 |
 |
 |
 |
| 1977 Senate MKULTRA Hearing In June 1977, a rare cache of MKULTRA documents were discovered, which had escaped destruction by the CIA. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a hearing on August 3, 1977, to question CIA officials on the newly-discovered documents. The complete 171-page record is included here, including testimony and |
| dozens of MKULTRA documents on various subprojects. Cover Page JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ____________ AUGUST 3, 1977 Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Human Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1977 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-070-04357-1 Staff Page SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d sess.) DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona, Vice Chairman BIRCH BAYH, Indiana ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware ROBERT MORGAN, North Carolina GARY HART, Colorado DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey JAKE GARN, Utah CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas JOHN H. CHAFE, Rhode Island RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Ex Officio Member HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee, Ex Officio Member WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director EARL D. EISENHOWER, Minority Staff Director AUDREY H. HATRY, Chief Clerk COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey, Chairman JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri ALAN CRANSTON, California WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan JACOB K. JAVITS, New York RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island S.I. HAYAKAWA, California STEPHEN J. PARADISE, General Counsel and Staff Director MARJORIE M. WHITTAKER, Chief Clerk DON A. ZIMMERMAN, Minority Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey (ex officio) RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania JACOB K. JAVITS, New York JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island LAWRENCE HOROWITZ, Professional Staff Member DAVID WINSTON, Minority Counsel Opening Remarks PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OF RESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION _______________ WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1977 U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES Washington, D.C. The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m. in room 1202, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K. Inouye (chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence) presiding. Present: Senators Inouye (presiding), Kennedy, Goldwater, Bayh, Hathaway, Huddleston, Hart, Schweiker, Case, Garn, Chafee, Lugar and Wallop. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director, Select Committee on Intelligence; Dr. Lawrence Horowitz, staff director, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research; and professional staff members of both committees. Senator INOUYE. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is meeting today and is joined by the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research chaired by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania. Senator Hathaway and Senator Chafee are members of both committees. We are to hear testimony from the Director of Central Intelligence, Adm. Stansfield Turner, and from other Agency witnesses on issues concerning new documents supplied to the committee in the last week on drug testing conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. It should be made clear from the outset that in general, we are focusing on events that happened over 12 or as long as 25 years ago. It should be emphasized that the programs that are of greatest concern have stopped and that we are reviewing these past events in order to better understand what statutes and other guidelines might be necessary to prevent the recurrence of such abuses in the future. We also need to know and understand what is now being done by the CIA in the field of behavioral research to be certain that no current abuses are occurring. I want to commend Admiral Turner for his full cooperation with this committee and with the Subcommittee on Health in recognizing that this issue needed our attention. The CIA has assisted our committees and staffs in their investigative efforts and in arriving at remedies which will serve the best interests of our country. (1) -2- The reappearance of reports of the abuses of the drug testing program and reports of other previously unknown drug programs and projects for behavioral control underline the necessity for effective oversight procedures both in the executive branch and in the Congress. The Select Committee on Intelligence has been working very closely with President Carter, the Vice President, and Admiral Turner and his associates in developing basic concepts for statutory guidelines which will govern all activities of the intelligence agencies of the United States. In fact, it is my expectation that the President will soon announce his decisions on how he has decided the intelligence agencies of the United States shall be organized. This committee will be working closely with the President and Admiral Turner in placing this new structure under the law and to develop effective oversight procedures. It is clear that effective oversight requires that information must be full and forthcoming. Full and timely information is obviously necessary if the committee and the public is to be confident that any transgressions can be dealt with quickly and forcefully. One purpose of this hearing is to give the committee and the public an understanding of what new information has been discovered that adds to the knowledge already available from previous Church and Kennedy inquiries, and to hear the reasons why these documents were not available to the Church and Kennedy committees. It is also the purpose of this hearing to address the issues raised by any additional illegal or improper activities that have emerged from the files and to develop remedies to prevent such improper activities from occurring again. Finally, there is an obligation on the part of both this committee and the CIA to make every effort to help those individuals or institutions that may have been harmed by any of these improper or illegal activities. I am certain that Admiral Turner will work with this committee to see that this will be done. I would now like to welcome the most distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Senator Kennedy. Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are delighted to join together in this very important area of public inquiry and public interest. Some 2 years ago, the Senate Health Subcommittee heard chilling testimony about the human experimentation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over 30 universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations." At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers. The tests subjects were seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. In a number of instances, the test subject became ill for hours or days, and effective followup was impossible. -3- Other experiments were equally offensive. For example, heroin addicts were enticed into participating in LSD experiments in order to get a reward -- heroin. Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent of experimentation on human subjects was unknown. The records of all these activities were destroyed in January 1973, at the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms. In spite of persistent inquiries by both the Health Subcommittee and the Intelligence Committee, no additional records or information were forthcoming. And no one -- no single individual -- could be found who remembered the details, not the Director of the CIA, who ordered the documents destroyed, not the official responsible for the program, nor any of his associates. We believed that the record, incomplete as it was, was as complete as it was going to be. Then one individual, through a Freedom of Information request, accomplished what two U.S. Senate committees could not. He spurred the agency into finding additional records pertaining to the CIA's program of experimentation with human subjects. These new records were discovered by the agency in March. Their existence was not made known to the Congress until July. The records reveal a far more extensive series of experiments than had previously been thought. Eighty-six universities or institutions were involved. New instances of unethical behavior were revealed. The intelligence community of this Nation, which requires a shroud of secrecy in order to operate, has a very sacred trust from the American people. The CIA's program of human experimentation of the fifties and sixties violated that trust. It was violated again on the day the bulk of the agency's records were destroyed in 1973. It is violated each time a responsible official refuses to recollect the details of the program. The best safeguard against abuses in the future is a complete public accounting of the abuses of the past. I think this is illustrated, as Chairman Inouye pointed out. These are issues, are questions that happened in the fifties and sixties, and go back some 15, 20 years ago, but they are front page news today, as we see in the major newspapers and on the television and in the media of this country; and the reason they are, I think, is because it just continuously begins to trickle out, sort of, month after month, and the best way to put this period behind us, obviously, is to have the full information, and I think that is the desire of Admiral Turner and of the members of this committee. The Central Intelligence Agency drugged American citizens without their knowledge or consent. It used university facilities and personnel without their knowledge. It funded leading researchers, often without their knowledge. These institutes, these individuals, have a right to know who they are and how and when they were used. As of today, the Agency itself refuses to declassify the names of those institutions and individuals, quite appropriately, I might say, with regard to the individuals under the Privacy Act. It seems to me to be a fundamental responsibility to notify those individuals or institutions, rather. I think many of them were caught up in an unwitting manner to do research for the Agency. Many researchers, distinguished researchers, some of our most outstanding members of our scientific community, involved in -4- this network, now really do not know whether they were involved or not, and it seems to me that the whole health and climate in terms of our university and our scientific and health facilities are entitled to that response. So, I intend to do all I can to persuade the Agency to, at the very least, officially inform those institutions and individuals involved. Two years ago, when these abuses were first revealed, I introduced legislation, with Senator Schweiker and Senator Javits, designed to minimize the potential for any similar abuses in the future. That legislation expanded the jurisdiction of the National Commission on Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to cover all federally funded research involving human subjects. The research initially was just directed toward HEW activities, but this legislation covered DOD as well as the CIA. This Nation has a biomedical and behavioral research capability second to none. It has had for subjects of HEW funded research for the past 3 years a system for the protection of human subjects of biomedical research second to none, and the Human Experimentation Commission has proven its value. Today's hearings and the record already established underscore the need to expand its jurisdiction. The CIA supported that legislation in 1975, and it passed the Senate unanimously last year. I believe it is needed in order to assure all our people that they will have the degree of protection in human experimentation that they deserve and have every right to expect. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Now we will proceed with the hearings. Admiral Turner? Statements of: Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director, Central Intelligence Agency; accompanied by; Frank Laubinger, Office of Technical Services, Central Intelligence Agency; Al Brody, Office of Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency; Ernest Mayerfield, Office of General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, and George Cary, Legislative Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency Prepared Statement of Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of Central Intelligence Mr. Chairman: In my letter to you of July 15, 1977, I reported our recent discovery of seven boxes of documents related to Project MKULTRA, a closely held CIA project conducted from 1953-1964. As you may recall, MKULTRA was an "umbrella project" under which certain sensitive subprojects were funded, involving among other things research on drugs and behavioral modification. During the Rockefeller Commission and Church Committee investigations in 1975, the cryptonym became publicly known when details of the drug-related death of Dr. Frank Olsen were publicized. In 1953 Dr. Olsen, a civilian employee of the Army at Fort Detrick, leaped to his death from a hotel room window in New York City about a week after having unwittingly consumed LSD administered to him as an experiment at a meeting of LSD researchers called by CIA. Most of what was known about the Agency's involvement with behavioral drugs during the investigations in 1975 was contained in a report on Project MKULTRA prepared by the Inspector General's office in 1963. As a result of that report's recommendations, unwitting testing of drugs on U.S. citizens was subsequently discontinued. The MKULTRA-related report was made available to the Church Committee investigators and to the staff of Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health. Until the recent discovery, it was believed that all of the MKULTRA files dealing with behavioral modification had been destroyed in 1973 on the orders of the then retiring Chief of the Office of Technical Service, with the authorization of the DCI, as has been previously reported. Almost all of the people who had had any connection with the aspects of the project which interested Senate investigators in 1975 were no longer with the Agency at that time. Thus, there was little detailed knowledge of the MKULTRA subprojects available to CIA during the Church Committee investigations. This lack of available details, moreover, was probably not wholly attributable to the -5- destruction of MKULTRA files in 1973; the 1963 report on MKULTRA by the Inspector General notes on page 14: "Present practice is to maintain no records of the planning and approval of test programs." When I reported to you last on this matter, my staff had not yet had an opportunity to review the newly located material in depth. This has now been accomplished, and I am in a position to give you a description of the contents of the recovered material. I believe you will be most interested in the following aspects of the recent discovery: How the material was discovered and why it was not previously found; The nature of this recently located material; How much new information there is in the material which may not have been previously known and reported to Senate investigators; and What we believe the most significant aspects of this find to be. To begin, as to how we discovered these materials. The material had been sent to our Retired Records Center outside of Washington and was discovered sent to our Retired Records Center outside of Washington and was discovered there as a result of the extensive search efforts of an employee charged with responsibility for maintaining our holdings on behavioral drugs and for responding to Freedom of Information Act requests on this subject. During the Church Committee investigation in 1975, searches for MKULTRA-related material were made by examining both the active and retired records of all branches of CIA considered at all likely to have had association with MKULTRA documents. The retired records of the Budget and Fiscal Section of the Branch responsible for such work were not searched, however. This was because financial papers associated with sensitive projects such s MKULTRA were normally maintained by the Branch itself under the project file, not by the Budget and Fiscal Section. In the case at hand, however, the newly located material was sent to the Retired Records Center in 1970 by the Budget and Fiscal Section as part of its own retired holdings. The reason for this departure from normal procedure is not known. As a result of it, however, the material escaped retrieval and destruction in 1973 by the then-retiring Director of the Office as well as discovery in 1975 by CIA officials responding to Senate investigators. The employee who located this material did so by leaving no stone unturned in his efforts to respond to FOIA requests. He reviewed all listings of material of this Branch stored at the Retired Records Center, including those of the Budget and Fiscal Section and, thus, discovered the MKULTRA-related documents which had been missed in the previous searches. In sum, the Agency failed to uncover these particular documents in 1973 in the process of attempting to destroy them; it similarly failed to locate them in 1975 in response to the Church Committee hearings. I am convinced that there was no attempt to conceal this material during the earlier searches. Next, as to the nature of the recently located material, it is important to realize that the recovered folders are finance folders. The bulk of the material in them consists of approvals for advance of funds, vouchers, accountings, and the like -- most of which are not very informative as to the nature of the activities that were undertaken. Occasional project proposals or memoranda commenting on some aspect of a subproject are scattered throughout this material. In general, however, the recovered material does not include status reports or other documents relating to operational considerations or progress in the various subprojects, though some elaboration of the activities contemplated does appear. The recovered documents fall roughly into three categories: First, there are 149 MKULTRA subprojects, many of which appear to have some connection with research into behavioral modification, drug acquisition and testing or administering drugs surreptitiously. Second, there are two boxes of miscellaneous MKULTRA papers, including audit reports and financial statements from "cut-out" (i.e., intermediary) funding mechanisms used to conceal CIA's sponsorship of various research projects. Finally, there are 33 additional subprojects concerning certain intelligence activities previously funded under MKULTRA which have nothing to do either with behavioral modification, drugs, and toxins or with any other related matters. We have attempted to group the activities covered by the 149 subprojects into categories under descriptive headings. In broad outline, at least, this presents the contents of these files. The activities are placed in the following 15 categories: -6- 1. Research into the effects of behavioral drugs and/or alcohol: 17 subprojects probably not involving human testing; 14 subprojects definitely involving tests on human volunteers; 19 subprojects probably including tests on human volunteers. While not known, some of these subprojects may have included tests on unwitting subjects as well; 6 subprojects involving tests on unwitting subjects. 2. Research on hypnosis: 8 subprojects, including 2 involving hypnosis and drugs in combination. 3. Acquisition of chemicals or drugs: 7 subprojects. 4. Aspects of magicians' art useful in covert operations: e.g., surreptitious delivery of drug-related materials: 4 subprojects. 5. Studies of human behavior, sleep research, and behavioral changes during psychotherapy: 9 subprojects. 6. Library searches and attendance at seminars and international conferences on behavioral modification: 6 subprojects. 7. Motivational studies, studies of defectors, assessment, and training techniques: 23 subprojects. 8. Polygraph research: 3 subprojects. 9. Funding mechanisms for MKULTRA external research activities: 3 subprojects. 10. Research on drugs, toxins, and biologicals in human tissue; provision of exotic pathogens and the capability to incorporate them in effective delivery systems: 6 subprojects. 11. Activities whose objectives cannot be determined from available documentation: 3 subprojects. 12. Subprojects involving funding support for unspecified activities connected with the Army's Special Operations Division at Fr. Detrick, Md. This activity is outline in Book I of the Church Committee Report, pp. 388-389. (See Appendix A, pp. 68-69.) Under CIA's Project MKNAOMI, the Army Assisted CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery systems for use against humans as well as against animals and crops. The objectives of these subprojects cannot be identified from the recovered material beyond the fact that the money was to be used where normal funding channels would require more written or oral justification than appeared desirable for security reasons or where operational considerations dictated short lead times for purchases. About $11,000 was involved during this period 1953-1960: 3 subprojects. 13. Single subprojects in such areas as effects of electro-shock, harassment techniques for offensive use, analysis of extrasensory perception, gas propelled sprays and aerosols, and four subprojects involving crop and material sabotage. 14. One or two subprojects on each of the following: "Blood Grouping" research, controlling the activity of animals, energy storage and transfer in organic systems; and stimulus and response in biological systems. 15. Three subprojects canceled before any work was done on them having to do with laboratory drug screening, research on brain concussion, and research on biologically active materials to be tested through the skin on human volunteers. Now, as to how much new the recovered material adds to what has previously been reported to the Church Committee and to Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health on these topics, the answer is additional detail, for the most part: e.g., the names of previously unidentified researchers and institutions associated on either a witting or unwitting basis with MKULTRA activities, and the names of CIA officials who approved or monitored the various subprojects. Some new substantive material is also present: e.g., details concerning proposals for experimentation and clinical testing associated with various research projects, and a possibly improper contribution by CIA to a private institution. However, the principal types of activities included have, for the most part, either been outlined to some extent or generally described in what was previously available to CIA in the way of documentation and was supplied by CIA to Senate investigators. For example: Financial disbursement records for the period 1960-1964 for 76 of the 149 numbered MKULTRA subprojects had been recovered from the Office of Finance by CIA and were made available to the Church Committee investigators in August or September 1975. The 1963 Inspector General report on MKULTRA made available to both the Church Committee and Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee mentions electro-shock -7- and harassment substances (pp. 4, 16); covert testing on unwitting U.S. citizens (pp. 7, 10-12); the search for new materials through arrangements with specialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private research organizations (pp. 7, 9); and the fact that the Technical Service Division of CIA had initiated 144 subprojects related to the control of human behavior between 1953-1963 (p. 21). The relevant section of a 1957 Inspector General report on the Technical Service Division was also made available to the Church Committee staff. That report discusses techniques for human assessment and unorthodox methods of communication (p. 201); discrediting and disabling materials which can be covertly administered (pp. 201-202); studies on magicians' arts as applied to covert operations (p. 202); specific funding mechanisms for research performed outside of CIA (pp. 202-203, 205); research being done on "K" (knockout) material, alcohol tolerance, and hypnotism (p. 203); research on LSD (p. 204); anti-personnel harassment and assassination delivery systems including aerosol generators and other spray devices (pp. 206-208); the role of Fort Detrick in support of CIA's Biological/Chemical Warfare capability (p. 208); and material sabotage research (p. 209). Much of this material is reflected in the Church Committee Report, Book I, pp. 385-422. (See Appendix A, pp. 65-102). The most significant new data discovered are, first, the names of researchers and institutions who participated in the MKULTRA project and, secondly, a possibly improper contribution by CIA to a private institution. We are now in possession of the names of 185 non-government researchers and assistants who are identified in the recovered material dealing with the 149 subprojects. The names of 80 institutions where work was done or with which these people were affiliated are also mentioned. The institutions include 44 colleges or universities, 15 research foundations or chemical or pharmaceutical companies and the like, 12 hospitals or clinics (in addition to those associated with universities), and 3 penal institutions. While the identities of some of these people and institutions were known previously, the discovery of the new identities adds to our knowledge of MKULTRA. The facts as they pertain to the possibly improper contribution are as follows: One project involves a contribution of $375,000 to a building fund of a private medical institution. The fact that a contribution was made was previously known; indeed it was mentioned in a 1957 Inspector General report on the Technical Service Division of CIA, pertinent portions of which had been reviewed by the Church Committee staff. The newly discovered material, however, makes it clear that this contribution was made through an intermediary, which made it appear to be a private donation. As a private donation, the contribution was then matched by federal funds. The institution was not made aware of the true source of the gift. This project was approved by the then DCI, and concurred in by CIA's top management at the time, including the then General Counsel who wrote an opinion supporting the legality of the contribution. The recently discovered documents give a greater insight into the scope of the unwitting drug testing but contribute little more than that. We now have collaborating information that some of the unwitting drug testing was carried on in safehouses in San Francisco and New York City, and we have identified that three individuals were involved in this undertaking as opposed to the previously reported one person. We also know now that some unwitting testing took place on criminal sexual psychopaths confined at a State hospital and that, additionally, research was done on knock-out or "K" drug in parallel with research to develop pain killers for cancer patients. These, then are the principal findings identified to date in our review of the recovered material. As noted earlier, we believe the detail on the identities of researchers and institutions involved in CIA's sponsorship of drugs and behavioral modification is a new element and one which poses a considerable problem. Most