NASA Attachment 3 Documents from the 1981 Gore hearings: Testimony of Andrew J. Stofan, Acting Assistant Administrator, NASA Office of Space Science (pp.159-166). Memo from Gould Andrews, Director, Medical Division of the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, describing discussion with NASA official on possible human irradiation experiments (pp.169-172). Gore chaired OVERSIGHT HUMAN TOTAL BODY IRRADIATION (TBI) PROGRAM AT OAK RIDGE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1981 [No. 63] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 88-848 O WASHINGTON: 1982 158 mission which submitted a formal proposal to NASA after preliminary discussions between technical personnel of both agencies had taken place in late 1963. In the 1963-64 time period, it is our understanding that ORINS proposed to AEC the construction of the LETBI. You requested a description of the relationship and interaction between NASA and the ORAU, formerly ORINS, Medical Division. NASA transferred funds to the AEC, which, in turn, awarded a contract to ORINS for the analysis of data resulting from therapeutic and accidental radiation exposure. Written reports of the results of these analyses were submitted to NASA. You asked whether NASA had any input concerning selection of patients. NASA had not role in the selection of any patient. You asked whether NASA had any input on the treatment of patients. Again, NASA had no role in the treatment of any patient. And, Mr. Chairman, you asked whether the total body irradiation doses given to patients were changed as a result of the NASA study. NASA did not influence the choice of the radiation does administered to any patient. We were simply seeking data on the response to treatment provided to patients by ORINS. You also asked what steps NASA took to insure that patients were fully informed. The responsibility for insuring that patients were informed of and consented to the total body irradiation therapy rested solely with the institution providing the medical treatment. NASA assumed no role in this regard, since NASA was not involved in the treatment. NASA was seek data that resulted from treatment. That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. [The prepared statement, plus answers to questions asked of Mr. Stofan, follow:] Mr. Gore. Thank you very much. 159 Statement of Andrew J. Stofan Acting Associate Administrator for Office of Space Science NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to report to the Subcommittee, the facts, to the best of my knowledge, relating to NASA's role in the radiobiological studies carried out by AEC during the years 1964 to 1974 at the Medical Division of Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), formerly called Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies (ORINS). Our records of some of the early studies initiated by NASA Headquarters, such as the one with ORINS/ORAU, are incomplete. The NASA file covering this period is not available, because it was retired and later destroyed in accordance with prescribed practice. Some NASA personnel associated with this ORINS/ORAU project have since retired, returned to their parent organizations or are currently employed elsewhere. However, the available technical monitors and others closely associated with the project have been queried and have supplied their best recollection of key events. Because NASA is responsible for the health and safety of astronauts, NASA has been interested in characterizing the natural radiation environment of space. This radiation consists of two main types: relatively constant, low dose-rate electron and proton radiation from the geomagnetically trapped van Allen belts and sporadic, high dose-rate solar particle events. NASA has had a special interest in the radiobiological responses of man, such as nausea, vomiting and fatiguability, as directly related to his ability to function efficiently in space. 160 To assist NASA in assessing these radiation problems, the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences convened working groups in 1961 and again in 1964. The membership of the later panel, consisting of distinguished scientists in the field of radiation biology at the time, is given in Appendix A. In its report, Radiobiological Factors in Manned Space Flight, the panel reviewed and extended some of the more pertinent information on radiobiology with emphasis on human response to the potential radiation risks accompanying space flights. This report formed the foundation for NASA's efforts with respect to safeguarding man in the potentially lethal radiation environment of space. The radiation dose-response tables and curves presently used in Mission Control for Shuttle flights are largely based on this report. These data enable flight controllers to predict the likely response of astronauts to high levels of radiation (e.g., solar flares). The Panel's report summarized what was know at that time concerning the dose-responses of man to radiation