PROJECT MKIULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OFRESEARCH INBEHAVIORAL MODIFICATIONJOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
AND THESUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
OF THECOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATENINETY-FIFTH CONGRESSFIRST SESSION

AUGUST 3, 1977

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
and Committee on Human Resources

PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OFRESEARCH INBEHAVIORAL MODIFICATIONJOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
AND THESUBCOMMITTEE ON
HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
OF THECOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATENINETY-FIFTH CONGRESSFIRST SESSION

AUGUST 3, 1977

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
and Committee on Human Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-4080

WASHINGTON : 1977

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402
Stock No. 052-070-04357-1

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 YorkCLIFFORD P. CAISE, New Jersey
JAKE GARN, Utah
CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Ex Officio fember.
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 Ja., New Jersey, Chairman
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia'CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
GAYLORD NELSON, WisconsinTHOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri
ALAN CRANSTON, California
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine
Michigan
DONALD W. RIEGLE,JACOB K. JAVITS, New YorkRICHARD S. S'CHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOHN H. CHAPEE, Rhode Island
S. I. HAYAKAWA, California
S.,

STEPHEN J. PARADISE, General Counsel and Staff Director
MARJORIE M. WHITTAKER, Chief Clerk
DON A. ZIMMERMAN, Minority Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHEDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode IslandGAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania
JACOB K. JAVITS, New YorkJOHN H. iCHAFEE, Rhode Island(ex officlio)
LAWRENCE HOROWITZ, ProfessionalStaff Member
DAVID WINSTON, Minority Counsel

CONTESTS
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 GeneralCounsel, Central Intelligence Agency, and George Cary, Legislative
Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency ---------------------------Philip Goldman, former employee, Central Intelligence Agency ------John Gittinger, former employee, Central Intelligence Agency --------Appendix A.-XVII. Testing and Use of Chemical and Biological Agentsby the Intelligence Community ----------------------------------Appendix B.-Documents Referring to Discovery of Additional MKULTRA
Material ------------------------------------------------------Appendix C.-Documents Referring to Subprojects --------------------Material Submitted for the Record: .
Psychological Assessments ---------------------------------------"Truth" Drugs in Interrogation ----------------------------------Construction of Gorman Annex---------------------------

Subproject 54-------------------------------------------------Drug Testing in Foreign Countries-----------MKSEARCH, OFTEN/CHICKWIT ------------------------------Employees Terminated Because of Their Participation in MKULTRA
Subproject 3 -------------------------------------------------QKHILLTOP Definition -----------------------------------------

Page

8
50
51
65
103
109
17
25
39

41
43
169
170
171

PROJECT MKULTRA, THE CIA'S PROGRAM OFRESEARCH IN BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATIONWEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1977

U.S. SENATE,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
AND SUBCOMIrrTEE ON HEALTHAND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
OF THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURGES,

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-(chairmanof 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 onIntelligence; Dr. Lawrence Horowitz, staff director, Subcommittee
on Health and Scientific Research; and professional staff members ofboth committees.
Senator INOUYE. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ismeeting today and is joined by the Subcommittee on Health andScientific 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 arefocusing 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 inorder to better understand what statutes and other guidelines might benecessary 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 withthis committee and with the Subcommittee on Health in recognizingthat this issue needed our attention. The CIA has assisted our committees and staffs in their investigative efforts and in arriving atremedies which will serve the best interests of our country.

-

The reappearance of reports of the abuses of the drug testing program. and reports of other previously unknown drug programs andprojects 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 agenciesof 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 theUnited 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 mustbe 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 todevelop 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 aredelighted 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 thatover 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. Olsen, resulted from these activities.
The Afrency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientificsense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientificobservers. The test subjects were seldom accessible beyond the firsthours of the test. In a number of instances, the test subject became illfor hours or days, and effective followup was impossible.

