The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
I think the scariest part was that I'm sure it was specifically tested in a low-income area purposely, because the people there could probably do less about it. A relevant bit from the article:
> Spates, now 57 and retired, was born in 1955, delivered inside her family's apartment on the top floor of the since-demolished Pruitt-Igoe housing development in north St. Louis. Her family didn't know that on the roof, the Army was intentionally spewing hundreds of pounds of zinc cadmium sulfide into the air.
> Three months after her birth, her father died. Four of her 11 siblings succumbed to cancer at relatively young ages.
The fact that there probably are still people in the US government making similar decisions makes me a lot more nervous about life.
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/army-sprayed-st-louis-with-to...
[0] https://www.mpbio.com/includes/msds/ghs/en/MP_MSDS_219945_US...
I sincerely hope there was some rationale to this decision that I do not know or understand. Otherwise it would be very hard for me to have any faith left in our judicial system.
They probably argued that the test was more like surveying defenses than an experiment. i.e. "we need to try it because we need to know if we should be concerned about the Soviets doing it with seriously harmful bacteria."
Additionally, when you do anything involving a group that large there's bound to be an few outliers. Winning the lottery, getting bitten by a shark and dying from complications caused by normally harmless bacteria are all incredibly uncommon but they still happen.
If the impetus for the experiment was to test some potential attack vector as the grandparent post suggests, would you rather they didn't risk some catastrophic attack? It's the notion of "the greater good" and all that.
In writing this, I seem to have discovered my own answer. This is largely similar to the NSA going beserk as it has done because, "What if?". So do you want to risk & sacrifice for ostensibly better security?
They shouldn't have done it at all. But even if in some twisted world they needed to, they could have warned everyone and come up with ways to protect hospitals.
In the railway scenario, you know you'll save 5. In this case, they were just experimenting to see if a certain attack was possible. Avoiding the experiment would not have resulted in any deaths.
>They probably argued
I was alarmed that this concept (sovereign immunity) could even exist. I thought, at first, that only in monarchies this could be a thing.
Sovereign immunity serves important purposes: 1) keeping courts from getting tangled up in political matters; 2) keeping the actions of individual officers from leading to claims against the public treasury.
Note that just because the sovereign is immune (the government itself) does not mean that individual officers of the government cannot be sued. That's why you see all these lawsuits styled Somebody v. Secretary of State.
I imagine the rationale went like this:
We have intelligence that the soviets are developing weapons with deadly bacteria X with delivery mechanisms {Y, Z, ...}. We believe they can deliver an attack on this set of cities and we have this set of probabilities of stopping it. We've conducted experiments on animals and understand how X would affect an organism similar to a human. Now we need to figure out how it would spread through a city to prepare for the scenario where an actual attack took place. We need to test our metropolitan areas for spread by an airborne bacterium. Let's pick the most harmless bacteria we can find not native to an area and see how it spreads.
The framing in the article is incredibly biased. By no definition of the word is it accurate to call humans the subjects of the experiment.
If the risk of a bacterial attack was real, then it would be negligent not to prepare for such an attack, as it could mean the loss of tens of millions of lives across all metropolitan areas. The "subjects" of this test were not the humans, but the interaction of a bacteria and the structure of the city - to see how a similar but harmful organism would spread through a metropolitan area. These tests were not testing how these bacteria affect humans (it was known that they don't, and for the extraudinarily vast majority of cases, they didn't). As a matter of fact, the bacterial strains were chosen specifically because they have little or no immunity to antibiotics [1] and posed no known threats to humans.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/15/us/judge-s-decision-expect...
but you probably don't want to take his site in this argument and only gave us his official (and sourced) stance.
How can you find out an agent causes death one in a million times without testing it on (roughly) a million people?
I think that there are valid reasons to be concerned or upset about this test, but that they chose an insufficiently harmless agent is not one of them.
[0]: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty5...
I'm risking sounding pedantic, but it wearies me to read sweeping platitudes like this -- no faith? You'd not sue your doctor if he cut the wrong leg off? I'm not even sure what "faith" means in this sense -- trust without evidence? You shouldn't have had "faith" in the first place, if that's the case.
It was never okay, but people didn't think much about 'radical' ideas such as 'informed, enthusiastic consent' back then.
Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particular bacterium.
In any case, it was a violation of the Nuremberg code, and I'd hope no democratic state would do such a thing in the current time.
Wishful thinking. Let's hope we can meet again in 50 years and chat about the good old times.
Just as between WWII and the cold war people likely claimed "we'll never let stuff like what the Nazi's did happen again!" then the country(s) feel threatened and the gloves come off.
So now that we've dealt with pedantic complaints that are wrong anyway, do you have any substantive problems with what I said?
