LETTER TO MR. CALIFANO RE CIA HAS A DUTY TO NOTIFY PERSONS WHO WERE SUBJECTS OF AGENCY SPONSORED DRUG EXPERIMENTATION

• Document Type: SPECIALCOLLECTION
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 00404530
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: January 23, 2025
• Document Release Date: November 30, 2000
• Publication Date: July 1, 2000

Honorable Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
Secretary of Heilth, Education, and Welfare
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Dear Mr. Califano,
The Central Intelligence Agency has a duty to find and
notify persons who were the subjects of Agency sponsored drug
experimentation many years ago without their knowledge where
it can be reasonably determined that their health may still be
. adversely affected; I solicit your cooperation and assistance
in this very difficult undertaking.
For your background information, the former CIA officer
who was chiefly responsible for the drug research program de-
stroyed, just before.his retirement, what he believed to be all
of the records pertaining to the program. About a year ago
during a search through our Archives in response to a request
under the Freedom of Information Act, several boxes of records
related to the drug program were discovered. These records,
however, reveal very little of the operational and substantive
detail about how-the _actual experiments were conducted. We
6LI
do know that virtually all of the research was done at private
institutions by professional people who were in the direct or
consultative employ of 'those institutions. The CIA role was
to Provide fund S in support of the research through research
foundations without attribution to CIA. In some cases the in�
dividual researchers and institutions were aware that CIA was
an ultimate source of funding, and in some cases they were not.
It was considered necessary at the time to protect against dis�
closure the fact that CIA was interested in the research and
supported it with funds.
The institutions that were involved, whether knowledgable
of CIA interest or not, have been informed of the CIA role in
supplying funds and the mechanisms through which funding was
accomplished. Copies of Fecuds we have pertaining to indi�
'
vidual institutions have been furnished to those institutions
that requested them. None of the records available, however,
contain the identities of individuals who may have been the
subjects of drug experimentation.
As I see it, there are four basic elements of the problem.
One element is to determine which among the drugs used had a poten�
tial for causing hermful_long term aftereffects. A second eldment
is to establish whether CIA or the institution that conducted'the
experiments has the primary responsibility for putting the sub-
jects into whatever danger may have attended the tests. A third
element is to determine-whether subjects who volunteered to.partici-
.
pate in the experiments were sufficiently informed of the potential
consequences.. Finally, we have to identify, find and notify the
affected subjects. These intrinsically difficult tasks are compli-
cated further by legal constraints on the 'process by which subjects
are identified, located and notified.
None of the elements of the problem lends itself to direct
solution through information currently available. We will have to
go to the institutions involved and, in some cases, to the indiv-
idual researchers, in search of supplementary data. We are advised
by the Attorney General that the institutions may be precluded
from divulging the identity of the subjects to the CIA by federal
statute, federal agency regulations, or the doctor-patient privilege.
Further, even if the institutions could legally cooperate, they may
decline to do so out of concern that their cooperation in notifica-
tion could lead to litigation and potential liability on their part
for the role they played.
To the extent that we may be successful in identifying any
of the subjects we will have the subsequent problem of locating
them. Here, again, the law and concern for the privacy of the in-
dividuals pose restrictions. Open or public association with the
CIA in the context of the reason for a current contact could cause
the individuals embarassment.and reputational discredit. This means
the location process will have to be done without interview of
associates, neighbors; or local officials; but through records.
Again, there may be legal prohibitions against the use of the re�
cords of private as well .as government institutions.
When_it canes to the notification of any subjects that may
be found, we are informed that CIA has no'Tegal authority to
offer indemnification. We may be limited to providing a simple
notice and an offer to furnish whatever information we have to
the subject's physician.
We have established that there were fifteen activities in�
volving other government or private institutions where human sub�
jects clearly were involved. (10), or where there is some reason
to believe that humans might have been subjects of research involv�
ing the administration of drugs (5). In nine of the ten activities
that clearly involved human testing the stibjects were volunteers,
many of whom were paid for taking part, but we do not know how
well they may have been informed about the potential consequences
of their participation. Two of those that used witting subjects
also used subjects who were unaware that they were a part of the
research.