of the people and institutions involved are not aware of Agency sponsorship. We should certainly assume that the researchers and institutions which cooperate with CIA on a witting basis acted in good faith and in the belief that they were aiding their government in a legitimate and proper purpose. I believe we all have a moral obligation to these researchers and institutions to protect them from any unjustified embarrassment or damage to their reputations which revelation of their identities might bring. In addition, I have a legal obligation under the Privacy Act not to publicly disclose the names of the individual researchers without their consent. This is especially true, of course, for -8- those researchers and institutions which were unwitting participants in CIA-sponsored activities. Nevertheless, recognizing the right and the need of both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Subcommittee on Health to investigate the circumstances of these activities in whatever detail they consider necessary. I am providing your Committee with all of the names on a classified basis. I hope that this will facilitate your investigation while protecting the individuals and institutions involved. Let me emphasize that the MKULTRA events are 12 to 25 years in the past. I assure you that the CIA is in no way engaged in either witting or unwitting testing of drugs today. Finally, I am working closely with the Attorney General and with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare on this matter. We are making available to the Attorney General whatever materials he may deem necessary to any investigation he may elect to undertake. We are working with both the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to determine whether it is practicable from this new evidence to attempt to identify any of the persons to whom drugs may have been administered unwittingly. No such names are part of these records, but we are working to determine if there are adequate clues to lead to their identification; and if so, how to go about fulfilling the Government's responsibilities in the matter. Testimony of Philip Goldman, Former Employee, Central Intelligence Agency Mr. GOLDMAN. I am Philip Goldman. Senator INOUYE. And you are a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency? Mr. GOLDMAN. Over 10 years ago. Senator INOUYE. And you were employed at the time when MKULTRA was in operation? Mr. GOLDMAN. There were some MKULTRA's in operation at the time I was there. -51- Senator INOUYE. And Mr. John Gittinger, are you a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency? Testimony of John Gittinger, Former Employee, Central Intelligence Agency Mr. GITTINGER. I am. Senator INOUYE. Are you still an employee? Mr. GITTINGER. No. Senator INOUYE. Were you a member of the Agency at the time MKULTRA was in operation? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes. Senator INOUYE. Thank you. Senator Kennedy. Senator KENNEDY. I want to welcome both of you to the committee. If we could start with Mr. Goldman. Were you the project engineer for the safe houses in either San Francisco or New York? Mr. GOLDMAN. I know of no safe house in San Francisco. Senator KENNEDY. How about in New York? Mr. GOLDMAN. I knew of one facility that was established there, but I didn't know anything of its operation. Senator KENNEDY. Were you a monitor on any testing of drugs on unwitting persons in San Francisco? Mr. GOLDMAN. No. Senator KENNEDY. Well, we have a classified document here that was provided by the Agency that lists your name as a monitor of the program and I would appreciate it if you would look-- Mr. GOLDMAN. I think the misunderstanding arises because I was project officer. Senator KENNEDY. Well, would you take a look at that? [Mr. Goldman inspected the document.] Mr. GOLDMAN. This document as it states is correct. However, my-- Senator KENNEDY. That document is correct? Mr. GOLDMAN. As far as I see on the first page, the project. But my-- Senator KENNEDY. Well, could I get it back, please. That would indicate that you were a monitor of the program. Mr. GOLDMAN. I was in charge of disbursing the moneys to Morgan Hall. Senator KENNEDY. To whom was that? Mr. GOLDMAN. To the individual whose name was listed at the top of that document. Senator KENNEDY. And you knew that he was running the project in San Francisco? Mr. GOLDMAN. I knew he was the person who was in charge out there. Senator KENNEDY. All right. Mr. GOLDMAN. But I had no knowledge nor did I seek knowledge of actually what he was doing, because there would be other things involved. I did receive-- Senator KENNEDY. What were you doing? -52- Mr. GOLDMAN. I was collecting -- I had to be sure that all the receipts that ever were turned in balanced with the moneys that were paid out to see that everything was run all right. There was no illegal use of funds as far as we could determine by the receipts and cash. Senator KENNEDY. So even though the Agency document indicates that you were a monitor for the program, one of the few monitors of that particular program which you mentioned for San Francisco and Mill Valley, Calif., you described your responsibility only as a carrier of money, is that correct? Mr. GOLDMAN. I would say as a disburser or carrying out -- seeing that the moneys were handled properly. There was within that -- I don't know what's done or what he did do in conjunction with other people. Senator KENNEDY. Were you responsible for the disbursement of all the funds? Mr. GOLDMAN. I was responsible for turning over the check to him. Senator KENNEDY. And what did you know of the program itself? Mr. GOLDMAN. The only thing I knew of the program was what he furnished us in terms of receipts and that sort of thing. I didn't indulge or concern myself in that. Senator KENNEDY. You still wrote, and I'll let you examine it -- it's a classified document -- but you wrote a rather substantive review of the program in May of 1963, talking about the experiments, the factual data that had been collected, covert and realistic field trials, about the necessity of those particular -- and talked about the effectiveness of the various programs, the efficiency of various delivery systems. That doesn't sound to me like someone who is only-- Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, if you would refresh my memory, if I could read this I would certainly agree with whatever is said there, if it was written. Senator KENNEDY. I am trying to gather what your role was. You've indicated first of all that you didn't know about -- you knew about a safe house in New York; now we find out that you're the carrier for the resources as well and the agent in San Francisco. We find out now that the CIA put you as a monitor. You're testifying that you only were the courier, and here we have just one document, and there are many others that talk about the substance of that program with your name on it and I am just trying to find out exactly what role you were playing. Mr. GOLDMAN. The only thing I can tell you about this and I am drawing completely on my memory is that this individual who was in charge out there conducted these things and reported them back to the Agency. I didn't participate in any of them. All I know was that he furnished me with receipts for things that were done and told of the work that they had done. Senator KENNEDY. Well, that document covers more than receipts. Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, it tells of what -- they had conducted work out there. Senator KENNEDY. It describes, does it not? Read the paragraph 2. Mr. GOLDMAN. "A number of covert"-- Senator KENNEDY. Well, you can't read it, it's a classified document, and I don't know why, quite frankly, but it relates to the substance -53- of those programs and your name is signed to the memorandums on it. I am not interested in you trying to review for us now what is in the document, but I think it would be unfortunate if we were left with the opinion that all you were was a courier of resources when we see a document with your name on it, signed, that talks about the substance of the program. And what we're interested in is the substance of the program. We have the recent documents that were provided by the Agency, which do indicate that you were at least involved in the substance, and I'm just trying to find out whether you're willing to tell us about that. Mr. GOLDMAN. I am perfectly willing to tell you everything that I can remember. Senator KENNEDY. But you can't remember anything. Mr. GOLDMAN. I can't remember the substantive parts of these, things, I really can't. Senator KENNEDY. Of the program that was taking place. Do you have any greater familiarity with what was happening in New York? Mr. GOLDMAN. No, no. Senator KENNEDY. And you have the same function with regards to New York? Mr. GOLDMAN. The same function with regard to New York. Senator KENNEDY. Did you ever go to San Francisco? Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. Did you meet with the agent in charge? Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. And why did you meet with him? Mr. GOLDMAN. To discuss some of the receipts and things that were there to find out if these were indeed true expenditures and to find out if everything was going along all right for the work that was being done. Senator KENNEDY. What work was being done? Mr. GOLDMAN. No, the reports of these things and whatever was being done. I don't know who he reported to but he did report to somebody. Senator KENNEDY. You travel out there to find out about the work that's being done, and what does he tell you, that the work is being done well and-- Mr. GOLDMAN. He told me that the work that they were doing was going along, progressing satisfactorily, but to be very frank with you-- Senator KENNEDY. But he didn't tell you what the work was? Mr. GOLDMAN. To be very frank with you, Senator, I cannot remember the things that happened back in those days. I've been away from the company -- from the Agency for over 10 years, and that is even farther back than that, and that was just about the time when I first engaged in this, so it was my first-- Senator KENNEDY. Did they disburse a series of $100 checks, to your recollection? Mr. GOLDMAN. I don't recollect it, but if you have it there, then they did. Senator KENNEDY. Did you know Dr. Gottlieb? Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. -54- Senator KENNEDY. How did you know Dr. Gottlieb? Mr. GOLDMAN. He had been head of the division when I was recruited. Senator KENNEDY. Did you talk to him about these programs? Did you have anything to do with him during this period of time? Mr. GOLDMAN. I didn't have anything to do with him until I would say probably in the sixties. Senator KENNEDY. And can you tell us what you had to do with him then? Mr. GOLDMAN. Just what you see there, on the papers. Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is the request for the money and he approves it. Mr. GOLDMAN. That is the request for money and he approves it, and I am quite sure that I probably discussed with him whether the work was going along all right, whether his reports were being turned in, and whether he was satisfied with the way things were going and did he have any complaints about the way other people were requesting him, but I did not engage myself in anything he was doing. Senator KENNEDY. Well, did you get the impression that Gottlieb knew what was going on? Mr. GOLDMAN. I didn't ask. Senator KENNEDY. But you told him that your impression that what was going on even though you didn't know what was going on, was going on well, I guess? [Laughter.] Mr. GOLDMAN. I told Gottlieb what you saw in there was that the things appeared to be going along all right. I was repeating and parroting back the words that were given to me while I was there. Senator KENNEDY. What was the money being spent for, do you know? Mr. GOLDMAN. No; I can't recall that, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Would you remember if we told you it was red curtains and can-can pictures-- Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Floral pictures and the rest. Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Recorders. Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Recorders and two-way mirrors. Mr. GOLDMAN. Wait, hold on. You're slipping a word in there now. Senator KENNEDY. But you would have authorized those funds, would you not, since you were the-- Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you say two-way mirrors? Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. GOLDMAN. Where? Senator KENNEDY. In the safe houses. Mr. GOLDMAN. Where? Senator KENNEDY. San Francisco. Mr. GOLDMAN. No. Senator KENNEDY. How about New York? Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. You remember now that you approved expenditures for New York? -55- Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. What were those expenditures for? Mr. GOLDMAN. That was a transfer of money over for the use in an apartment in New York by the Bureau of Narcotics. It was for their use. Senator KENNEDY. Do you have any knowledge of what was going on in the apartment? Mr. GOLDMAN. No, sir, other than I know that it had been used, according to the information that I have been given, it was used by the Bureau of Narcotics to make meetings with individuals who they were interested in with regard to pushing dope -- not pushing dope, but selling narcotics and that sort of thing. Senator KENNEDY. Well, I am sure you had many responsibilities and it's a long time ago, but the Agency does indicate that you were project monitor for that particular program. Mr. GOLDMAN. That's correct. Senator KENNEDY. Your own testimony indicates you went out to review the expenditures of funds to find out whether they were being wisely used, that you came back and talked to the project director, Mr. Gottlieb, to give him a progress report about what was going on out there. Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes, sir, I did. Senator KENNEDY. All those things are true, and yet you draw a complete blank in terms of what was the project itself. That's where the record is now. Mr. GOLDMAN. I did not go out there to review the projects nor did I come back and talk with Mr. Gottlieb and review what I had observed in terms of any projects that they -- that is, other parts of the Agency might have in operation there. I simply reported back those things which were told to me by the individual out there who -- and I carried them back and they -- are contained in the report that you have in front of you, word for word, just as it was given to me. Senator KENNEDY. The report that you examined here is a substantive report on the particular program and project. And I don't think anyone who wasn't familiar with the project -- this is a personal evaluation -- could write a report on the substance of it without knowing about it. Now, that's mine. Maybe you can't remember and recollect, and that's-- Mr. GOLDMAN. No; everything I put down in there is things that I was told while I was out there, and if there was any ancillary information involved in there I can tell you I just don't remember that. I really don't. At the time -- that was some years ago. At the time -- a lot of time has passed since then and I have made quite sure that if I could recollect it at all, I would do it. If you have some papers and you want me to certify whether yes, this is so or that is so, I can do that, but I can't recall it mentally. Senator KENNEDY. You just certified the principal. There are others up here. I would like to go to Dr. Gittinger. Mr. GITTINGER. It's Mr. Gittinger. Senator KENNEDY. How long did you serve with the Agency? -56- Mr. GITTINGER. Twenty-six years. Senator KENNEDY. Excuse me? Mr. GITTINGER. Twenty-six years. Senator KENNEDY. Twenty-six years. And at some point you moved into the operational support side, is that correct? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. And did you know Sidney Gottlieb? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. And did he inform you about the research projects involving LSD? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. It is my understanding that you were also aware of some of the drug testing projects conducted on unwitting subjects on the west coast using the Bureau of Narcotics people in the operation. Is that true? Mr. GITTINGER. I was. Senator INOUYE. Excuse me. Would you speak into the microphone? I cannot hear you. Mr. GITTINGER. Sorry. Senator KENNEDY. Do you know which drugs were involved in those tests? Mr. GITTINGER. LSD. And I can't remember for sure much of the others. What is the substance of marihuana, cannabis, is that right, that can be delivered by other than smoking? Senator KENNEDY. Cannabis? Mr. GITTINGER. There had been some discussion of that; yes. Senator KENNEDY. And was heroin also used? Mr. GITTINGER. Heroin used by CIA? Senator KENNEDY. No. In the west coast operation. Mr. GITTINGER. Absolutely not. Senator KENNEDY. Now, to your knowledge, how were the drugs administered to the unwitting subjects? Mr. GITTINGER. I have no direct knowledge. Senator KENNEDY. Why did you go to the safe houses? Mr. GITTINGER. It's a very complicated story. Just in justification of myself, this came up just, day before yesterday. I have not really had enough time to get it all straightened in my mind, so I ramble. Senator KENNEDY. Well, you take your time and tell us in your own words. We've got some time here. Mr. GITTINGER. My responsibilities which would involve any of the period of time that you were talking about really was not directly related to drugs at all. I was a psychologist charged with the responsibility of trying to develop as much information as I could on various cultures, overseas cultures, anthropological type data, if you follow what I mean. I was also engaged in trying to work out ways and means of assessing people and understanding people. I originally became involved in this through working on Chinese culture, and over a series of time I was introduced to the problem of brainwashing, which is the thing that really was the most compelling thing in relationship to this, and became charged with the responsibility of trying to find out a little bit about interrogation techniques. -57- And among other things, we decided or I decided that one of the best sources of interrogation techniques would be trying to locate and interview and become involved with experienced police interrogators in the country and experienced people who had real practical knowledge of interrogation. The reason for this is that we had become pretty well convinced after the experience of the brainwashing problems coming out of China, that it was the techniques of the interrogators that were causing the individuals to make confessions and so forth in relationship to this, rather than any kind of drugging and so forth. So we were very much interested in interrogation techniques, and this led to me being introduced to the agent in the west coast, and I began to talk to him in connection with these interrogation techniques. Senator KENNEDY. OK. Now, that is the agent that ran the tests on the west coast on the unwitting people. That's where you come in, correct? Mr. GITTINGER. If I understand -- would you say that again? Senator KENNEDY. The name Morgan Hall has been -- that is the name that has been used. Mr. GITTINGER. Yes. Senator KENNEDY. And that is the agent that you met with. Mr. GITTINGER. That is right. Senator KENNEDY. And you met at the safe house. Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Whom did you meet with in the safe house? Mr. GITTINGER. This is the part that is hard for me to say, and I am sorry that I have to. In connection with some work that we were doing, we needed to have some information on sexual habits. Morgan Hall provided informants for me, to talk to in connection with the sex habits that I was interested in trying to find information. During one period of time the safe house, as far as I was concerned, was used for just these particular type of interviews. And I didn't see the red curtains. Senator KENNEDY. Those were prostitutes, were they? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. How many different times were you there that you had similar-- Mr. GITTINGER. I couldn't possibly say with any certainty on that. Four or five times. Senator KENNEDY. Four or five times. Mr. GITTINGER. Over -- you remember now, the period that I'm talking about when I would have any involvement in this is from about 1956 to 1961. So it's about a 4- or 5-year period which is the only time that I know anything about what you are talking about here today. Senator KENNEDY. Did Morgan Hall make the arrangements for the prostitutes to meet with you? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Did the interviews that you had have anything to do with drugs? Mr. GITTINGER. Well, as I tried to explain earlier when this was being discussed a little bit beforehand, again I think it is pretty hard for most people now to recognize how little there was known about drugs at the period of time that we are talking about, because the -58- drug age or the drug culture comes later on. Consequently, those of us who had any responsibility in this area were interested in trying to get as much information as we could on the subculture, the subculture drug groups, and obviously the Bureau of Narcotics represented a means of doing this. Consequently, other types of things that were involved in discussions at that time would have to do with the underground use of drugs. When I am talking about this I am talking about the folkways in terms of unwitting use of drugs. Did these people that I was talking to have any information about this and on rare instances they were able to tell me about their use, and in most cases this would largely turn out to be a Mickey Finn or something of that sort rather than anything esoteric. I also was very much interested because we had relatively little information, believe it or not, at that time, in terms of the various reactions that people were having to drugs. Therefore, these people were very informative in terms of they knew a great deal of information about reactions. Senator KENNEDY. At least you gathered -- or am I correct in assuming that you gathered the impression that the prostitutes that you had talked to were able to slip the drugs to people as I understand it. Did you form any impression on that? Mr. GITTINGER. I certainly did not form the impression that, they did this as a rule or-- Senator KENNEDY. But they bad the knowledge. Mr. GITTINGER. They had the knowledge or some of them had had knowledge of this being done. But again, as it turned out, it was largely in this area of knockout drops. Senator KENNEDY. Looking back now did you form any impression about how the Agency was actually testing the broad spectrum of social classes in these safe houses? With the large disbursal of cash in small quantities, $100 bills and the kinds of elaborate decorations and two-way mirrors in the bedrooms and all the rest, is there any question in your own mind what was going on in the safe houses, or the techniques that were being used to administer these drugs? Mr. GITTINGER. I find it very difficult to answer that question, sir. I had absolutely no direct knowledge there was a large number of this. I had no knowledge that anyone other than -- than Morgan Hall was in any way involved in the unwitting administration of drugs. Senator KENNEDY. But Gottlieb would know, would he not? Mr. GITTINGER. I believe so, yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Could we go into the Human Ecology Foundation and talk about that and how it was used as an instrument in terms of the support of research? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Could you describe it to us? Could you describe the Human Ecology Foundation, how it functioned and how it worked? Mr. GITTINGER. May I tell something about how it evolved, which I think is important? Senator KENNEDY. Sure. Mr. GITTINGER. The Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, so-called, was actually a -- I am confused here now as to whether I should name you names. -59- Senator KENNEDY. Well, we're not interested in names or institutions, so we prefer that you do not. That has to be worked out in arrangements between Admiral Turner and the individuals and the institutions. But we're interested in what the Foundation really was and how it functioned and what its purpose was. Mr. GITTINGER. Well, it was established to undertake research in the general area of the behavioral sciences. It definitely had almost no focus or interest in, say, drug-related type of activities except in a very minor way, because it was largely set up to attempt to gain a certain amount of information and to fund projects which were psychological, sociological, anthropological in character. It was established in the sense of a period of time that a lot of us who are in it wish we could do it over again, but we were interested in trying to get together a panel of the most representative high-level behavioral scientists we could to oversee and help in terms of developing the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology type of program. The Agency in effect provided the money. They did not direct the projects. Now, the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of innocent people who received the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology money which I know for a fact they were never asked to do anything for the CIA but they did get through this indirectly. They had no knowledge that they were getting CIA money. Senator KENNEDY. Over what period of time did this take place? Mr. GITTINGER. As far as I was concerned , it was the period of time ending in 1961. 1 believe the Human Ecology fund finally phased out in 1965, but I was not involved in this phasing out. Senator KENNEDY. Can you give the range of the different sort of individual projects of the universities in which it was active? Mr. GITTINGER. Well, it would have as many as -- I am very fuzzy on my memory on the number of projects. It is over 10, 20, 30. Senator KENNEDY. After it made the grants, what was the relationship of the Agency with the results of the studies? The Foundation acquired the money to make the grants from the Agency, and then it made the grants to these various research programs. Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. And that included eight universities as well as individual researchers? Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. Senator KENNEDY. Then what follow-up was there to that, sir? Mr. GITTINGER. Well, in every sense of the word, the organization was run exactly like any other foundation, and it carried with it the same thing in terms of making certain that the people that they had given money to used it for the purpose for which it had been granted, that they had access to any of the reports that they had put out, but there were no strings attached to anybody. There wasn't any reason they couldn't publish anything that they put out. Senator KENNEDY. What, sort of budget are we talking about here? Mr. GITTINGER. I honestly do not remember. I would guess we are talking in the realm of about $150,000 a year, but don't hold me to that, because I don't know. -60- Senator KENNEDY. What is your view about such funding as a professional person, in terms of compromising the integrity of a university, sir? Mr. GITTINGER. Well, obviously, sir, insofar as today there is no question about it. I will have to say at the time that we were doing this there was quite an entirely different kind of an attitude, and I do know for a fact that we moved to start towards phasing out the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology and the Human Ecology Fund for the very reason that we were beginning to recognize that it was moving into an area but this would be compromised. Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is commendable, both your attitude and the reasons for it, but during that period of time it still was involved in behavior research programs, as I understand it. Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir. On its own, in connection with this, it participated again, and these again were not CIA-directed projects, but these were all things which would theoretically contribute to the general knowledge at the time where the things like the study of the Hungarian refugees -- obviously, the study of the Hungarian refugees who came to this country after the Hungarian revolt was a very useful exercise to try to get information about the personality characteristics of the Communists and so forth. Senator KENNEDY. Were there other foundations that were doing similar kinds of work? Mr. GITTINGER. Not to my knowledge, sir. Senator KENNEDY. You believe-- Mr. GITTINGER. You mean, CIA, other CIA? Senator KENNEDY. Right. Mr. GITTINGER. Well, my answer is in the sense that I know of no other CIA foundations, no. There were, of course, other foundations doing similar kinds of work in the United States. Senator KENNEDY. Have you heard of the Psychological Assessments Foundation? Mr. GITTINGER. I certainly have. Senator KENNEDY. What was that? What function did that have? Mr. GITTINGER. Now, this was bringing us up to a different era. I believe the functions of that organization have nothing whatsoever to do with the things that are being talked about here while I was associated with it. Senator KENNEDY. Rather than getting into the work, it was another foundation, was it not? It was another foundation supported by the Agency? Mr. GITTINGER. What, the Psychological Assessment? Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. GITTINGER. No, sir, it was not. Senator KENNEDY. It did not get any support at all from the Agency? Mr. GITTINGER. Oh, yes, sir. It did get support, but it was a business firm. Senator KENNEDY. It was a business but it got support from the Agency? Mr. GITTINGER. It got money from it, but it definitely was not in MKULTRA or in any way associated with this. -61- Senator KENNEDY. All right. I want to thank you for your helpful testimony, Mr. Gittinger. It is not easy to go back into the past. I think you have been very fair in your characterizations, and I think it is quite appropriately indicated that there are different standards now from what they were 25 years ago, and I think you have responded very fairly and completely to the inquiries, and I think with a good deal of feeling about it. You are a person who is obviously attempting to serve the country's interest, so I want to thank you very much for your statement and for your helpful timeliness. Mr. GITTINGER. Thank you, sir. Senator INOUYE. Senator Case? Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I had another committee that I had to complete the hearing with this morning before I got here. I shall read the testimony with very great interest, and I appreciate your testimony as I have heard it. I would like to comment just on one point, and that is, it relates to a story in the press yesterday about part of this program involving the funding of a grant at a foreign university. I would like to elicit from you a comment as to the additional sensitivity and difficulty that that practice involves from your standpoint as a scientist, as well as a citizen, if you will. Mr. GITTINGER. I will say it was after the fact thinking. It was utter stupidity the way things worked out to have used some of this money outside the United States when it was CIA money. I can categorically state to my knowledge, and I don't claim a complete knowledge all the way across of the human ecology functions, but to my knowledge, and this is unfortunate, those people did not know that they were getting money from CIA, and they were not asked to contribute anything to CIA as such. Senator CASE. It would be interesting to try to examine this by turning the thing around and thinking what we would think if this happened from a foreign official agency to our own university. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator INOUYE. Senator Schweiker. Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Goldman, I wonder if you would tell us what your training and educational background is? Dr. GOLDMAN. I have already given a biography for the record. Senator SCHWEIKER. I have not seen it. Who has it? Is it classified? We may have it for the record, but may I ask you to briefly describe your training and background for us now? I hope it is no secret. Dr. GOLDMAN. Well, I was told if I was asked this to say that. I was told that by your staff people, but I have no objection to telling you. I am a resident from Pennsylvania, southwest Pennsylvania, Lancaster County. I went to Penn State, and I am in nutrition. Senator SCHWEIKER. In what? Dr. GOLDMAN. Nutrition. Senator SCHWEIKER. Were you in charge of a section or segment of the CIA in your past capacity? Dr. GOLDMAN. During the time I was with that organization, I was in charge of one small section of it, one small segment of it; yes. -62- Senator SCHWEIKER. What was the function or purpose of that section that you headed? Dr. GOLDMAN. To provide support for the other parts of the division. Senator SCHWEIKER. Where in the chain of command would that put you in relation to Dr. Gottlieb? Dr. GOLDMAN. Pretty far down the line. Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gittinger, I would just like to ask you a few questions. We appreciate your frankness and candor with the committee, and we realize this is a very difficult area to go into. I am not quite clear on two matters that were raised earlier. First, were the safe houses we were talking about here used on occasion by the prostitutes you referred to? Mr. GITTINGER. I really have not the slightest idea. Senator SCHWEIKER. Were the prostitutes used in any way to slip the customers drugs for observation purposes? Mr. GITTINGER. Not to my direct knowledge. Senator SCHWEIKER. Would you have been in a position to know the answer to either of these questions? Mr. GITTINGER. May I say, probably not, and may I make an aside to explain a little bit of this, please, sir? Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gittinger, a moment ago you mentioned brainwashing techniques, as one area that you had, I guess, done some work in. How would you characterize the state of the art of brainwashing today? Who has the most expertise in this field, and who is or is not doing it in terms of other governments? During the Korean war there was a lot of serious discussion about brainwashing techniques being used by the North Koreans, and I am interested in finding out what the state of the art is today, as you see it. Mr. GITTINGER. Well, of course, there, has been a great deal of work on this, and there is still a great deal of controversy. I can tell you that as far as I knew, by 1961, 1962, it was at least proven to my satisfaction that brainwashing, so called, is some kind of an esoteric device where drugs or mind- altering kinds of conditions and so forth were used, did not exist even though "The Manchurian Candidate" as a Movie really set us back a long time, because it made something impossible look plausible. Do you follow what I mean? But by 1962 and 1963, the general idea that we were able to come up with is that brainwashing was largely a process of isolating a human being, keeping him out of contact, putting him under long stress in relationship to interviewing and interrogation, and that they could produce any change that way without having to resort to any kind of esoteric means. Senator SCHWEIKER. Are there ways that we can ascertain this from a distance when we see a captive prisoner either go on television, in a photograph, or at a press conference? In other words, are there certain signs that you have learned to recognize from your technical background, to tell when brainwashing has occurred? Or is that very difficult to do? Mr. GITTINGER. It is difficult to do. I think it is possible now in terms of looking at a picture of somebody who has been in enemy hands for a long period of time. We can get some pretty good ideas of what kind of circumstances he has been under, if that is what you mean. -63- Senator SCHWEIKER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Before adjourning the hearings, I would like to have the record show that Dr. Goldman and Mr. Gittinger have voluntarily cooperated with the committee in staff interviews, that they appear this morning voluntarily, and they are not under subpoena. Gentlemen, I realize that this experience may have been an unhappy one and possibly a painful one. Therefore, we thank you very much for participating this morning. We also realize that the circumstances of that time differed very much from this day, and possibly the national attitude, the national political attitude condoned this type of activity. So, we have not asked you to come here as persons who have committed crimes, but rather in hope that you can assist us in studying this problem so that it will not occur once again. In that spirit we thank you for your participation, and we look forward to working with you further in this case. Thank you very much. Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like also to thank the witnesses. These are difficult matters, and I think all of us are very grateful. Senator SCHWEIKER. I think the witnesses should know that though it may not always seem that way, what we are trying to do is to probe the past and look at the policies of the past to affect the future. I think our emphasis really is on the future, not the past, but it is important that we learn from the past as we formulate policies and legislation for the future, I hope that all of the witnesses who did come before us voluntarily this morning, including Admiral Turner respect the fact that we are questioning the past to learn about the future. I think it should be looked at in that light. Senator KENNEDY. I think that is the spirit in which we have had these hearings. It seems to me that from both these witnesses and others, Gottlieb knows the information and can best respond, and we are going to make every effort in the Senate Health Committee to get Mr. Gottlieb to appear, and we obviously look forward to cooperating with Senator Inouye and the other members of the committee in getting the final chapter written on this, but we want to thank you very much for your appearance here. Senator INOUYE. The hearing will stand in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.] APPENDIX A XVII. Testing And Use Of Chemical And Biological Agents By The Intelligence Community Under its mandate [1] the Select Committee has studied the testing and use of chemical and biological agents by intelligence agencies. Detailed descriptions of the programs conducted by intelligence agencies involving chemical and biological agents will be included in a separately published appendix to the Senate Select Committee's report. This section of the report will discuss the rationale for the programs, their monitoring and control, and what the Committee's investigation has revealed about the relationships among the intelligence agencies and about their relations with other government agencies and private institutions and individuals. [2] Fears that countries hostile to the United States would use chemical and biological agents against Americans or America's allies led to the development of a defensive program designed to discover techniques for American intelligence agencies to detect and counteract chemical and biological agents. The defensive orientation soon became secondary as the possible use of these agents to obtain information from, or gain control over, enemy agents became apparent. Research and development programs to find materials which could be used to alter human behavior were initiated in the late 1940s and early 1950s. These experimental programs originally included testing of drugs involving witting human subjects, and culminated in tests using unwitting, nonvolunteer human subjects. These tests were designed to determine the potential effects of chemical or biological agents when used operationally against individuals unaware that they had received a drug. The testing programs were considered highly sensitive by the intelligence agencies administering them. Few people, even within the agencies, knew of the programs and there is no evidence that either the executive branch or Congress were ever informed of them. The highly compartmented nature of these programs may be explained in part by an observation made by the CIA Inspector General that, "the knowledge that the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activi- [1] Senate Resolution 21 directs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities to investigate a number of issues: "(a) Whether agencies within the intelligence community conducted illegal domestic activities (Section 2 (1) and (2)); "(b) The extent to which agencies within the intelligence community cooperate (Section 2 (4) and (8)); "(c) The adequacy of executive branch and congressional oversight of intelligence activities (Section 2 (7) and (11)); "(d) The adequacy of existing laws to safeguard the rights of American citizens (Section 2 (13))." [2] The details of these programs may never be known. The programs were highly compartmented. Few records were kept. What little documentation existed for the CIA's principal program was destroyed early in 1973. (65) -66- ties would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its missions." [3] The research and