Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Oral History Project The Advisory Committee's Oral History Project, as presently conceived, will involve ten to twenty senior research scientists (both radiation and non-radiation) active in the research community from 1942 to the present. Sample questions may include the following: *To what extent were researchers aware of the Nuremberg Code, and how did this influence their work? *Were malpractice suits a concern in designing and implementing lab protocols? *How were clinical research standards communicated to junior researchers? *How were research subjects selected, and how explicitly were the risks and procedures of the experiments communicated to them? *Were approaches to therapeutic and non-therapeutic research clearly distinct? *What was the impact of federal regulation on research protocols? The Committee is expected to produce a final report in the spring of 1995, which requires that the work be carried out in an accelerated fashion. As we prepare for this project, we would appreciate any thoughts you could offer us in response to the following questions: *Should we be concerned about carrying out such an oral history effort under the auspices of a Presidential Advisory Committee? Would you consider the resulting collections valid? *We are concerned that the controversial nature of the radiation experiments will make radiation researchers reluctant to speak candidly about the evolution of ethical standards in human experimentation. Since our primary purpose in this oral project is to reconstruct the ethical landscape of the post-war period, is it necessary to obtain oral histories from radiation researchers, or might we more profitably limit our inquiries to clinical researchers who worked in other fields? *We are considering two different age cohorts for interview: one consisting of clinical researches who began their careers in the 1950's and the other of those whose careers began in the early 1970's, when federal government became extensively involved in the regulation of human radiation experimentation. Do you anticipate particular strengths or weaknesses of this approach? *Given the time constraints under which we are working (we need to complete our oral history project in the fall of 1994), would you recommend that we carry out, for instance, ten interviews for which we have thoroughly prepared or twenty interviews with less extensive preparation? *Can you suggest any specific researchers for us to interview? *Do you know of any existing oral history collections that we should be using?