and it outlined the data needed to derive more precise and definitive evaluations of risks. In its recommendations the Panel noted that, "There is presently and always will be an obvious need for more human data, particularly with regard to radiation dose-response relationships and effects of various modifying factors thereon." It noted that, "The rate of accumulation of such data is slow and advantage should be taken of every ethical means to obtain more information collected under conditions that permit better risk evaluations..." The report further states, "Wherever possible, opportunities to improve the quality of human data should be sought out and encourage." Based on these recommendations and on NASA's operational need for more precise data concerning the effects of radiation on living systems, an effort was initiated in the early 1960's to accumulate data from ongoing radiological treatment programs being carried out by other organizations. Although as I have indicated the record is incomplete, we have been able to establish the following chronology: During the early sixties, coincident with the deliberations of the Space Radiation Study Panels, NASA became aware of on-going clinical research efforts by AEC to investigate the potential of ionizing radiation in the treatment of neoplastic disease (cancer). These AEC studies had been initiated as early as 1957. 161 In December 1963, AEC proposed to NASA that a research project entitled, "Retrospective Study of Radiation Effects, " be conducted at ORINS. The objective of this retrospective, or "backward- looking," project was to establish the radiosensitivity and therapeutic radiation exposures. NASA accepted the proposal. In substance, the ORINS investigators were to examine the medical records of a large number of persons throughout the country who had been treated in the past with various regimens of radiation. The long range goal of this initial retrospective project was to establish the radiosensitivity of man based on human experience gained from accidental and principally therapeutic radiation exposures. Ultimately 3,000 cases of human therapeutic exposure experiences from 45 contributing institutions were combine with 100 case experiences, accumulated at the ORINS/ORAU Medical Division to establish this data base. During the same early period, AEC, ORINS and NASA personnel held discussions concerning a prospective study of human radiobiological responses to low dose-rate radiation. In a prospective study, investigators know ahead of time the types of information they are seeking, therefore they can avoid the information gaps that invariably exist in some of the medical histories employed in retrospective studies. The opportunity to conduct a prospective data collection program of human response to low dose-rate irradiation arose because ORINS was planning to examine the therapeutic value of such irradiations. In this early time period, discussions about the new prospective program were held between AEC, ORINS and NASA. It was determined that NASA had an interest in the data that could be derived from the clinical therapy in the Low Exposure-rate Total Body Irradiation (LETBI) and it was agreed that NASA would make a contribution to the facility. Subsequently, the AEC assumed the cost for the actual design for the equipment (principally bioinstrumentation for physiological monitoring) and radiation sources. Total equipment cost was estimated at $65,000. It is NASA's understanding that LETBI would have been constructed and used without NASA funding. 162 The bioinstrumentation, developed by AEC/ORINS, was to allow the monitoring of the patients' well-being and vital signs during radiation therapy. For example, the bioinstrumentation would allow monitoring of electrocardiogram, heart rate, respiration rate, respiration waveform, and temperature from start of irradiation. This constant monitoring would obviate the need to disrupt the radiation treatment to acquire this information by manual means. Some of these date (the respiration waveform data) also would serve to indicate incipient nausea, of particular interest to NASA. It should be reemphasized that NASA's interest in this prospective study was solely in acquiring accurate radiation dose- response data on a non-interference basis from the AEC/ORINS clinical study of the effectiveness of low-level total body radiation in treating persons with certain types of neo-plastic disease (lymphoma, leukemia). I have found no evidence that NASA had any role in the selection of patients, selection of therapeutic modality, referral of patients, or any other aspect of the clinical study. NASA was interested only in acquiring data human radiation exposure. During its inception in mid-1964 up until 1969 this project was funded by NASA Headquarters. In late 1969, technical monitorship of the effort was transferred from NASA Headquarters to the Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, where it remained until the effort was terminated June 30, 1975. NASA understands the total funding of the program, including NASA's $2.2 million, was on the order of $26 million. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide answers, based on our review of this matter, to the questions you raised in your letter requesting NASA testimony on this subject. You asked what agency proposed the initial study and what agency proposed construction of the LETBI facility. It was the Atomic Energy Commission which submitted a formal proposal to NASA after preliminary discussions between technical personnel of both agencies had taken place in late 1963. In the 1963-64 time period, it is our understanding that ORINS proposed to AEC the construction of the LETBI. You requested a description of the relationship and interaction between NASA and the ORAU (formerly ORINS) Medical Division. NASA transferred funds to the AEC which in turn awarded a contract to ORINS for the analysis of data resulting from therapeutic and accidental radiation exposure . Written reports of the results of these analyses were submitted to NASA. 163 You asked whether NASA had input concerning selection of patients. NASA had no role in the selection of any patient. Your asked about NASA input on the treatment of patients. NASA had no role in the treatment of any patient. And, Mr. Chairman you asked whether the total body irradiation doses given to patients were changed as a result of the NASA study. NASA did not influence the choice of the radiation dose administered to any patient. We were simply seeking data on the response to treatment provided to patients by ORINS. You also asked what steps NASA took to insure that patients were fully informed. The responsibility for insuring that patients were informed of and consented to the total body irradiation therapy rested solely with the institution providing medical treatment. NASA assumed no role in this regard, since NASA was not involved in the treatment. NASA was seeking data that resulted from treatment. That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. 164 Appendix A 1964 Space Radiation Study Participants Panel Chairman - Wright H. Langham, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory University of California, Los Alamos, New Mexico Co-Chairman - Douglas Grahn, Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois Victor P. Bond, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York Robert A. Conrad, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York Howard J. Curtis, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island, New York Samuel P. Hicks, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan C. C. Lushbaugh, Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, Oak Ridge, Tennessee G. M. McDonnell, University of California, Los Angeles, California James J. Wickson, Michael Reese Hospital, Chicago, Illinois Hermann J. Schaefer, U.S. Naval Aerospace Medical Institute, Pensacola, Florida Charles A. Sondhaus, University of California, College of Medicine, Los Angeles, California Herman D. Suit, M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, University of Texas, Houston, Texas Consultants Gould A. Andrews, Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Gilbert H. Fletcher, M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute, University of Texas, Houston, Texas Elizabeth F. Focht, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York City, New York Carl G. Heller, Pacific Northwest Research Foundation, Seattle, Washington George R. Merriam, Jr., Institute of Opthalology, New York City, New York John F. Thomson, argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois Paul C. Tompkins, Federal Radiation Council, Washington, DC Shields Warren, New England Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 165 Responses to written questions submitted by Chairman Gore during the hearing before the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on September 23, 1981. Question 1: What is the NASA procedure for retiring and destroying records? Answer 1: NASA procedures for retiring and destroying records comply with the provisions of 44 U.S.C Subsections 2901-2902, 3102, 3301-3311 and the GSA Records Management Regulations issued implementing the statute found in 41 CFR 101-11. Specific directions to NASA organizations are given through the provision of the NASA Record Disposition Handbook (NHB 1441.1A) by the NASA Records Management Officer. The NASA Records Control Schedules found in NHB 1441.1A are mandatory and provide for (1) the preservation of records which are of long term or permanent value; (2) the prompt disposal of records which do not warrant further retention; and (3) the transfer of records to NASA installation staging areas and to Federal Records Centers which are no longer needed on current business but are not eligible for immediate disposal. Question 2: When were the records covering the NASA/AEC 1964-1974 study on the Radiosensitivity of Man retired and destroyed? Answer 2: According to our records, NASA Headquarters Grant No. R-0104-09 with the Atomic Energy Commission for subject work was completed in 1968, administratively closed-out on May 5, 1974. subsequently retired and transferred to the Federal Records Center, and destroyed on May 31, 1980. To our best knowledge, there were no previous or subsequent contracts, grants, or other procurements issued out of our Division which dealt with this research area. The disposition of these records was made in accordance with NHB 1441.1A, NASA Records Disposition Handbook, Item 1.a. (1)(b) of Schedule 17 (Procurement and Supply Records). Question 3: How long was Evelyn Repplinger employed by NASA and in what capacity? 