The 1950s wasn't the dark ages. People in positions of power had already been through the horror of gas attacks in the First World War, which is about the closest equivalent. The Nazis had experimented with biological weapons, and this was reasonably widespread knowledge at the time.
So if your point is that it was a simpler, more ignorant time, I don't think that works.
What we all have to face is that, when allowed to operate in secret, this is what governments have done and will continue to do. Often with "good" intentions.
If there's something we need to evolve, it's the oversight of our institutions, or indeed abolishing some of them.
How so? The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test, where it doesn't sound to me like an objective definition of the word supports that framing in the least. A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed and on which data is being gathered. In this case, it is the bacteria, and the data that was gathered was their movement through the city. The humans were part of the environment the subject was tested in, but effects of the bacteria on the humans was not part of the hypothesis, and believed to be wholly negligible to humans.
It's actually pretty conventional to label any research that involves changing the environment of people as involving "human subjects" -- even if the purpose of the research is not directed at understanding how the change affects people.
Here [0], for example, is a U.S. Department of Energy web page that defines the "scope of research" for human subjects studies. It says, in part, [R]esearch using human subjects encompasses a broader range of research than many investigators... often realize. In addition to traditional biomedical and clinical studies, human subjects research includes, but is not limited to, studies that... evaluate environmental alterations
To make that even more explicit, they have a "regulations" web page [1]. The top link there is to a memo that clarifies that any "research involving intentional modification of an individual's or a group of individuals' environment" must be managed according to the rules for human subjects research.
(All that said, it's possible that the military did go through an internal "human subjects" review, which might have concluded that the trials were OK, on the basis that the agents were supposed to be harmless.)
[0] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/research/scope.htm [1] http://humansubjects.energy.gov/regulations/
I find it likely that the military assessed the risk that their alteration posed (the inclusion of a single additional strain of "harmless" bacteria to the many that live in a city) against the danger posed by not understanding the spread of bacteria introduced to a city, and concluded that the research was a reasonable use of human subjects.
Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did.
The frightening thing about the government is not that they do these things without concern for the moral implications, but rather that the government as a system fosters a disconnect from the people they govern and a fanaticism towards duty that drives reasonable people to unreasonable ends.
Very rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications: they simply believe they're doing good by them.
This does not seem as if it should have a very high risk...
> Just like the NSA concluded that it was reasonable to do what they did [...] they do these things without concern for the moral implications
Which NSA activity do you mean? Bulk collection of phone metadata on US residents? If the legal folks said they have a way of defending it as long as certain internal checks are in place, I don't think there are many "moral implications" to collecting data as an agency devoted to signals intelligence does all over the world, aside from the moral implications of signals intelligence itself.
> rarely does the government do atrocities without considering the moral implications
Now you're really escalating. "The government doing atrocity" usually involves intentionally killing a lot of people, not spraying the equivalent of sugar water or collecting phone records.
I think applying the directive for human subjects research does not imply the humans involved are "human subjects" in the way nuremberg uses the term, because those rules don't appear say anything about being notified or opting out [1].
Correct my history if I'm mistaken, but I think Nuremberg was a result of direct experimentation on humans. It is using the still common definition of "experimental subject", which is the entity which is being studied, i.e. the properties of which are being measured.
I don't think it's practical to say the DoE or DHS cannot study air movement through a city without getting every occupant's approval. And how would that reasoning apply to a new radar dish design at an airport?
1. https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-seri...
You couldn't build an empty mock city and test with it. Humans are a necessary element of biological contagion.
You couldn't get voluntary, informed consent from the inhabitants of an actual city, because behavioral patterns might change in response to the knowledge that the test was being conducted, and a lot of people would refuse to participate. Public knowledge of the test would screw up the test and make the results unreliable.
So there's no way to ethically perform such an experiment. But many soldiers also consider it their ethical imperative to protect the civilian populations of their country as well as they are able. Therefore, the rationale would be that in order to protect the lives of 300 million, the experimenters must trespass upon the rights upon 1 million, in a manner that most of them probably wouldn't even notice.
Of course, those people, having entirely too much trust in the essential goodness of their government, didn't consider that the same data could also be used to make bacteriological attacks on foreign populations more effective. They didn't consider whether their "harmless" bacterium was actually harmless. And they refused to take responsibility for the actual, demonstrable harm to unsuspecting humans.
This is why we have international conventions against certain military activities, and why we should not tolerate such tests to be conducted upon us, or anyone else. It makes no difference whether the humans are the subjects or the test medium, because the purpose of the test was to study biological warfare upon humans. And a biological weapon is one of the few weapons creatable at our current technology level that have the potential to annihilate our entire species. Any data gathered at all in this domain can only serve to make such weapons more effective, and defenses against them more complex. None of us can afford a human-versus-human arms race in this, as the one conducted between us and other species is a difficult enough struggle already.