Other experiments were equally offensive. For example, heroin
addicts were enticed into participating in LSD experiments in orderto 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 allthese activities were destroyed in January 1973, at the instruction ofthen CIA Director Richard Helms. In spite of persistent inquiries byboth the Health Subcommittee and the Intelligence Committee, noadditional records or information were forthcoming. And no oneno single individual--could be found who remembered the details, not
the Director of the CIA, who ordered the documents destroyed, notthe 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. Theirexistence 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. NeV instances of unethical behavior were revealed.
The intelligence community of this Nation, which requires a shroudof secrecy in order to operate, has a very sacred trust from theAmerican 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 isviolated each time a responsible official refuses to recollect the detailsof the program. The best safeguard against abuses in the future is acomplete 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, andgo 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 mediaof this country; and the reason they are, I think, is because it just continuously begins to trickle out. sort of, month after month, and thebest 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 themwere caught up in an unwitting manner to do research for the
Agency. Many researchers, distinguished researchers, some of ourmost outstanding members of our scientific community, involved inthis network, now really do not know whether they were involved ornot, and it seems to me that the whole health and climate in terms of
our university and our scientific and health facilities are entitled tothat 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 tominimize the potential for any similar abuses in the future. Thatlegislation 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 forthe past 3 years a system for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral 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 INOUITE. Thank you very much. Now we will proceed withthe hearings.. Admiral Turner?
[The prepared statement of Admiral Turner follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL STANSFIELD TURNER, DIRECTOR OF CENTRALINTELLIGENCE
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 Olson were publicized. In 1953 Dr. Olson, 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 tohim 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 ofthat 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 in1973 on the orders of the then retiring Chief of the Office of Technical Service,with the authorization of the then 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 1IKULTRA subprojects available to CIA during the Church Committee investigations. This
lack of available details, moreover, was probably not wholly attributable to the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 recordsof 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 beenaccomplished, 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 havebeen previously known and reported to Senate investigators; andWhat 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
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 weremade 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 forsuch work were not searched, however. This was because financial papers associated with sensitive projects such as MKULTRA were normally maintainedby 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 notknown. As a result of it, however, the material escaped retrieval and destructionin 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 unturnedin his efforts to respond to FOIA requests. He reviewed all listings of materialof this Branch stored at the Retired Records Center, including those of the
Budget and Fiscal Section and, thus, discovered the MKULTRA-related docuinents 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 todestroy 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 thismaterial during the earlier searches.
Next, as to the nature of the recently located material, it is important torealize that the recovered folders are finance folders. The bulk of the material inthem consists of approvals for advance of funds, vouchers, accountings, and thelike-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 orother 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 havesome 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 doeither 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 thecontents 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 notknown, 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 operatibns: 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 conferenceson 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 connectedwith the Army's Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, Md. This activity isoutline in Book I of the Church Oommittee 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 thesesubprojects cannot be identified from the recovered material beyond the factthat 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; andstimulus and response in biological systems.
15. Three subprojects cancelled before any work was done on them having to
do with laboratory drug screening, research on brain concussion, and researchon 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 oneither 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 apossibly improper contribution by CIA to a private institution. However, theprincipal 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 Financeby CIA and were made available to the Church Committee investigators in Augustor September 1975.
The 1963 Inspector General report on MKULTRA made available to both the
Church Committee and Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee mentions electro-shockand harassment substances (pp. 4, 16) ; covert testingon unwitting U.S. citizens(PP. 7, 10-12) ; the search for new materials through arrangementswith specialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals,
state and federal institutions, and private research organizations (pp. 7, 9) ; andnical Service Division of CIA had initiated 144 subprojectsthe fact that the Techrelated to the controlof human behavior between 1953-1963 (p. 21).
The relevant section of a 1957 Inspector General reporton the Technical Service Division was also made available to the Church Committee
staff. That reportdiscusses 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)
tolerance, and hypnotism (p. 203) ; research on LSD (p. 204) material, alcohol
anti-personnel
harassment and assassination delivery systems including aerosol ;generators
andother spray devices (pp. 206-208) ; the role of Fort Detrick in support
Biological/Chemical Warfare capability (p. 208) ; and material sabotage of CIA's(p. 209). Much of this material is reflected in the Church Committee research
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,
possibly improper contribution by CIA to a private institution. We are now ina
possession of the names of 185 non-government researchers and assistants whoare identified in the recovered material dealing with the 149 subprojects. The
names of 80 institutions where work was done or with which these people wereaffiliated 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 theidentities of some of these people and institutions were known previously, thediscovery 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 theTechnical 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 thetrue 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 theunwitting drug testing but contribute little more than that. We now have collaborating information that some of the unwitting drug testing was carried onin safehouses in San Francisco and New York City, and we have identified thatthree individuals were involved In this undertaking as opposed to the previously
reported one person. We also know now that some unwitting testing took placeon criminal sexual psychopaths confined at a State hospital and that, additionally, research was done on a knock-out or "K" drug in parallel with research todevelop pain killers for cancer patients.
These, then are the principal findings identified to date in our review of therecovered material. As noted earlier,. we believe the detail on the identities ofresearchers 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 cooperated with CIA on a witting basis acted in good fai-th 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 toprotect 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those researchers and institutions which were unwitting participants in CIAsponsored activities.
Nevertheless, recognizing the right and the need of both the Senate SelectCommittee 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 ofthe 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 ADM. STANSFIELD TURNER, DIRECTOR OF CENTRALINTELLIGENCE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK LAUBINGER, OFFICEOF TECHNICAL SERVICES; AL BRODY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL; ERNEST MAYERFIELD, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL;AND GEORGE L. CARY, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Admiral TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin
by thanking you and Senator Kennedy for having a joint hearing thismorning. I hope this will expedite and facilitate our getting all theinformation that both of your committees need into the record quickly.
I would like also to thank you both for prefacing the remarks today
by reminding us all that the events about which we are here to talkare 12- to 24-years old. They in no way represent the current activities
or policies of the Central Intelligence Agency.
What we are here to do is to give you all the information that we
now have and which we did not previously have on a subject known
as Project MKULTRA, a project which took place from 1953 to 1964.
It was an umbrella project under which there were numerous subprojects for research, among other things, on drugs and behavioral
modification. What the new material that we offer today is a supplement to the considerable material that was made available in 1975,
during the Church committee hearinas, and also to the Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research.
At that time, the CIA offered up all of the information and documents it believed it had available. The principal one available at thattime that gave the greatest amount of information on this subject
was a report of the CIA's Inspector General written in 1963, and which
led directly to the termination of this activity in 1964, 13 years ago.
The information available in 1975 to the various investigatinggroups was indeed sparse, first because of the destruction of material
that took place in 1973. as detailed by Senator Kennedy a minute ago,
with the concurrence of the then Director of Central Tntelliaence andunder the supervision of the Director of the Office of Technical
Services that supervised Project MKULTRA.