166 Answer 3: Ms. Evelyn Repplinger was employed by the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center (now JSC) on May 20, 1963, and resigned on July 1, 1964. Initially, she was employed in the capacity of an Aerospace Technologist (AST) in Bioradiation Studies. She was subsequently reclassified as a physicist. Question 4: What was the final disposition of her proposal to use prisoners in California for radiation studies? Answer 4: No record has been found of the existence of any formal written proposal to use prisoners in California for radiation studies, and, except for the reference contained in the memorandum of Dr. Gould Andrews to Dr. Kniseley, Mr. Harmon, Dr. Parker and Dr. Pollard of December 20, 1963, no evidence has been located of any consideration being given by NASA to such a proposal. Furthermore, since no record has been found of NASA's sponsorship of any radiation studies on prisoners in California or elsewhere, it is assumed that Ms. Repplinger's suggestion was not given serious consideration. Question 5: Have there ever been any NASA-sponsored experimental studies using prisoners in California or any other state? if so, what was the nature of the study and when and where did it occur? Answer 5: Such studies have been sponsored by NASA on several occasions. In the early sixties, nutritional studies were conducted on prisoners who volunteered to be fed diets with proteins replaced by mixtures of synthetic amino acids. Between about 1970 and 1973, prisoners were subjected to bedrest for two to eight weeks at USPHS Hospital in San Francisco. The prisoners were obtained from either Lampoc or the Federal Correction Institute in Safford, Arizona. NASA's interest was in the effects of bedrest on the musculoskeletal and circulatory systems. 167 As a preliminary matter, is it typical for NASA to destroy documents concerning a program critically reviewed by another agency after a set number of years? Mr. Stofan. Yes; I would say that is common practice. After a given number of years storage, they are reviewed and, if there is not a need known for them, then they are destroyed. Mr. Gore. You have an established procedure? Mr. Stofan. To the best of my knowledge, yes; there is established procedure. Mr. Gore. Can you provide us with a copy of that procedure? How many years before documents are destroyed? Mr. Stofan. I can provide the procedures under which NASA's documents are controlled. [Editor's Note.--Information requested is provided in response to Chairman Gore's written question.] Mr. Gore. Do you know how many years is the standard procedure to wait before destroying documents? Mr. Stofan. No, I don't. Mr. Gore. Well, we have been able to obtain copies of many documents relating to the relationship between NASA and AEC from the Department of Energy files, and I wish to at this point thank the Department of Energy for the cooperation that they have given us in locating the files and in letting us have full access, which of course we are entitle to in any event. But have had some difficulty getting all of the documents that we wanted from NASA and that is why I want to get this copy of the procedure. I do want to point out, however, that NASA has cooperated fully with members of my staff and have made repeated efforts to locate pertinent documents. Is it your position that NASA or any other Government agency that contracts with others to embark upon, or to conduct human experimentation, has no responsibility to insure that the subjects of the experimentation offer informed consent or are treated according to appropriate protocols? Mr. Stofan. I can only speak for NASA because I do not know about the rest of the Government organizations. When we deal with another Government organization, we do not double monitor that organization, which again in turn monitors a contractor or a university. It is not NASA's practice; we don't do it now and didn't do it at the time. Mr. Gore. Do you think you should? Mr. Stofan. No; I do not think we should. I don't think that having one Government agency monitor another Government agency who is monitoring a contractor is a good way to expend funds. Mr. Gore. Well, it may be that at the conclusion of the inquiry--I do not want to do this prematurely, but maybe we will recommend that any Government agency