Our next step is to seek further information from the
��
institutions and researchers who were involved. We need to try to .
determine whether the involvement of CIA was so direct and control-
ling as to establish its responsibility for the activities as they
were carried.out. In cases where the responsibility rests with CIA
we will then have to seek to identify, locate, and notify subjects.
In the process, of course, we will have to try to identify the drugs
and get an evaluation of their potential for causing long term after-
effects from which the subjects might still be suffering harm. It
is'these steps that lead me to solicit your cooperation and assis-
tance. The professional congruity your department would represent
to the institutions involved should make it possible for you to be
a more effective agent of the Government than CIA could expect to
be.
If you feel it might be possible for your department to
assist us in this matter.' w6Uld be pleased to discuss it with
you further to explore how we might most effectively join forces
to achieve the desired end.
Sincerely,
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
-SUBJECT: MiULTRA Subprojects 23, 45, and 14/
1. Subprojects 23; 45, and 141 supported research conducted
by Dr. Charles Geschickter at The research
was concerned with chemical agents effective in modifying the behavior
and function of the central nervous system in animals. A memorandum
for the record dated 25 August 1955 says the project engineer author-
ized the contractor (Geschickter) to pay the hospital expenses of cer-
tain persons suffering from incurable cancer for the privilege of
studying the effects of certain chemicals during their terminal ill-
nesses. The memorandum
says that "the total funds expended in this
fashion amounted to $658.05 and fu/1 value was received."
�
2. Subproject 45 began, apparently, in 1955 as a study of
certain biochemical compounds and their effects on guinea pigs and
rabbits. In 1956-57 study turned to various causes of coma. The pro-
gram for 1957-58 involved continuation of the study of comatose condi-
tions, a study of glucose metabolic blocking agents, and stress phen-
omena. Human patients were used. The 1958-59 research was devoted to
an analysis of the neural and endocrine mechanism of stress and the
chemical agents that influence it. Human patients were used. The .same
general lines of inquiry continued in subsequent years until termina-
tion of the project in 1963.
� 3. Nothing in the file suggests what subproject 141 might
have been.
4. Dr. Geschickter appeared before the Subcommittee on
Health:and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources of
the Senate in September 1977. During his testimony' he was questioned
specifically about subproject 23 and the payment of hospital expenses
for terminally ill�cancer patients. The inquiry focussed on the en-
try in the financial record which Dr. Geschickter said was incorrect.
He did not specifically deny that drugs were administered to cancer
. patients, but his response distinguished between experimentation on
laboratory animals and the payment of expenses for cancer patients.
The implication, apparently Accented by the Committee, was that ex-
perimental drugs were not administered to cancer patients.
5. Senator Kennedy also questioned Dr. Geschickter about
subproject 45. Dr. Geschickter's responses apparently satisfied the
committee that durgs administered to cancer patients were a part of
legitimate cancer treatment research. He said "we were not giving
our patients stress drugs."
6. Inasmuch as Dr. Geschickter's testimony denies admin-
istration of potentially harmful drugs to unwitting patients and the
Senate seems satisfied with that testimony, 'there appears to be no
need for the Agency to pursue the inquiry further.
111111/11111111.111.1.11.111.1111111.111.111111111...
University of Oklahoma
900 Asp Avenue, Room 237
.Norman, Oklahoma 73019
Dear Mr.
We are grateful for your cooperation and the helpful responses
from you andellIMMOMMINI, to our correspondence last year. about
the MKULTRA program as it related to the University of Oklahoma. We
now find it necessary to solicit your cooperation and assistance with
respect to this program once again.