The material in 1975 was also sparse because most of the CIA people
who had been involved in 1953 to 1964 in this activity had retired fromthe Agency. I would further add that I think the material was sparsein part because it was the practice at that time not to keep detailed
records in this category.
For instance, the 1963 report of the Inspector General notes:
Present practice is to maintain no records of the planning and approval oftest programs.

In brief, there were few records to begin with and less after thedestruction of 1973.
What I would like to do now, though, is to proceed and let you knowwhat the new material adds to our knowledge of this topic, and I
will start by describing how the material was discovered and why it
was not previously discovered. The material in question, some sevenboxes, had been sent to our Retired Records Center outside of the
Washington area. It was discovered there as the result of an extensive
search by an employee charged with the responsibility for maintaining our holdings on behavioral drugs and for responding to Freedomof Information Act requests on this subject.
During the Church committee investigation of 1975, searches for
MKULTRA-related material were made by examining both the active
and the retired records of all of the branches of CIA considered likely
to have had an association with MKULTRA documents. The retired
records of the Budget and Fiscal Section of the branch that was responsible for such work were not searched, however. This was because thefinancial paper associated with sensitive projects such as MKULTRA
were normally maintained by the branch itself under the project title,
MKULTRA, not by the Budget and Fiscal Section under a special
budget file.
In the case at hand, however, this newly located material had been
sent to the Retired Records Center in 1970 by the Budget and Fiscal
Section of this branch as part of its own retired holdings. In short, whatshould have been filed by the branch itself was filed by the Budget
and Fiscal Section, and what should have been filed under the project
title, MKULTRA, was filed under budget and fiscal matters. The reason for this departure from the normal procedure of that time is simply
not known, and as a result of it, however, the material escaped retrieval
and destruction in 1973, as well as discovery in 1975.
The employee who located this material did so by leaving no stone
unturned in his efforts to respond to a Freedom of Information Act
request, or several of them, in fact. He reviewed all of the listings ofmaterial 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 personally persuaded that there is no evidence of any attempt toconceal this material during the earlier searches. Moreover, as we will
discuss as we proceed, I do not believe the material itself is such that

