEONICS gives a list of those that are published, and this other one -- I have forgotten what it is called -- is it NUCLEAR ABSTRACTS? -- under biology, medicine, and so forth. But most of those are reports that have been declassified, but not published. DR. FAILLA: That is right. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: What is actually going on, in progress of those going on, you can get from only one place and that is each place's quarterly report. DR. FAILLA: That is right. DR. FRIEDELL: That is right. DR. FAILLA: They are only listed as quarterly reports. I get a lot of them from California and other places. I don't have time to read them. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: is there anything else? MR. SIMS: I can't think of anything. CHAIRMAN DOWDY: I would entertain a motion for adjournment. MR. COWEN: I would like to say that if anybody wants a copy of these April 3 minutes, you can take them along with you. If you don't want to bother with them, I will mail them to you. DR. FRIEDELL: Are they classified? MR. COWEN: No. DR. STONE: One question I want to get clear, I am on this human experimentation, but I don't know how to get at that German work. MR. SIMS: Dr. Stone, I am going to broach the intelligence agency here to see if they can give us any clues about it. DR. STONE: If you get anything, let me know about it. MR. SIMS: Yes, sir. Air Force Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency; whether they can give us any clues or not, I don't know. 104 DR. FAILLA: That man I had in mind before, I couldn't think of his name, is Rajesky, Frankfort. DR. STONE: That is the University of Frankfort? DR. FAILLA: Yes. MR. COWEN: Did I understand you, Dr. Failla, to say you had read a report? DR. FAILLA: I read something he wrote. DR. SELLE: Was that an English report? DR. FAILLA: No, it was in German. What I saw was a photostatic copy of the paper. MR. COWEN: You don't remember the title? DR. FAILLA: No. He mentioned definitely he had made experiments on prisoners, and they were going to be reported on later. (Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Committee adjourned.) 105