contracting out experiments that involve human subjects ought to be required to make inquiries to satisfy themselves that the human subjects are being treated in an appropriate manner. Now, I would like to put into the record at this point a memorandum dated January 8, 1964. I am sorry I do not have copies 168 of this for you, but it is to Dr. Knisely, Mr. Harmon, Dr. Parker and Dr.Pollard, signed by Gould Andrews. Now, Dr. Bibb, Gould Andrews was the head of the Medical Division at Oak Ridge at that time? Dr. Bibb. Yes, sir. [The memorandum mentioned above follows:] MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Knisely, Mr. Harmon, Dr. Parker, Dr. Pollard DATE: December 20, 1963 SUBJECT: COPIES TO: I was met at the National Airport in Washington at 11:00 yesterday by Dr. Burr and Dr. Barr from the Division of Biology and Medicine. We went to lunch and talked at some length about the NASA project. They feel that ORINS should do the major work for NASA but they mentioned that since previously talking with us they have brought Dr. Dough Grahn of the Argonne National Laboratories into the picture as sort of a special consultant and liaison man. He is actually a geneticist by trade, but is very knowledgeable in physics and in operational matters relating to space flight. He has been working with NASA for four or five years and is anxious to be of help in connection with the present needs. He does not anticipate doing any research, but would like to help interpret biological problems for NASA in terms of his knowledge of their operational needs. Dr. Barr also pointed out that some changes are going on constantly in NASA organization. The Office of Manned Space Flight in Washington has had a change in status. It is now considered an advisory staff office and is no longer in the direct line of authority over the Manned Space Center Laboratories in Houston. That is, while the Houston group used to get their money directly from the Office of Manned Space Flight, they now get it through NASA Headquarters. We then went to the new NASA building in Washington where we met Dr. Sherm Vinograd. He is a youngish -----ed ----- used ----- practice somewhere in Wisconsin or Minnesota, ----- is now ----- an important role in the medical aspects of the space program. He is a very reasonable and pleasant person to deal with and seems fairly well ----- ----- ----- were two of his assistants, Ed McLaughlin, who is, I believe, trained in psychology, and Jeff Lindsey who is something of a statistician. We had a constructive discussion about the needs of the space program. I outlined ORINS' experience in total body irradiation. The ----- ----- of the discussion was on the assumption that we would do the program for them, and we were trying to iron out detail of the relationship. Burr and Barr were strongly supporting the Medical Division's competence in this field. One major point of discussion was emphasized by ----- ----- this was that he feels that the people in NASA are in inclined to ask us ----- ------ judgements that are outside of our competence; for example, whether ----- certain circumstances would be allowed to receive ----- ----- ----- feels that the only thing they can do is to tell them what biological ----- ----- expect from a given ----- from that point on the decision is entirely up to them since they must ----- ----- ----- all -----other hazards in space ----- ----- ----- the r----- ----- against such things as the risks and ----- - ---- ----- ----- weight ------ position seemed to be acceptable to NASA ----- I did get the feeling ----- they are worried in general about ----- and ----- haven't thought very much about just how they are going to make decisions ----- ----- the various types of risks. 170 A second major point that was discussed was the relationship between the Office of Manned Space Flight in Washington and the space center at Houston, Texas. We have been closely in contact with Miss Evelyn Repplinger of the space center at Houston, and she has come forth with rather specific ideas about the project that we might do, and it became clear that really two types of projects are being considered and administratively they are not identical in the eyes of NASA. First of all is the project to make a "continuing" retrospective study assessing radiation effects in the human being insofar as this is possible from ----- published data or from unpublished data that we might obtain access to. The Office of Manned Space Flight in Washington is anxious to support this support this project as is the Houston center, and the impression is that this project is to go forward under support of the Washington officer (AEC prefers to deal with the Washington office since they feel that the contracts originated by relatively lower level people of the NASA hierarchy in Houston might have less stability). Vinograd emphasized, however, that he was not in a position to support any original research. What he is thinking of is a retrospective analysis of data, which