there would be a motive on the part of the CIA to withhold this, having
disclosed what it did in 1975.
Next, let me move to the nature of this recently located material.
It is important to remember what I have just noted, that these folders
that were discovered are finance folders. The bulk of the material inthem consists of approvals for the advance of funds, vouchers, andaccountings and such, most of which are not very informative as tothe nature of the activities that they were supporting. 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 overall status reports or other documents relating to operational considerations, or to the progress onvarious subprojects, though some elaboration of the activities contemplated does appear from time to time.
There are roughly three categories of projects. First, there are 149
MKULTRA subprojects, many of which appear to have some connection with research into behavioral modification, drug acquisition andtesting, or administering drugs surreptitiously. Second, there are twoboxes of miscellaneous MKULTRA papers, including audit reports
and financial statements from intermediary funding mechanisms used
to conceal CIA sponsorship of various research projects.
Finally, there are 33 additional subprojects concerning certain intelligence activities previously funded under MKULTRA but whichhave nothing to do either with behavioral modifications, drugs andtoxins, or any closely related matter.
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 following 15
categories are the ones we have divided these into.
First, research into the effects of behavioral drugs and/or alcohol.
Within this, there are 17 projects probably not involving human testing. There are 14 subprojects definitely involving testing on humanvolunteers. There are 19 subprojects probably including tests on human'volunteers and 6 subprojects involving tests on unwitting
human beings.
Second, there is research on hypnosis, eight subprojects, including
two involving hypnosis and drugs in combination.
Third, there are seven projects on the acquisition of chemicals or
drugs.
Fourth, four subprojects on the aspects of the magician's art, usefulin covert operations, for instance, the surreptitious delivery of drugrelated materials.
Fifth, there are nine projects on studies of human behavior, sleep
research, and behavioral change during psychotherapy.
Sixth, there are projects on library searches and attendants at seminars and international conferences on behavioral modifications.
Seventh, there are 23 projects on motivational studies, studies ofdefectors, assessments of behavior and training techniques.
Eighth, there are three subprojects on polygraph research.
Ninth, there are three subprojects on funding mechanisms for
MKULTRA's external research activities.

