The Human Plutonium Injection Experiments

The Human Plutonium Injection Experiments

Number 23  1995  Los Alamos Science  

215

Cooney, signed a letter to the Area Engi-

neer in the Berkeley Area in regard to

“the intravenous administration of certain

Manhattan District products to human

subjects” that bluntly stated: 

It is therefore deemed advisable by

this office not only to recommend

against work on human subjects but

also to deny authority for such work

under the terms of the Manhattan

contract.  You will take immediate

action to stop this work under this

contract, and report to this office

upon compliance.

We can speculate that the first memo re-

flects the attitude of the physicians in

charge of the human plutonium injections

that took place in 1945 and 1946.  If con-

sent 

had been obtained throughout the

program of earlier plutonium experiments,

it seems unlikely that the practice would

have suddenly been discontinued for the

studies proposed in the memo.  Stone

was head of the Chicago medical effort

during those years and, after the war, he

became Chairman of the Division of Ra-

diology at the University of California

School of Medicine where he was able to

continue his work.  Although he, of

course, was not directly involved with the

study of the Oak Ridge patient or any of

the Rochester injections, it is reasonable

to think that similar practices in regard to

consent took place at all the Manhattan

Project sites.  Thus, the 1946 memo is

indirect evidence that consent was not

obtained from the plutonium injectees.

What research was taking place in the

Berkeley area at this time?  In a docu-

ment entitled “Scope of Research Pro-

grams M. E. D. As of 1 December 1946,”

the research items listed under a Univer-

sity of California heading included “stud-

ies of the metabolism of plutonium, urani-

um and fission products in rats and man”

as well as tracer studies of fission prod-

ucts and studies on the “metabolism of

radium, actinium, americium & curium in

animals and man.”  The last plutonium

injection took place at the University of

California Medical School in San Francis-

co after the date of the 1946 memo—on

July 18, 1947.  Thus, some observers

feel the last injection was actually not

part of the Manhattan Project work but

was, instead, a continuation of research

by Hamilton’s group to locate a radioac-

tive isotope suitable for the treatment of

bone cancer.

In 1969, Patricia Durbin, a biophysicist at

the University of California, Berkeley,

began re-investigating the human plutoni-

um injection studies and visited Christine

Waterhouse, a medical doctor who had

studied under Bassett at the Rochester

metabolic ward.  In notes summarizing

her visit, Durbin stated:

More important, they do not know

that they received any radioactive

material.  [Waterhouse] is of the

opinion that to tell them at this late

date would do no good but might

very likely do them substantial psy-

chological damage.

This statement does not rule out the idea

of consent in terms of an explanation of

risks, but does agree with what we have

already suggested: that the patients were

not told they were being injected with a

radioactive substance.

Durbin visited Langham in December

1971 to discuss the information summa-

rized in LA-1151, which had been classi-

fied for many years following the war.

After her visit, Durbin reported:

Classification (prolonged) and the

passage of many years before even

classified publication of the findings

led to [Langham’s] eventual respon-

sibility for analysis and publication of

the results.  He is, I believe, dis-

tressed by this and other aspects of

the study itself—particularly the fact

that the injected people in the HP

series were unaware that they were

the subjects of an experiment. . . .

Dr. Langham has been associated in

the minds of many in the radiation

protection field with only this one as-

pect of the subject . . . I believe he

grew very weary of attending meet-

ings and conferences at which he

was expected to discuss this materi-

al over and over again. . . . [Lang-

ham felt] the information to be

gained [from access to the early

data] would be of great value, but he

did not wish to be responsible for lo-

cating it.  I think this sums up the

matter, although my prose can hard-

ly do justice to what are obviously

deeply held doubts about the study

itself and to my strong impression

that he justifiably resents the perva-

sive influence on his whole profes-

sional life of Pu in general and the

human study in particular.

In October 1995, the 

Final Report of the

President’s Advisory Committee on

Human Radiation Experiments stated:

It is possible that some of the pa-

tient-subjects agreed to be used in

nontherapeutic experiments.  But the

picture that emerges suggests other-

wise. . . . With one exception [CAL-

3], the historical record suggests that

these patients-subjects were not told

that they were to be used in experi-

ments for which there was no expec-

tation they would benefit medically,

and as a consequence, it is unlikely

they consented to this use of their

person.

Much of the basis for the Committee’s

conclusion apparently comes from the

lack of documented evidence that con-

sent was given.  Few experiments from

that era documented what was said to

the patients or what level of consent, if

any, was given by the patients.  Thus,

there is a definite, possibly unbridgable,

gap between the statement that we have

been unable to find any documented evi-

dence that sheds light on the consent

process and the statement that the sub-

jects were injected without their consent

or knowledge.  It is quite possible that

the patients were completely in the dark

about the potential risks, but we will prob-

ably never know for sure one way or the

other. 

s

---