Tab L



Staff Memo -- Methodological Case Study:
"Cincinnati Experiments:

The following is a staff memorandum or other working document 
prepared for the members of the Advisory Committee on Human 
Radiation Experiments.  It should not be construed as representing 
the final conclusions of fact or interpretation of the issues.  
All staff memoranda are subject to revision based on further 
information and analysis.  For conclusions and recommendations of 
the Advisory Committee, readers are advised to consult the Final 
Report to be published in 1995.




TO:       MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF HUMAN RADIATION
	  EXPERIMENTS

FROM:     ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF

DATE:     MAY 12, 1994

RE:       DOCUMENTS ON "CINCINNATI EXPERIMENTS"

     What follows is a brief description of documentation related to 
the federally supported experiments conducted by Dr. Eugene Saenger 
and received by the Committee Staff from four separate sources: the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, 
Representative John Bryant's office, and Mr. Gwendon Plair, an active 
member of patients' families group. Following that are suggestions for 
further documents which the staff feels may prove illuminating in 
completing a review of this particular federally contracted 
experimental work involving total body irradiation. Items marked by an 
asterisk*) are included in this packet. (If you would like to review 
copies of documents that are not attached, please contact Anna 
Mastroianni.)

I.        DOCUMENTS RECEIVED

A.        From the Department of Defense

     Approximately four linear feet of material were delivered 
to the Committee Staff from the Department of Defense concerning 
experiments designed and performed at Cincinnati General Hospital 
from 1959 through 1972 by a research team headed by Dr. Eugene Saenger. 
Much of the material was out of chronological order and scattered 
piecemeal throughout the files. All material was non-classified.

     A brief description of the documents follows:

*    1) Dr. Saenger's original 1958 grant proposal to DASA (Defense 
Atomic Support Agency) for the proposed study and grant reviewers 
comments;

*    2) A series often reports recording the progress of the 
contracted experiments. The reports were submitted periodically 
from 1960 through' 1972; (two samples are enclosed);

     3) Portions of contracts stating the funding agreements 
between DASA and University of Cincinnati over the course of these 
experiments. The contracts were amended in response to applications 
for expansion by Dr. Saenger.

     4) An expanded 1967 research proposal by Drs. Friedman and 
Saenger presented to a research review committee at University of 
Cincinnati, and comments by faculty reviewers on the merits of their 
proposal;

				1

*    3)  Statement for the Record," Dr. Donald A. Henderson, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Health--Science, UPS Public Health Service, 
provided to the subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental 
Relations of the Commission on the Judiciary, U.S. House of 
Representatives, April, 1994.

C.   Documents Received from Representative John Bryant's Office

     The testimony and exhibits prepared for the April 11, 1994 
hearings before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and 
Governmental Relations of the House Judiciary Committee were 
delivered to the Committee staff by Representative John Bryant's 
office. A brief description follows:

     1) Testimony from family members of three patients;

*    2) Testimony from Dr. Gordon Soper, Principal Deputy to the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy [includes a DOD 
chronology];

     3) Testimony of Dr. James Cox, Professor of Radiotherapy, M.D. 
Anderson Cancer Center;

     4) Testimony of Dr. Joseph Steger, President, University of 
Cincinnati;

     5) Testimony of Dr. David Egilman Department of Community 
Medicine,  Brown University;

     6) Testimony of Dr. Martha Stephens, Professor of English, 
University of Cincinnati, and principal author of the 1972 Junior 
Faculty Association report;

*    7) Testimony of Dr. Eugene Saenger. (Attached documentation 
does not include appendices to testimony.)

D.   Documents Received from Mr. Gwendon Plair, Member of Concerned 
Relatives of Cancer Stud Patients (CROCSP)

     Partial medical records of three different patients in the 
Cincinnati study were delivered to the Committee Staff by Gwendon 
Plair, an active member of the patients' families group, and son of 
one of the patients. Mr. Plair testified at the first Committee 
meeting on April 21, 1994 during the public comment period.

				2

II.  STAFF SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION

     Review of this material by several members of the Committee 
Staff suggests that a more


7) Documentation of Dr. Saenger's role as a staff member and later 
as aconsultant to the Brooke Army Hospital, Lakeland Air Force Base 
Hospital, USPHS, and AEC Oak Ridge Program during the period 1953 
to 1972.  This was the period when the Cincinnati experiments were 
being planned, applications produced, contracts awarded, and 
contracted work carried out.  This information may help to 
understand the purpose of these Cincinnati experiments.

8) Information on similar TBI human experiments contracted for at 
the Baylor College of Medicine and Sloan-Kettering Cancer 
Institute -- Drs. Vincent Collins at Baylor and James Nickson at 
Sloan-Kettering also had contracts from DASA during the 1950-70 
decades to perform similar human radiation research. 
(DA 49007 MD 428 and DA 49 146 XZ 032 Baylor and at Sloan Kettering 
DA-49-007-MD-533, DA-49-007-MD-669, and DA-49-146-XZ-037) In 
recommending approval of the Cincinnati work, reviewers urged 
coordination with the New York and Texas research. Review of these 
contracts may add to the Committee's understanding of the background 
for all such experiments contracted for by Federal agencies.

9) All the documents received appear to have been unclassified -- In 
some cases, the investigator reports make express reference to a 
military purpose for the research. It would be interesting to know 
whether investigators had security clearances and access to 
classified documents? If so, is there documentation which might 
show how such clearances bear on informed consent issues?



				3