We have received from the Attorney General of the United
States an opinion which determines that the Central intelligence
Agency, on behalf of the United States Government, has a duty to notify
r
persons who were the subjects of drug experimentation under the
t41-1/"C)
Mktiltra program, if it can be reasonably established that:
(a) the subjects may still be suffering harmful long term
aftereffects,
(b) the drugs were administered without the knowledge of
:the subjects, and
(c) the experiments were conducted under direction and
control of CIA sufficient to establish CIA liability for
any consequences that may have befallen the subjects.
If there is any doubt about the actual notice of participation given
to volunteer subjects, or the particular testing they underwent,
those subjects also should be notified.
We have found in many cases that CIA was interested in the
_results-of research initiated and sponsored by other organizations.
and conducted entirely in accordance with professional and ethical
standards applicable to the particular circumstances at the time.
We have found no evidence anywhere that CIA exerted undue influence
or attempted in any-way to coerce individuals or institutions to un-
� .dertake research that they might not otherwise have undertaken nor
did the Agency attempt to cause any compromise of professional and
ethical standards under which the research was conducted. Insofar as
we are able to tell from our records, none of the research conducted
bY. private institutions was clandestine in any way; studies were
carried out openly and the rd*uleS in many cases were published.
We assume that work done at the University of Oklahoma fits these
general descriptors or the University would not have become involved.
Unfortunately, however, our surviving records are far from
complete and we cannot in all cases state with absolute assurance
what the facts are. We must solicit the cooperation and assistance
of institutions that were inVr ed to clarify the facts in order that
informed judgments can be In-de about the true nature of the CIA obli-
gation. This letter is addressed to you in that spirit.
As you will see from copies of documents relevant to MKULTRA subpro-
ject 43 furnished to by letter from Mr. Cinquegrana
September 22, 1977, there is an implication that drugs were used on
.human subjects in conjunction with experiments involving hypnotiza-
bility and suggestibility. There are a number of unknowns that we
would like to ask you to address. We cannot tell from our records
whether experiments using drugs were in fact conducted; nor can we
tell, if such experiments were conducted, what drugs were used,
whether they could have caused long term aftereffects from which the
subjects might still be suffering, or whether the subjects were suf-
ficiently well informed to have given their informed consent. Fin-
ally, our records contain no evidence that CIA exerted any direct
influence over the form or content of the research. Recognizing
that the statutory prohibition against our furnishing you the identity
of the person(s) who conducted the research may pose an insurmount-
able impediment to your findfng the answers to these unknowns, we
must nevertheless ask that you address them as the first step toward
assisting us in the discharge of the Agency's obligation.
At the same time, however, we must acknowledge that you are
under no obligation to respond. Ehdeed, it may be that you are pre-
cluded from responding by the laws of the State of Oklahoma, rules of
the University, or other regulations that may apply to your circum-
stances. The laws of privacy must, of course, be observed in any re-
sponse you may feel inclined to give.
Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated..
,��
'MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: MKULTRA Subproject 46
1. There is no evidence in the file that testing on human
subjects was a part of subproject 46. The attachment to a memoran-
dum fOr the record dated 15 December 1955 in paragraph one says "The
overall plan will be to incorporate into the molecule suitable. atoms
� to serve as tags -and to administer it to experimental-animals in whose
tissues the tagged atoms can be identified after various time periods."
(emphasis added) Paragraph five of the same attachment says: "The
problem is to discover what the body does with LSD. The percentages
of a dose of LSD retained in many other organs and tissues of the
body will be measured. The'pateern of excretion is important. In-
formation as to what chemical alterations are induced by the metabolic
.activity of cells in the central nervous system or in the liver or
in the muscle will be sought. Because of the ability of this molecule
to produce schizophrenic-like disorganization in normal humans, the
concentration of LSD in the central nervous system will of course have
a prime interest. One task will be to discover whether concentration
differences exist in various parts of the central nervous system."
2. The mere mention of humans in this quotation is not a
sufficient reason to conclude that humans were used as test subjects.