Tenth, there are six subprojects on research on drugs, toxins, andbiologicals in human tissue, provision of exotic pathogens, and thecapability to incorporate them in effective delivery systems.
Eleventh, there are three subprojects on activities whose naturesimply cannot be determined.
Twelfth, there are subprojects involving funding support for unspecified activities conducted with the Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrich, Md. This activity is outlined in Book I of the
Church committee report, pages 388 to 389. (See Appendix A, pp.
68-69).
Under CIA's Project MKNAOMI, the Army assisted the CIA indeveloping, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery
systems-for use against humans as well as against animals and crops.
Thirteenth, there are single subprojects in such areas as the effects
of electroshock, harassment techniques for offensive use, analysis ofextrasensory perception, gas propelled sprays and aerosols, and four
subprojects involving crop and material sabotage.
Fourteenth, one or two subprojects on each of the following: bloodgrouping research; controlling the activities of animals; energy storage and transfer in organic systems; and stimulus and response inbiological systems.
Finally, 15th, there are 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.
Now, let me address how much this newly discovered material adds
to what has previously been reported to the Church committee andto Senator Kennedy's Subcommittee on Health. The answer is basically additional detail. The principal types of activities included inthese documents have for the most part been outlined or to someextent generally described in what was previously available in theway of documentation and which was supplied by the CIA to the
Senate investigators.
For example, financial disbursement records for the period of 1960
to 1964 for 76 of these 149 subprojects had been recovered by the
Office of Finance at CIA and were made available to the Churchcommittee investigators. For example, the 1963 Inspector Generalreport on MKULTRA made available to both the Church committee
and the Subcommittee on Health mentions electroshock and harassment substances, covert testing on unwitting U.S. citizens, the search
for new materials through arrangements with specialists in hospitals
and universities, and the fact that the Technical Service Division of
CIA had initiated 144 subprojects related to the control of humanbehavior.
For instance also, the relevant section of a 1957 Inspector Generalreport was also made available to the Church committee staff, andthat report discusses the techniques for human assessment and unorthodox methods of communication, discrediting and disabling materials which can be covertly administered, studies on magicians' arts
as applied to covert operations, and other similar topics.
The most significant new data that has been discovered are, first,
the names of researchers and institutions who participated inMKULTRA projects, and second, a possibly improper contribution
by the CIA to a private institution. We are now in the possession of the names of 185 nongovernment researchers and assistants
who are identified in the recovered material dealing with these 149
subprojects.
There are also names of 80 institutions where work was done orwith which these people were affiliated. The institutions include 44
colleges or universities, 15 research foundation or chemical or pharmaceutical companies or the like, 12 hospitals or clinics, in addition to
those associated with the 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 ourknowledge 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 that contribution was made was previously known. Indeed, it was mentioned
in the 1957 report of the Inspector General on the Technical Service
Division of CIA that supervised MKULTRA, and pertinent portionsof this had been reviewed by the Church committee staff.
The newly discovered material, however, makes it clear that thiscontribution 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 madeaware of the true source of the gift. This project was approved Ithe then Director of Central Intelligence and concurred in by CIA's
top management including the then General Counsel, who wrote an
opinion supporting the legality of the contribution.
The recently discovered documents also give greater insight into
the scope of the unwitting nature of the drug testing, but contributelittle more than that. We now do have corroborating information thatsome of the unwitting drug testing was carried out in what is known
in the intelligence trade as safe houses in San Francisco and in New
York City, and we have identified that three individuals were involved in this undertaking, whereas we previously reported there wasonly 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 a knockout or K drug in parallel withresearch to develop painkillers for cancer patients.
These, then, are the principal findings identified to date in our review of this recovered material. As noted earlier, we believe the detail on the identities of researchers and institutions involved in CIA
sponsorship of drug and behavioral modification research is a newelement and one which poses a considerable problem. Most of the people and institutions involved were not aware of CIA sponsorship. We
should certainly assume that the researchers and institutions which
cooperated with CIA on a witting basis acted in good faith and in
the belief that they were aiding their Government in a legitimate andproper purpose.
I believe that 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 those researchers and institutions which were unwitting participants in CIA sponsored activities.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I certainly recognize the right and theneed of both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research to investigate
the circumstances of these activities in whatever detail you consider
necessary. I am providing your committee with all of the documentation, including all of the names, on a classified basis. I hope that thiswill facilitate your investigation while still protecting the individuals
and the institutions involved.
Let me emphasize again that the MKULTRA events are 12 to 24
years in the past, and I assure you that CIA is in no way engaged ineither witting or unwitting testing of drugs today.
Finally, I am working closely with the Attorney General on thismatter. We are making available to the Attorney General whatevermaterials he may deem necessary to any investigations that he mayelect to undertake. Beyond that, we are also working with the Attorney
General to determine whether it is practicable from this new evidence
to identify any of the persons to whom drugs may have been administered unwittingly. No such names are part of these records. We havenot identified the individuals to whom drugs were administered, but
we are trying now to determine if there are adequate clues to lead totheir identification, and if so how best to go about fulfilling the Government's responsibilities in this matter.
Mr. Chairman, as we proceed with that process of attempting to
identify the individuals and then determining what is our proper responsibility to them, I will keep both of these committees fully advised. I thank you, sir.
Senator INouYE. Thank you very much, Admiral Turner. Your
spirit of cooperation is much appreciated. I would like to announce tothe committee that in order to give every member an opportunity toparticipate in this hearing, that we would set a time limit of 10 minutes
per Senator.
Admiral Turner, please give this committee the genesis of MKUL
TRA. Who or what committee or commission or agency was responsible for dreaming up this grandiose and sinister project, and why wasit necessary? What is the rationale or justification for such a project
and was the President of the United States aware of this?
Admiral TURNER. Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask Mr. Brody on
my right, who is a long-time member of the CIA to address that inmore detail. I believe everything that we know about the genesis wasturned over to the Church committee and is contained in that material. Basically, it was a CIA-initiated project. It started out of aconcern of our being taken advantage of by other powers who would
use drugs against our personnel, and it was approved in the Agency. I
have asked the question you just asked me, and have been assured that
there is no evidence within the Agency of any involvement at higher
echelons, the White House, for instance, or specific approval. That
does not say there was not, but we have no such evidence.