development program, and particularly the covert testing programs, resulted in massive abridgments of the rights of American citizens, sometimes with tragic consequences The deaths of two Americans [3a] can be attributed to these programs; other participants in the testing programs may still suffer from the residual effects. While some controlled testing of these substances might be defended, the nature of the tests, their scale, and the fact that they were continued for years after the danger of surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting individuals was known, demonstrate a fundamental disregard for the value of human life. The Select Committee's investigation of the testing and use of chemical and biological agents also raise serious questions about the adequacy of command and control procedures within the Central Intelligence Agency and military intelligence, and about the relationships among the intelligence agencies, other governmental agencies, and private institutions and individuals. The CIA's normal administrative controls were waived for programs involving chemical and biological agents to protect their security. According to the head of the Audit Branchof the CIA, these waivers produced "gross administrative failures." They prevented the CIA's internal review mechanisms (the Office of General Counsel, the Inspector General, and the Audit Staff) from adequately supervising the programs. In general, the waivers had the paradoxical effect of providing less restrictive administrative controls and less effective internal review for controversial and highly sensitive projects than those governing normal Agency activities. The security of the programs was protected not only by waivers of normal administrative controls, but also by a high degree of compartmentation within the CIA. This compartmentation excluded the CIA's Medical Staff from the principal research and testing program employing chemical and biological agents. It also may have led to agency policymakers receiving differing and inconsistent responses when they posed questions to the CIA component involved. Jurisdictional uncertainty within the CIA was matched by jurisdictional conflict among the various intelligence agencies. A spirit of cooperation and reciprocal exchanges of information which initially characterized the programs disappeared. Military testers withheld information from the CIA, ignoring suggestions for coordination from their superiors. The CIA similarly failed to provide information to the military on the CIA's testing program. This failure to cooperate was conspicuously manifested in an attempt by the Army to conceal [3] CIA Inspector General's Survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217. [3a] On January 8, 1953, Mr. Harold Blauer died of circulatory collapse and heart failure following an intravenous injection of a synthetic mescaline derivative while a subject of tests conducted by New York State Psychiatric Institute under a contract let by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. The Committee's investigation into drug testing by U.S. intelligence agencies focused on the testing of LSD, however, the committee did receive a copy of the U.S. Army Inspector General's Report, issued on October 1975, on the events and circumstances of Mr. Blauer's death. His death was directly attributable to the administration of the synthetic mescaline derivative. -67- their overseas testing program, which included surreptitious administration of LSD, from the CIA. Learning of the Army's program, the Agency surreptitiously attempted to gain details of it. The decision to institute one of the Army's LSD field testing projects had been based, at least in part, on the finding that no long-term residual effects had ever resulted from the drug's administration. The CIA's failure to inform the Army of a death which resulted from the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting Americans may well have resulted in the institution of an unnecessary and potentially lethal program. The development, testing, and use of chemical and biological agents by intelligence agencies raises serious questions about the relationship between the intelligence community and foreign governments, other agencies of the Federal Government, and other institutions and individuals. The questions raised range from the legitimacy of American complicity in actions abroad which violate American and foreign laws to the possible compromise of the integrity of public and private institutions used as cover by intelligence agencies. A. THE PROGRAMS INVESTIGATED 1. Project CHATTER Project CHATTER was a Navy program that began in the fall of 1947. Responding to reports of "amazing results" achieved by the Soviets in using "truth drugs," the program focused on the identification and testing of such drugs for use in interrogations and in the recruitment of agents. The research included laboratory experiments on animals and human subjects involving Anabasis aphylla, scopolamine, and mescaline in order to determine their speech-inducing qualities. Overseas experiments were conducted as part of the project. The project expanded substantially during the Korean War, and ended shortly after the war, in 1953. 2. Project BLUEBIRD/ARTICHOKE The earliest of the CIA's major programs involving the use of chemical and biological agents, Project BLUEBIRD, was approved by the Director in 1950. Its objectives were: (a) discovering means of conditioning personnel to prevent unauthorized extraction of information from them by known means, (b) investigating the possibility of control of an individual by application of special interrogation techniques, (c) memory enhancement, and (d) establishing defensive means for preventing hostile control of Agency personnel. [4] As a result of interrogations conducted overseas during the project, another goal was added -- the evaluation of offensive uses of unconventional interrogation techniques, including hypnosis and drugs. In August 1951, the project was renamed ARTICHOKE. Project ARTICHOKE included in-house experiments on interrogation techniques, conducted "under medical and security controls which would ensure [4] CIA memorandum to the Select Committee, "Behavioral Drugs and Testing," 2/11/75. -68- that no damage was done to individuals who volunteer for the experiments. [5] Overseas interrogations utilizing a combination of sodium pentothal and hypnosis after physical and psychiatric examinations of the subjects were also part of ARTICHOKE. The Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI), which studied scientific advances by hostile powers, initially led BLUEBIRD/ARTICHOKE efforts. In 1952, overall responsibility for ARTICHOKE was transferred from OSI to the Inspection and Security Office (I&SO), predecessor to the present Office of Security. The CIA's Technical Services and Medical Staffs were to be called upon as needed; OSI would retain liaison function with other government agencies. [6] The change in leadership from an intelligence unit to an operating unit apparently reflected a change in emphasis; from the study of actions by hostile powers to the use, both for offensive and defensive purposes, of special interrogation techniques -- primarily hypnosis and truth serums. Representatives from each Agency unit involved in ARTICHOKE met almost monthly to discuss their progress. These discussions included the planning of overseas interrogations [8] as well as further experimentation in the U.S. Information about project ARTICHOKE after the fall of 1953 is scarce. The CIA maintains that the project ended in 1956, but evidence suggests that Office of Security and Office of Medical Services use of "special interrogation" techniques continued for several years thereafter. 3. MKNAOMI MKNAOMI was another major CIA program in this area. In 1967, the CIA summarized the purposes of MKNAOMI: (a) To provide for a covert support base to meet clandestine operational requirements. (b) To stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials for the specific use of TSD [Technical Services Division]. (c) To maintain in operational readiness special and unique items for the dissemination of biological and chemical materials. (d) To provide for the required surveillance, testing, upgrading, and evaluation of materials and items in order to assure absence of defects and complete predictability of results to be expected under operational conditions. [9] Under an agreement reached with the Army in 1952, the Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick was to assist CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery [5] Memorandum from Robert Taylor, O/DD/P to the Assistant Deputy (Inspection and Security) and Chief of the Medical Staff, 3/22/52. [6] Memorandum from H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director, Scientific Intelligence, to the Deputy Director/Plans (DDP) "Project ARTICHOKE," 8/29/52. [8] "Progress Report, Project ARTICHOKE." 1/12/53. [9] Memorandum from Chief, TSD/Biological Branch to Chief, TSD "MKNAOMI: Funding. Objectives, and Accomplishments." 10/18/67, p. 1. For a fuller description of MKNAOMI and the relationship between CIA and SOD, see p. 360. -69- systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, and facilities of the Army to develop biological weapons suited for CIA use. SOD developed darts coated with biological agents and pills containing several different biological agents which could remain potent for weeks or months. SOD developed a special gun for firing darts coated with a chemical which could allow CIA agents to incapacitate a guard dog, enter an installation secretly, and return the dog to consciousness when leaving. SOD scientists were unable to develop a similar incapacitant for humans. SOD also physically transferred to CIA personnel biological agents in "bulk" form, and delivery devices, including some containing biological agents. In addition to the CIA's interest in biological weapons for use against humans, it also asked SOD to study use of biological agents against crops and animals. In its 1967 memorandum, the CIA stated: Three methods and systems for carrying out a covert attack against crops and causing severe crop loss have been developed and evaluated under field conditions. This was accomplished in anticipation of a requirement which was later developed but was subsequently scrubbed just prior to putting into action. [9a] MKNAOMI was terminated in 1970. On November 25,1969, President Nixon renounced the use of any form of biological weapons that kill or incapacitate and ordered the disposal of existing stocks of bacteriological weapons. On February 14, 1970, the President clarified the extent of his earlier order and indicated that toxins -- chemicals that are not living organisms but are produced by living organisms -- were considered biological weapons subject to his previous directive and were to be destroyed. Although instructed to relinquish control of material held for the CIA by SOD, a CIA scientist acquired approximately 11 grams of shellfish toxin from SOD personnel at Fort Detrick which were stored in a little-used CIA laboratory where it went undetected for five years. [10] 4. MKULTRA MKULTRA was the principal CIA program involving the research and development of chemical and biological agents. It was "concerned with the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior." [11] In January 1973, MKULTRA records were destroyed by Technical Services Division personnel acting on the verbal orders of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, Chief of TSD. Dr. Gottlieb has testified, and former Director Helms has confirmed, that in ordering the records destroyed, Dr. Gottlieb was carrying out the verbal order of then DCI Helms. MKULTRA began with a proposal from the Assistant Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Helms, to the DCI, outlining a special [9a] Ibid. p. 2. [10] Senate Select Committee, 9/16/75, Hearings, Vol. 1. [11] Memorandum from the CIA Inspector General to the Director, 7/26/63. -70- funding mechanism for highly sensitive CIA research and development projects that studied the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior. The projects involved: Research to develop a capability in the covert use of biological and chemical materials. This area involves the production of various physiological conditions which could support present or future clandestine operations. Aside from the offensive potential, the development of a comprehensive capability in this field of covert chemical and biological warfare gives us a thorough knowledge of the enemy's theoretical potential, thus enabling us to defend ourselves against a foe who might not be as restrained in the use of these techniques as we are. [12] MKULTRA was approved by the DCI on April 13, 1953 along the lines proposed by ADDP Helms. Part of the rationale for the establishment of this special funding mechanism was its extreme sensitivity. The Inspector General's survey of MKULTRA in 1963 noted the following reasons for this sensitivity: a. Research in the manipulation of human behavior is considered by many authorities in medicine and related fields to be professionally unethical, therefore the reputation of professional participants in the MKULTRA program are on occasion in jeopardy. b. Some MKULTRA activities raise questions of legality implicit in the, original charter. c. A final phase of the testing of MKULTRA products places the rights and interests of U.S. citizens in jeopardy. d. Public disclosure of some aspects of MKULTRA activity could induce serious adverse reaction in U.S. public opinion. as well as stimulate offensive and defensive action in this field on the part of foreign intelligence services. [13] Over the ten-year life of the program, many "additional avenues to the control of human behavior" were