In the total context of the proposal it is at least equally as reason-
able to conclude that known effects of the drug on humans give added
significance to the-tests on animals. Because the statement of the
overall plan in paragraph one orients the research directly to experi-
mental animals it seems reaSonable to infer that paragraph five might
have been more precisely stated as follows: "The problem is to dis-
cover what the body does with LSD. The percentages of a dose of LSD
retained in many other organs and tissues of the animal body will be
measured: The pattern of excretion is important. Information as to
*what chemical alterations are induced in the animal by the metabolic
activity of cells in the central nervous system or in the liver or in
the muscle will be sought. Because of the ability of this molecule
to produce schizophrenic-like disorganization in normal humans, the
concentration of LSD in the central nervous system of animals will of
�
cou0se have a prime interest. One task will be to discover whether
concentration differenceexist in various parts of the central ner-
vous systems of laboratory animals." While these insertions may tend
to over-emphasize .the interpretation that animals rather than humans
were the subjects of the tests, any one of them would have been suf-
ficient to support specifically the overall plan stated in paragraph
one. The original author of the plan clearly had no foresight that
20 years after his writing a question would be raised by zealously
cautious and suspicious researchers.
nit
3. d111111111111111111111111; held a Top Secret Agency
�
clearance and was aware of CIA interest.
apparently was not. A memorandum for the record dated 22 August 1958
says in paragraph eight, 11,11,111011111110 has been cleared for .Top
. .
Secret by the Agency and is the only witting individual
�
:7.
The research was supported by the Lilly Company, afiallatallarnim
The Public Health Service, and the
as well as
CIA through the Geschickter Fund. The project was considerd unclassi-
fied after it left the Geschickter Fund.
4. 4. There is nothing in the file to suggest that CIA ex-
erted any more influence over the direction of the research, its sub-
stance, or the manner in which it was conducted than any of the other
supporters. The University knew of the project and supported it but
did not know that CIA was interested. The University, therefore, as
well as the other supporters,hae.a much more direct influence over
it than CIA.
5. Because there is no clear evidence that human testing was
involved, and because other organizations were more directly respon-
sible for the research than was CIA, no further action will be taken
with respect to MKULTRA subproject 46.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
'SUBJECT: MKULTRA Sybproject 125
1. Subproject 125 provided CIA funding support through the
Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology for a study conducted
by the Veterans Administration at the V.A. facility in Martinsburg,
West Virginia. The study was also supported by the Public Health
Service, the National Institutes 6f Health and, of course, the Vet-
erans.Administration. Results of the studies were published in pro-
fessional journals, and the studies were described in annual reports
of the Human Ecology fund for 1961 and 1961-1963.
?. The Veterans Administration was interested in psychologi-
cal problems related to aging, long-term institutionalization and
long-term illness, and the analysis of drug effects on performance and
mood. The subjects were male "domiciliary members who were psychi-
atrically and physically able to participate in the experiment, as
determined by the responsible medical personnel at the Center. Each
_
(subject) was a volunteer and was tested individually." Eighty sub-
jects ranging in age from 60 to 81 years were randomly assigned to one
of four groups; (1) those given 10 mg of d-amphetamine followed by
orange juice; (2) those given 10 mg of sodium bicarbonate in a cap-
sule followed by orange juice; (3) those given 10 mg of d-amphetamine
disguised (dissolved) in orange juice, and (4) orange juice alone.
In other studies, a conclusion was drawn that single doses of mepro-
bamate (400 mg), d-amphetamine (5 mg) and a placebo had little or no
effect on problem solving abilities.
3. The nature of the drugs used (nekobamate and d-amphetamine)
in the dosages administered under the controlled conditions of the re-
search render it virtually certain that no long-term harmful aftereffects
would have been produced. The subjects were witting volunteers and the
research was under the direction and control of professional medical
personnel of the Veterans Administration. The youngest of the surviving
volunteers would now be 79 years of age. Under the circumstances,
there is no need to pursue this case further.