Who could possibly foresee that there could be other injuries, infections or conditions present in a fucking city.
That's not the issue. That relates to us understanding why it's dangerous. But wondering if it's dangerous and testing small and willing populations at first is something we knew how to do back then too.
> That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds.
If they thought it was harmless they'd have tested it at the military base first.
> If you want outrage, be outraged that [...]
I don't, thanks. And I don't appreciate the redirect. (I agree, but it's not the topic.)
First stage clinical trials have a much higher risk for the subjects, arguably stage two and three also. Even Aspirin has a higher fatality rate.
Ignorance is no excuse especially when non consenting people's health is at risk.
It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe.
Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?
Intent matters.
This is more like firing directly into a group of people, but believing the gun is a harmless reproduction (or perhaps a paintball marker) when it actually a real weapon loaded with live ammo.
And, yes, in that case it would be valid, at least to the extent that the crime you would be guilty of, if any, with that belief would be substantial less than the one you would be guilty of if you believed it was a live weapon and committed the same act.
More: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalsc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
It's one of the many conspiracy type videos out there, and I don't endorse the content in any way.. I just find this stuff fascinating
This is the reason I don't watch documentaries on modern "issues". The story presented is all very manipulated and you're certain to get an incorrect set of evidence.
What is boggling is how smart people _stay_ convinced by conspiracies, after contradictions are pointed out. But changing your mind is a hard thing to do, so perhaps it's not that surprising?
That's true of essentially any source but I don't know that becoming ignorant of anything that happened during your lifetime is the right answer.
And I agree, there are many documentaries on modern issues that are pure junk.
I was out of there like a shot.
[edit] typo
I love this implication that you're probably dumb if you think the government sometimes engages in conspiracy. Like mass surveillance. Or bacterial experiments in San Francisco.
What is dumb is seing a few bright pixels in a New Horizons image and saying "that's a swarm of alien space ships", when in fact it's just a cosmic ray distorted by the JPG lossy compression algorithm.
As if the logic gate in the brain suddenly stopped working.
I remember reading and hearing that one of the reasons young people get addicted to things like heroin, etc., is due to the fact that schools, parents and government told them that things like beer and marijuana were deadly in any amount - then they would go on to have a few beers at a party, and maybe smoke a joint, and when they wake up the next morning with no negligible negative effects, they reject everything else they've been taught - including warnings about things that are that dangerous.
Maybe what you're seeing is more like belief in the possibility rather than belief in the fact.
For instance, after I learned about Operation Northwoods and a half a dozen other cases, I am completely open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. (edit: And people who are not open to that possibility seem completely illogical to me.)
An "inside job" comes across like the government explicitly set the terrorists on the path they took (or some of the terrorists were government agents). It seems more likely to me that certain elements in the government could have become aware of the plot and turned a blind eye.
I don't put it outside the realm of possibility. There is a lot of motivation to invading Iran/Iraq under a guise and what better way to usher in a surveillance state than "preventing terrorism and keeping you safe"?
People in power have a lot of motivation to remain in power. That includes keeping "the masses" ignorant and satisfied with their lives. Satisfied people don't rebel or overthrow systems of power that appear to be working in their favor.
After hundreds of years of history repeating itself with same/similar stories over different time periods. I find myself thinking people are completely ignorant of history when they full trust their own government at its word. I will always entertain the possibility my government did something bad. Because history proves that it isn't all that unlikely...
Now entertaining the possibility of and actually believing it occurred are two different things. I cannot disprove 9/11 being an inside job - and I can see motivations as to why a government may do it (if I didn't see why a government would, I wouldn't entertain the thought). The fact that, as an individual, I can see motivation for a government to commit an act against its own people means the government itself might reach this same conclusion. So the idea is possible.
Do I think it was? No. I think it was simply government negligence. Failing to respond to warnings we received from Russia (2001 wasn't much past the 90's) and general disorganization.
Loyalty and support in exchange for protection. Scholarship and industriousness in exchange for liberty. Moral behavior in exchange for justice. Voluntary taxation in exchange for uniform public benefits.
You need not show that the government was directly involved, if you can support the assertion that the government did not effectively use its granted authority for the benefit of the public. Conspiracy theories are primarily useful for convincing those people who demonstrate too much faith in their public institutions that they should be a bit more skeptical.
Whether you think that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda terrorists or CIA terrorists, the facts remain that the efforts of the government were ineffective to prevent the deaths, injuries, or destruction of property, and the resulting public grief and outcry was used inappropriately to justify almost entirely unrelated shifts in policy.
The idea that someone, somewhere might have said, "That many deaths? Hooray! We can go have a war now!" is just grossly abhorrent to me, and I can't shake the feeling that it actually happened.