designated as appropriate for investigation under the MKULTRA charter. These include "radiation, electroshock, various fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary devices and materials." [14] The research and development of materials to be used for altering human behavior consisted of three phases: first, the search for materials suitable for study; second, laboratory testing on voluntary human subjects in various types of institutions; third, the application of MKULTRA materials in normal life settings. The search for suitable materials was conducted through standing arrangements with specialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private research organi- [12] Memorandum from ADDP Helms to DCI Dulles, 4/3/53, Tab A, pp. 1-2. [13] I.G. Report on MKULTRA, 1963, pp. 1-2. [14] Ibid, p. 4. -71- zations. The annual grants of funds to these specialists were made under ostensible research foundation auspices, thereby concealing the CIA's interest from the specialist's institution. The next phase of the MKULTRA program involved physicians, toxicologists, and other specialists in mental, narcotics, and general hospitals, and in prisons. Utilizing the products and findings of the basic research phase, they conducted intensive tests on human subjects. One of the first studies was conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health. This study was intended to test various drugs, including hallucinogenics, at the NIMH Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. The "Lexington Rehabilitation Center," as it was then called, was a prison for drug addicts serving sentences for drug violations. The test subjects were volunteer prisoners who, after taking a brief physical examination and signing a general consent form, were administered hallucinogenic drugs. As a reward for participation in the program, the addicts were provided with the drug of their addiction. LSD was one of the materials tested in the MKULTRA program. The final phase of LSD testing involved surreptitious administration to unwitting nonvolunteer subjects in normal life settings by undercover officers of the Bureau of Narcotics acting for the CIA. The rationale for such testing was "that testing of materials under accepted scientific procedures fails to disclose the full pattern of reactions and attributions that may occur in operational situations." [15] According to the CIA, the advantage of the relationship with the Bureau was that test subjects could be sought and cultivated within the setting of narcotics control. Some subjects have been informers or members of suspect criminal elements from whom the [Bureau of Narcotics] has obtained results of operational value through the tests. On the other hand, the effectiveness of the substances on individuals at all social levels, high and low, native American and foreign, is of great significance and testing has been performed on a variety of individuals within these categories. [Emphasis added.] [16] A special procedure, designated MKDELTA, was established to govern the use of MKULTRA materials abroad. Such materials were used on a number of occasions. Because MKULTRA records were destroyed, it is impossible to reconstruct the operational use of MKULTRA materials by the CIA overseas; it has been determined that the use of these materials abroad began in 1953, and possibly as early as 1950. Drugs were used primarily as an aid to interrogations, but MKULTRA/MKDELTA materials were also used for harassment, discrediting, or disabling purposes. According to an Inspector General Survey of the Technical Services Division of the CIA in 1957 -- an inspection which did not discover the MKULTRA project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting, nonvolunteer [15] Ibid, P. 21. [16] Ibid., pp. 11-12. -72- subjects -- the CIA had developed six drugs for operational use and they had been used in six different operations on a total of thirty-three subjects. [17] By 1963 the number of operations and subjects had increased substantially. In the spring of 1963, during a wide-ranging Inspector General survey of the Technical Services Division, a member of the Inspector General's staff, John Vance, learned about MKULTRA and about the project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting, nonvoluntary human subjects. As a result of the discovery and the Inspector General's subsequent report, this testing was halted and much tighter administrative controls were imposed on the program. According to the CIA, the project was decreased significantly each budget year until its complete termination in the late 1960s. 5. The Testing of LSD by the Army There were three major phases in the Army's testing of LSD. In the first, LSD was administered to more than 1,000 American soldiers who volunteered to be subjects in chemical warfare experiments. In the second phase, Material Testing Program EA 1729, 95 volunteers received LSD in clinical experiments designed to evaluate potential intelligence uses of the drug. In the third phase, Projects THIRD CHANCE and DERBY HAT, 16 unwitting nonvolunteer subjects were interrogated after receiving LSD as part of operational field tests. B. CIA DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS 1. The Rationale for the Testing Programs The late 1910s and early 1950s were marked by concern over the threat posed by the activities of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and other Communist bloc countries. United States concern over the use of chemical and biological agents by these powers was acute. The belief that hostile powers had used chemical and biological agents in interrogations, brainwashing, and in attacks designed to harass, disable, or kill Allied personnel created considerable pressure for a "defensive" program to investigate chemical and biological agents so that the intelligence community could understand the mechanisms by which these substances worked and how their effects could be defeated. [18] Of particular concern was the drug LSD. The CIA had received reports that the Soviet Union was engaged in intensive efforts to produce LSD; and that the Soviet Union had attempted to purchase the world's supply of the chemical. As one CIA officer who was deeply involved in work with this drug described the climate of the times: "[It] is awfully hard in this day and age to reproduce how frightening all of this was to us at the time, particularly after the drug scene has become as widespread and as knowledgeable in this country as it did. But we were literally terrified, because this was the one material that we [17] Ibid, 1957, p. 201. [18] Thus an officer in the Office of Security of the CIA stressed the "urgency of the discovery of techniques and method that would permit our personnel, in the event of their capture by the enemy, to resist or defeat enemy interrogation." (Minutes of the ARTICHOKE conference of 10/22/53.) -73- had ever been able to locate that really had potential fantastic possibilities if used wrongly." [19] But the defensive orientation soon became secondary. Chemical and biological agents were to be studied in order "to perfect techniques... for the abstraction of information from individuals whether willing or not" and in order to "develop means for the control of the activities and mental capacities of individuals whether willing or not." [20] One Agency official noted that drugs would be useful in order to "gain control of bodies whether they were willing or not" in the process of removing personnel from Europe in the event of a Soviet attack. [21] In other programs, the CIA began to develop, produce, stockpile, and maintain in operational readiness materials which could be used to harass, disable, or kill specific targets. [22] Reports of research and development in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the Communist Bloc countries provided the basis for the transmutation of American programs from a defensive to an offensive orientation. As the Chief of the Medical Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency wrote in 1952: There is ample evidence in the reports of innumerable interrogations that the Communists were utilizing drugs, physical duress, electric shock, and possibly hypnosis against their enemies. With such evidence it is difficult not to keep from becoming rabid about our apparent laxity. We are forced by this mounting evidence to assume a more aggressive role in the development of these techniques, but must be cautious to maintain strict inviolable control because of the havoc that could be wrought by such techniques in unscrupulous hands. [23] In order to meet the perceived threat to the national security, substantial programs for the testing and use of chemical and biological agents -- including projects involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting nonvolunteer subjects "at all social levels, high and low, native American and foreign" -- were conceived, and implemented. These programs resulted in substantial violations of the rights of individuals within the United States. [19] Testimony of CIA officer, 11/21/75, p. 33. [20] Memorandum from the Director of Security to ARTICHOKE representatives, Subject: "ARTICHOKE Restatement of Program." [21] ARTICHOKE memorandum, 7/30/53. [22] The Inspector General's Report of 1957 on the Technical Services Division noted that "Six specific products have been developed and are available for operational use. Three of them are discrediting and disabling materials which can be administered unwittingly and permit the exercise of a measure of control over the actions of the subject." A memorandum for the Chief, TSD, Biological Branch to the Chief, TSD, 10/18/67, described two of the objectives of the CIA's Project MKNAOMI as: "to stockpile severely incapacitating and lethal materials for the specific use of TSD and "to maintain in operational readiness special and unique items for the dissemination of biological and chemical materials." [23] Memorandum from the Chief of the Medical Staff, 1/25/52. -74- Although the CIA recognized these effects of LSD to unwitting individuals within the United States, the project continued. As the Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Helms, wrote the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence during discussions which led to tile cessation of unwitting testing: While I share your uneasiness and distaste for any program which tends to intrude upon an individual's private and legal prerogatives, I believe it is necessary that the Agency maintain a central role in this activity, keep current on enemy capabilities the manipulation of human behavior, and maintain an offensive capability. [25] There were no attempts to secure approval for the most controversial aspects of these programs from the executive branch or Congress. The nature and extent of the programs were closely held secrets; even DCI McCone was not briefed on all the details of the program involving the surreptitious administration of LSD until 1963. It was deemed imperative that these programs be concealed from the American people. As the CIA's Inspector General wrote in 1957: Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but also to conceal these activities from the American public in general. The knowledge that the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission. [26] 2. The Death of Dr. Frank Olson The most tragic result of the testing of LSD by the CIA was the death of Dr. Frank Olson, a civilian employee of the Army, who died on November 27, 1953. His death followed his participation in a CIA experiment with LSD. As part of this experiment, Olson unwittingly received approximately 70 micrograms of LSD in a glass of Cointreau he drank on November 19, 1953. The drug had been placed in the bottle by a CIA officer, Dr. Robert Lashbrook, as part of an experiment he and Dr. Sidney Gottlieb performed at a meeting of Army and CIA scientists. Shortly after this experiment, Olson exhibited symptoms of paranoia and schizophrenia. Accompanied by Dr. Lashbrook, Olson sought psychiatric assistance in New York City from a physician, Dr. Harold Abramson, whose research on LSD had been funded indirectly by the CIA. While in New York for treatment, Olson fell to his death from a tenth story window in the Statler Hotel. [24] Even during the discussions which led to the termination of the unwitting testing, the DDP turned down the option of halting such tests within the. U.S. and continuing them abroad despite the fact that the Technical Services Division had conducted numerous operations abroad making use of LSD. The DDP made this decision on the basis of security noting that the past efforts, overseas had resulted in "making an inordinate number of foreign nationals witting of our role in the very sensitive activity." (Memorandum for the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from the Deputy Director for Plans, 12/17/63, p. 2.) [25] Ibid., pp. 2-3. [26] I.G. survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217. -75- a. Background. -- Olson, an expert in aerobiology who was assigned to the Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Army Biological Center at Camp Detrick, Maryland. This Division had three primary functions: (1) assessing the vulnerability of American installations to biological attack; (2) developing techniques for offensive use of biological weapons; and (3) biological research for the CIA. [27] Professionally, Olson was well respected by his colleagues in both the Army and the CIA. Colonel Vincent Ruwet, Olson's immediate superior at the time of his death, was in almost daily contact with Olson. According to Colonel Ruwet: "As a professional man... his ability... was outstanding." [28] Colonel Ruwet stated that "during the period prior to the experiment... I noticed nothing which would lead me to believe that he was of unsound mind." [29] Dr. Lashbrook, who