could, however, as he sees it, be a continuing and expanding project. We talked in terms of a budget of $50,000 or $70,000 for this program for the rest of FY-64 and a figure of $----- was vaguely mentioned for the subsequent year. I said that this figure for FY-65 might not be adequate but they made no particular point ----- and we did not discuss this at length. The other aspect of the problem is that we have been considering a study that would involve new research to be done, either in our own laboratories to be developed at other laboratories and administered through us. This is a project which Vinograd cannot support from his office, but ----- ----- ----- supported through the center at Houston. However, the people I met ----- ----- did not want to go into any detail about this since they are in ----- ----- -----. Thus it appears that there are two projects: (1) a ----- ----- to be supported through Washington, and possibly, (2) a new research study to be supported through the center at Houston. On the basis of a recent telephone conservation I had with Evelyn Repplinger, I have the impression that she also has available some $70,000 to support the retrospective study, and it is my guess that this money is available separately in both places; however, we are not in the position to use more than $60,000 or $70,000 anyway, in the rest of this fiscal year. Apparently the situation now is that we should start immediately so make concrete plans for the retrospective study, and ----- goes by, analyze the plans for the investigative study to be done for the group in Houston. Vinograd ----- that in my letter indicating the amount of time that we might we would be doing research for his project, and he wanted to emphasize that all he could support was the data-analysis part of the study. He is quite willing to accept data retrieving apparatus as a logical expense. We did not go into any detail about the specific costs, or how the money would be spent. 171 Our next step is to prepare a 189 and submit to Biology and Medicine of AEC indicating our plans for the retrospective study. Presumably they particularly want the plans for the rest of FY-64. We did not really discuss how much the 189 should cover about future years. I will have to work this out by telephone with Nat. Barr. In trying to discover what the space project requires of us, I found that they were rather flexible and quite reasonable but in a hurry for some type of help. Apparently they have a bunch of figures established by some ----- which are written in terms of arbitrary limits; that is, no man should be allowed to receive more than 20 rads for the eye, or something of that sort.... but the present figures they are working with give no suggestion about what biological effects could be expected at different levels. They feel that they need a more extensive and flexible type of information, so that they can decide what risks could be taken, and what the results would be. In terms of deadline, they would like very much to have some additional information in less than 6 months, if possible, but they do not mean by this any given amount of data should be analyzed. Perhaps they would like information already available, simply applied to their particular problems. I made it clear that we could not do an exhaustive study of past radiation experience within 6 months, and they made it clear that they expect this retrospective analysis program to be continuing and run on for an indefinite period. They are willing to make available to us indications of their need, the type of radiation that they will be dealing with, etc. Other point came up for some mention. One ----- ----- the plan so enthusiastically discussed with me late in November. b) Eval----- - --- ----- prisoners in a prison in California for radiation experiments. It seems that there is a Dr. CHen who has some special relationship to the governor of California and has a situation where prisoners could be used for ----- of experiments. The implication was that the radiation experiments could be worked in without publicity as a part of some nutrition studies. I told Miss Repplinger that I was extremely skeptical about the whole idea; that I felt that giving low doses of radiation to normals would not prove anything of much value, and that giving large ----- as would be very doubtful from a medical, legal, and ethical standpoint ----- difficult to dampen her enthusiasm for this, however. I found, in Washington that this project is also known to Vinograd and AEC. ----- ----- ----- said that he would have nothing to do with it, under any circumstance. I told Vinograd of my great reservations and the possible damage that could occur from publicity about ill conceived ----- experiments. ----- ----- to fit in with the views of Barr and ----- this topic. Miss Repplinger indicated that I might be asked to serve along with Wright Laboratories as a consultant for this project, but since I have so many reservations about it, perhaps she will seek