I do think it's a lot more complicated than "the government" knew or "the government" did not know.
But, when we look at history, it is probably more logical to be skeptical. Our history is replete with Massively Bad Things that are nearly unbelievable in scale, and we would certainly prefer not to believe humans capable of such things, if given a choice.
At the same time, we also know that there are people with a vested interest in creating certain beliefs and outcomes.
So, what I find interesting is people's determination to believe something, simply because it is offered as the "official story". These stories don't require nearly the same degree of evidence, or even plausibilty to be accepted, as long as they are mainstreamed as official. The logic gate is then not even activated by the masses. Yet, the moment an alternative is posed, it is immediately (and often angrily) seized upon by those same people who now suddenly require a massive degree of evidence.
I believe that a default position of skepticism is far healthier in a society than blind acceptance of official stories. Where I believe skeptics get into trouble is when they move beyond questioning to actually posing an alternative story that is no more provable than the official one.
Those are not skeptical. They are believers, just like the people that believe on the official version.
And, I assumed others could connect those dots. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
This is why a lot of people (myself included) take a hard-line position of any kind of testing involving humans. Yes, it's often a waste of time to run many trivial experiments by an IRB first, but history has shown that some people seem unable to make this kind of judgement call probably. Really, in many case, an IRB simply serves the same purpose as assert(3); it's a "sanity-check". Like all sanity check, in theory it shouldn't be necessary, but history shoes it's worth checking anyway.
IRBs are effective at checking back everyday scientists. I somehow doubt an IRB panel would be need to be consulted by someone powerful enough to have the authority to load a crapton of bacteria onto a boat and spray it into SF.
Also, one of the steps in a typical IRB process is to sanity catch mistakes. As mentioned in another post, the people spraying bacteria over SF probably believe they were doing a "safe" experiment about dispersion properties. In an environment were it was regularly expected use an approval process, there might have been a chance for someone with biological knowledge to inform the experimenters of their error.
This is pure evil.
The experiment wasn't on humans - the position of the CDC is that humans were unaffected, and the data gathered was about how harmless bacteria spread through a densely populated city, to better protect those humans if a harmful agent were to do the same.
At a time when biological warfare was a reasonable threat to make plans for, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to consider these kinds of simulations justified.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/15/us/judge-s-decision-expect...
I never said I tolerated that.
Also, I think that I explained all the "why's" behind my position pretty clearly in the original comment.
> This is pure evil.
This is bad. Labeling acts like this "pure evil" really diminishes the label.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/suit-fil...
From what I've read, it seems to be the opposite: it was reasonable to assume, to a certain extent, that they were, indeed, harmless. But I agree that the certainty level was not high enough to conduct experiment on such a big number of participants. (I want to point out, we're only discussing the harmlessness here, not the other points like consent).
> can always be argued to
This is a horrible phrase. You can take any statement, and disregard it because it "can always be argued for". I think in this particular case, the benefit of these experiments is pretty clear.
> such offences should be under strict liability
This I agree with.
Well, it is a conspiracy theory, isn't it? Just because it's true doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.
The evidence means it isn't a theory.
Note that I've read the reasoning behind the event was apparently the visit of a German navy crew and 'protocol' (the US and Germany were not yet at war) rather than the weak line discussed at that URL. Still, a little known fact.
What other great wrongs can be righted through careful mass infection of populations?
That sounds really paranoid.
"It has been reported that HBGary Federal was contracted by the U.S. government to develop astroturfing software which could create an "army" of multiple fake social media profiles.[36][37]"
Downvoters: If you really think I'm wrong, then this is the story of the century. Stop whatever you're doing and start a doxxing effort against these astroturfers. You believe the government is literally trying to shape opinion in favor of killing its own citizenry. What could be more important than this story? Get to it. This is Pulitzer stuff.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...
"No, Grandpa, but thanks for your concern. I don't think there's any mystery here."
AFAIK, the bacteria used in this experiment is not related to measles.
However, there is the fact that the US government (all governments really) have repeatedly been found to inflict these kinds of nefarious deeds on their own people AND that they have a tendency to cover up those facts (not all governments are such hypocrites, some are proudly jerks) AND that the general public is often unaware or unwilling to admit it after the fact has been brought to light.
So, this is the kind of thing that reinforces the world view of the AntiVaxer side. Every time you try to reason with them, the label "cover-up" comes to their mind and they just disengage and shut down whatever you are trying to convey. Keep trying long enough, and they will label you as a "sheep" (a member of the willingly unaware public) or a "wolf in sheep skin" (basically, and agent provocateur).
They were testing the distribution method and trying to do so in a harmless way.
A better comparison would be "we're gonna load a shipping container with a bomb casing full of concrete and irradiated enough to look like a live nuclear weapon, then try to sneak it into the port and see if we get caught."