had monthly contacts with Olson from early 1952 until the time of his death, stated publicly that before Olson received LSD, "as far as I know, he was perfectly normal." [30] This assessment is in direct contradiction to certain statements evaluating Olson's emotional stability made in CIA internal memorandum written after Olson's death. b. The Experiment. -- On November 18, 1953, a group of ten scientists from the CIA and Camp Detrick attended a semi-annual review and analysis conference at a cabin located at Deep Creek Lake, Maryland. Three of the participants were from the CIA's Technical Services Staff. The Detrick representatives were all from the Special Operations Division. According to one CIA official, the Special Operations Division participants "agreed that an unwitting experiment would be desirable." [31] This account directly contradicts Vincent Ruwet's recollection. Ruwet recalls no such discussion, and has asserted that he would remember any such discussion because the SOD participants would have strenuously objected to testing on unwitting subjects. [32] In May, 1953, Richard Helms, Assistant DDP, held a staff meeting which the Chief of Technical Services Staff attended. At this meeting Helms "indicated that the drug [LSD] was dynamite and that he should be advised at all times when it was intended to use it." [33] In addition, the then DDP, Frank Wisner, sent a memorandum to TSS stating the requirement that the DDP personally approve the use of LSD. Gottlieb went ahead with the experiment, [34] securing the ap- [27] Staff summary of Vincent Ruwet Interview, 8/13/75, p. 3. [28] Memorandum of Col. Vincent Ruwet, To Whom It May Concern, no date, p. 2. [29] Ruwet Memorandum, p. 3. [30] Joseph B. Treaster, New York Times, 7/19/75, p. 1. [31] Memorandum for the Record from Lyman Kirkpatrick, 12/1/53, p. 1. [32] Ruwet (staff summary), 8/1.3/75, p. 6. [33] Inspector General Diary, 12/2/53. [34] Ibid. Dr. Gottleib has testified that he does not remember either the meeting with Helms nor the Wisner memorandum. (Gottlieb, 10/18/75, p. 16.) -76- proval of his immediate supervisor. Neither the Chief of TSS nor the DDP specifically authorized the experiment in which Dr. Olson participated. [35] According to Gottlieb, [36] " a "very small dose" of LSD was placed in a bottle of Cointreau which was served after dinner on Thursday, November 19. The drug was placed in the liqueur by Robert Lashbrook. All but two of tie SOD participants received LSD. One did not drink; the other had a heart condition. [37] About twenty minutes after they finished their Cointreau, Gottlieb informed the other participants that they had received LSD. Dr. Gottlieb stated that "up to the time of the experiment," he observed nothing unusual in Olson's behavior. [37a] Once the experiment was underway, Gottlieb recalled that "the drug had a definite effect on the group to the point that they were boisterous and laughing and they could not continue the meeting or engage in sensible conversation." The meeting continued until about 1: 00 a.m., when the participants retired for the evening. Gottlieb recalled that Olson, among others, complained of "wakefulness" during the night. [38] According to Gottlieb on Friday morning "aside from some evidence of fatigue, I observed nothing unusual in [Olson's] actions, conversation, or general behavior." [39] Ruwet recalls that Olson "appeared to be agitated" at breakfast, but that he "did not consider this to be abnormal under the circumstances." [40] c. The Treatment. -- The following Monday, November 23, Olson was waiting for Ruwet when he came in to work at 7:30 a.m. For the next two days Olson's friends and family attempted to reassure him and help him "snap out" of what appeared to be a serious depression. On Tuesday, Olson again came to Ruwet and, after an hour long con- [35] Dr. Gottlieb testified that "given the information we knew up to this time, and based on a lot of our own self-administration, we thought it was a fairly benign substance in terms of potential harm." This is in conflict not only with Mr. Helms' statement but also with material which had been supplied to the Technical Services Staff. In one long memorandum on current research with LSD which was supplied to TSD, Henry Beecher described the dangers involved with such research in a prophetic manner. "The second reason to doubt Professor Rothland came when I raised the question as to any accidents which had arisen from the use of LSD-25. He said in a very positive way, 'none.' As it turned out this answer could be called overly positive, for later on in the evening I was discussing the matter with Dr. W. A. Stohl, Jr., a psychiatrist in Bleulera's Clinic in Zurich where I had gone at Rothland's insistence. Stohl, when asked the same question, replied, 'yes,' and added spontaneously, 'there is a case Professor Rothland knows about. In Geneva a woman physician who had been subject to depression to some extent took LSD-25 in an experiment and became severely and suddenly depressed and committed suicide three weeks later. While the connection is not definite, common knowledge of this could hardly have allowed the positive statement Rothland permitted himself. This case is a warning to us to avoid engaging subjects who are depressed, or who have been subject to depression.'" Dr. Gottlieb testified that he had no recollection of either the report or that particular section of it. (Sidney Gottlieb testimony, 10/19/75, p. 78.) [36] Memorandum of Sheffield Edwards for the record, 11/28/53, p. 2. [37] Lashbrook (staff summary), 7/19/75, p. 3. [37a] Gottlieb Memorandum, 12/7/53. p. 2. [38] Edwards memorandum, 11/28/53, p. 3. [39] Gottlieb memorandum. 12/7/53, p. 3. [40] Ruwet memorandum, p. 3. -77- versation, it was decided that medical assistance for Dr. Olson was desirable. [41] Ruwet then called Lashbrook and informed him that "Dr. Olson was in serious trouble and needed immediate professional attention." [42] Lashbrook agreed to make appropriate arrangements and told Ruwet to bring Olson to Washington, D.C. Ruwet and Olson proceeded to Washington to meet with Lashbrook, and the three left for New York at about 2:30 p.m. to meet with Dr. Harold Abramson. At that time Dr. Abramson was an allergist and immunologist practicing medicine in New York City. He held no degree in psychiatry, but was associated with research projects supported indirectly by the CIA. Gottlieb and Dr. Lashbrook both followed his work closely in the early 1950s. [43] Since Olson needed medical help, they turned to Dr. Abramson as the doctor closest to Washington who was experienced with LSD and cleared by the CIA. Ruwet, Lashbrook, and Olson remained in New York for two days of consultations with Abramson. On Thursday, November 26, 1953, the three flew back to Washington so that Olson could spend Thanksgiving with his family. En route from the airport Olson told Ruwet that he was afraid to face his family. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that Olson and Lashbrook would return to New York, and that Ruwet would go to Frederick to explain these events to Mrs. Olson. [44] Lashbrook and Olson flew back to New York the same day, again for consultations with Abramson. They spent Thursday night in a Long Island hotel and the next morning returned to the city with Abramson. In further discussions with Abramson, it was agreed that Olson should be placed under regular psychiatric care at an institution closer to his home. [45] d. The Death. -- Because they could not obtain air transportation for a return trip on Friday night, Lashbrook and Olson made reservations for Saturday morning and checked into the Statler Hotel. Between the time they checked in and 10:00 p.m.; they watched television, visited the cocktail lounge, where each had two martinis, and dinner. According to Lashbrook, Olson "was cheerful and appeared to enjoy the entertainment." He "appeared no longer particularly depressed, and almost the Dr. Olson I knew prior to the experiment." [46] After dinner Lashbrook and Olson watched television for about an hour, and at 11:00, Olson suggested that they go to bed, saying that "he felt more relaxed and contented than he had since [they] came to New York." [47] Olson then left a call with the hotel operator to wake them in the morning. At approximately 2:30 a.m. Saturday, November 28. Lashbrook was awakened by a loud "crash of glass." In his report on the incident, he stated only that Olson "had crashed through the closed window blind and the closed window and he fell to his death from the window of our room on the 10th floor." [48] [41] Ibid., p. 4. [42] Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 1. [43] Staff summary of Dr. Harold Abramson interview, 7/29/75, p. 2. [44] Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, P. 3. [45] Abramson memorandum, 12/4/53. [46] Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 3. [47] Ibid., p. 4. [48] Ibid. -78- Immediately after finding that Olson had leapt to his death, Lashbrook telephoned Gottlieb at his home and informed him of the incident. [49] Gottlieb called Ruwet and informed him of Olson's death at approximately 2:45 a.m. [50] Lashbrook then called the hotel desk and reported the incident to the operator there. Lashbrook called Abramson and informed him of the occurrence. Abramson told Lashbrook he "wanted to be kept out of the thing completely," but later changed his mind and agreed to assist Lashbrook. [51] Shortly thereafter, uniformed police officers and some hotel employees came to Lashbrook's room. Lashbrook told the police he didn't know why Olson had committed suicide, but he did know that Olson "suffered from ulcers." [52] e. The Aftermath. -- Following Dr. Olson's death, the CIA made a substantial effort to ensure that his family received death benefits, but did not notify the Olsons of the circumstances surrounding his demise. The Agency also made considerable efforts to prevent the death being connected with the CIA, and supplied complete cover for Lashbrook so that his association with the CIA would remain a secret. After Dr. Olson's death the CIA conducted an internal investigation of the incident. As part of his responsibilities in this investigation, the General Counsel wrote the Inspector General, stating: I'm not happy with what seems to be a very casual attitude on the part of TSS representatives to the way this experiment was conducted and the remarks that this is just one of the risks running with scientific experimentation. I do not eliminate the need for taking risks, but I do believe, especially when human health or life is at stake, that at least the prudent, reasonable measures which can be taken to minimize the risk must be taken and failure to do so was culpable negligence. The actions of the various individuals concerned after effects of the experiment on Dr. Olson became manifest also revealed the failure to observe normal and reasonable precautions. [53] As a result of the investigation DCI Allen Dulles sent a personal letter to the Chief of Technical Operations of the Technical Services Staff who had approved the experiment criticizing him for "poor judgment... in authorizing the use of this drug on such an unwitting basis and without proximate medical safeguards." [54] Dulles also sent a letter to Dr. Gottlieb, Chief of the Chemical Division of the Technical Services Staff, criticizing him for recommending the "unwitting application of the drug" in that the proposal "did not give sufficient emphasis for medical collaboration and for the proper consideration of the rights of the individual to whom it was being administered." [55] [49] CIA Field Office Report, 12/3/53, p. 3. [50] Ruwet Memorandum, p. 11. [51] CIA Field Office Report, 12/3/53, p. 3. [52] Ibid. [53] Memorandum from the General Counsel to the Inspector General. 1/4/54. [54] Memorandum from DCI to Chief, Technical Operations, TSS, 2/12/54. [55] Memorandum from DCI to Sidney Gottlieb, 2/12/54. -79- The letters were hand carried to the individuals to be read and returned. Although the letters were critical, a note from the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence to Mr. Helms instructed him to inform the individuals that: "These are not reprimands and no personnel file notation are being made." [56] Thus, although the Rockefeller Commission has characterized them as such, these notes were explicitly not reprimands. Nor did participation in the events which led to Dr. Olson's death have any apparent effect on the advancement within the CIA of the individuals involved. 3. The Surreptitious Administration of LSD to Unwitting NonVolunteer Human Subjects by the CIA After the Death of Dr. Olson The death of Dr. Olson could be viewed, as some argued at the time, as a tragic accident, one of the risks inherent in the testing of new substances. It might be argued that LSD was thought to be benign. After the death of Dr. Olson the dangers of the surreptitious administration of LSD were clear, yet the CIA continued or initiated [57] a project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to nonvolunteer human subjects. This program exposed numerous individuals in the United States to the risk of death or serious injury without their informed consent, without medical supervision, and without necessary follow-up to determine any long-term effects. Prior to the Olson experiment, the Director of Central Intelligence had approved MKULTRA, a research program designed to develop a "capability in the covert use of biological and chemical agent materials." In the proposal describing MKULTRA Mr. Helms, then ADDP, wrote the Director that: we intend to investigate the development of a chemical material which causes a reversible non-toxic aberrant mental state, the specific nature of which can be reasonably well predicted for each individual. This material 'could potentially aid in discrediting in |