someone else. 172 Another problem that came up for incidental discussion was the fact that Secretary of Defense McNamara has recently said that the project of maintaining orbiting manned space centers would be transferred from NASA to the Air Force. This was presumably as a consolation to Air Force since they had lost some recent project. People in NASA apparently are not fully informed about this, and don't feel that the last word has been said about the administration of this project. One of the main needs for radiation data is for the manned orbiting information centers. After talking to Vinograd, Lindsey and McLaughlin, we went in to see Dr. Knauf who is the chief of this division. He is a very pleasant, somewhat older, man who was extremely gracious and pleasant. He discussed the daily crises of the space program, and the "flaps" that they have every time that they have a newspaper report involving hazards to astronauts. It seems that radiation is one of their main concerns in this regard. Dr. Knauf said he intended to try to obtain a consultant for himself on radiation effects who would be quite independent of us or any contracted program. This consultant would simply have him deal with some of these publicity aspects and give him advice about the radiation problem. It was also brought out that the work we would be doing would be of some interest to the other main Washington offices, which was ----- ----- ----- ----- manned space flight. These are the Office of Advanced Research ----- and the Office of Space Sciences. ----- -- --- people in this office of ----- ----- ----- Technology are Kon-- --- and ----- and in the office of ----- ----- ------ work would be under a man named ----- Reynolds and a man named ----- -----. In general, the m----- ---- ----- are s----- and ------ and --- cated a major ----- ------ ----- ----- other ------it is ----- ---- - ----- ----- is a very complex or ----- and ------ are many uncertainties ----- in our relationship Gould A. Andrew GAA:arb 173 Mr. Gore. this memorandum summarizes one of the very early discussions between the AEC and NASA with respect to this contract, and it refers to a telephone call from Nat Barr and a conversation with Bill Burr. It also refers to an Evelyn Repplinger. Was Evelyn Repplinger, with NASA, Dr. Barr? Dr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I guess I don't recognize whether she was an employee of NASA at the time or not. I recall the name but I don't remember whether she was an employee of NASA or a consultant. I am sorry, sir. Mr. Gore. Mr. Stofan, is that name familiar to you? Mr. Stofan. No; it is not. Mr. Gore. What about Dr. Billingham, AEC? Dr. Barr. No, Dr. John Billingham was an employee of NASA. Mr. Gore. NASA, all right. It refers to a conversation with Evelyn Repplinger and Dr. Billingham. Miss Repplinger had seemed somewhat disturbed because she felt that she had to write a work statement having to do with the retrospective study to be support out of NASA headquarters. Now, the inference I am drawing is that Miss Repplinger was an employee of NASA. It says in this memo on page 2, Dr. Andrews said: Thus it appears that there are two projects: (1) A retrospective study to be supported through Washington, and possible (2) a new research study to be supported through the center at Houston. Dr. Burr, or any of the other witnesses, were there in fact two parts to the contract with NASA, one part of the work to be the retrospective analysis and the second part to be a prospective study? Dr. Burr. I think it would be more appropriate for Dr. Barr to address that, since he was the coordinator. Mr. Gore. Dr. Barr. Dr. Barr. Mr. Gore, I have not seen the memo that your are referring to. But with respect to your specific question, while there might have been discussion as to points of support for this study within NASA, it never appeared that way, that this support came from one part of NASA and was handled through their headquarters contracting. Mr. Core. Did it involve both a retrospective study and a prospective study? Dr. Barr. Sir, during the morning, retrospective and prospective has been used in two senses, one with regard to epidemiological investigations and then, as is the case now, with respect to the acquisition of data from such experiments. It was initially the understanding in the conduct of this work that the work would be retrospective, both at other institutions and at ORINS. Later on, it became obvious to all, I believe, that the definition of data that was particularly relevant prior to the acquisition or random acquisition of such data would be an extremely helpful process. That kind of prospective planning ahead, identification of what kind of data was needed in the course of therapy experiments gradually evolved during the operation of this project. Mr. Gore. Now, when you say the definition of the ----- data needed, does that mean that upon the completion of the -----pective study, where Dr. Lushbaugh, went out and studied test results.