96-408 0 - 77 - 2

Mr. Brody, would you amplify on my comments there, please?
Mr. BRODY. Mr. Chairman, I really have very little to add to that.
To my knowledge, there was no Presidential knowledge of this project at the time. It was a CIA project, and as the admiral said, it wasa project designed to attempt to counteract what was then thought tobe a serious threat by our enemies of using drugs against us. Most ofwhat else we know about it is in the Senate Church committee report.
Senator INOUYE. Were the authorized members of the Congress
made aware of this project through the budgetary process?
Mr. BRODY. We have no knowledge of that, sir.
Senator INOUYE. Are you suggesting that it was intentionally kept
away from the Congress and the President of the United States?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir. We are only saying that we have no evidence one way or the other as to whether the Congress was informedof this particular project. There are no records to indicate.
Senator INOUYE. Admiral Turner, are you personally satisfied byactual investigation that this newly discovered information was notintentionally kept away from the Senate of the United States ?
Admiral TURNER. I have no way to prove that, sir. That is my conviction from everything I have seen of it.
Senator INOUYE. Now, we have been advised that these documents
were initially discovered in March of this year, and you were notified
in July of this year, or June of this year, and the committee was notified in July. Can you tell us why the Director of Central Intelligence
was notified 3 months after its initial discovery, why the delay?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. All this started with several Freedom ofInformation Act requests, and Mr. Laubinger on my left was the individual who took it upon himself to pursue these requests with great
diligence, and got permission to go to the Retired Records Center, andthen made the decision to look not only under what would be the expected subject files, but through every file with which the branch that
conducted this type of activity had any conceivable connection.
Very late in March, he discovered these seven boxes. He arranged
to have them shipped from the Retired Records Center to Washington, to our headquarters. They arrived in early April. He advised his
appropriate superiors, who asked him how long he thought it would
take him to go through these and screen them appropriately, clear
them for Freedom of Information Act release.
There are, we originally estimated, 5,000 pages here. We now thinkthat was an underestimation, and it may be closer to 8,000 pages. He
estimated it would take about 45 days or into the middle of May to
do that. He was told to proceed, and as be did so there was nothing
uncovered in the beginning of these 149 cases that appeared particularly startling or particularly additive to the knowledge that had already been given to the Church committee, some details, but no major
revelations:
He and his associates proceeded with deliberateness, but not a great
sense of urgency. There were other interfering activities that cameand demanded his time also. He was not able to put 100 percent of histime on it, and there did not appear to be cause for a great rush here.
We were trying to be responsive to the Freedom of Information Act
request within the limits of our manpower and our priorities.

In early June, however, he discovered two projects, the one related
to K drugs and the one related to the funding at the institution, andrealized immediately that he had substantial new information, andhe immediately reported this to his superiors.
Two actions were taken. One was to notify the lawyers of theprincipal Freedom of Information Act requestor that we would havesubstantial new material and that it would be forthcoming as rapidly as
possible, and the second was to start a memorandum up the chainthat indicated his belief that we should notify the Senate Select Comimittee on Intelligence of this discovery because of the character at leastof these two documents.
As that proceeded up from the 13th of June, at each echelon we had
to go through the legal office, the legislative liaison office and at eachechelon about the same question was asked of him: Have you gone
through all of this, so that when we notify the Senate Select Committee we do not notify half of the important relevations and not theother half? The last thing I want, Mr. Chairman, is in any way
tobe on any topic, give the appearance on any topic of being recalcitrant,
reluctant, or having to have you drag things out of me, and my subordinates, much to my pleasure, had each asked, have you really gone
through these 8,000 pages enough to know that we are not going to
uncover a bombshell down -atthe bottom?
By late June, about the 28th, this process reached my deputy. He
notified me after his review of it on the 7th of July, which is the first
I knew of it. I began reading into it. I asked the same probing question directly. I then notified my superiors, and on the 15th delivered
to you my letter letting you know that we had this, and we have beenworking, many people, many hours since then, to be sure that what weare telling you today does include all the relevant material.
Senator INOUYE. I would like to commend Mr. Laubinger for his
diligence and expertise, but was this diligence the result of the Freedom of Information Act or could this diligence have been exercised
during the Church hearings? Why was it not exercised?
Admiral TURNER. There is no question that theoretically this diligence could have been exercised at any time, and it may well be that
the Freedom of Information Act has made us more aware of this.
Would you speak for yourself, please.
Mr. LAUBINGER. I really don't attribute it, Senator, to diligence somuch as thoroughness. If you can imagine the pressures under anorganization trying to respond, which I think the CIA did at the timeof the Church committee hearings, the hallways of the floor I am onwere full of boxes from our records center. Every box that anyone
thought could possibly contain anything was called up for search. It
was one of a frantic effort to comply.
When the pressure of that situation cools down, and you can start
looking at things systematically, you are apt to find things that you
wouldn't under the heat of a crash program, and that is what happened
here.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. Admiral Turner, this is an enormously distressing report that you give to the American Congress and to the American
people today. Granted, it happened many years ago, but what we arebasically talking about is an activity which took place in the country
that involved the perversion and the corruption of many of our outstanding research centers in this country, with CIA funds, where someof our top researchers were unwittingly involved in research sponsored by the Agency in which they had no knowledge of the background or the support for.
Much of it was done with American citizens who were completely
unknowing in terms of taking various drugs, and there are perhaps
any number of Americans who are walking around today on the east
coast or west coast who were given drugs, with all the kinds of physicaland psychological damage that can be caused. We have gone over thatin very careful detail, and it is significant and severe indeed.
I do not know what could be done in a less democratic country
that would be more alien to our own traditions than was really donein this narrow area, and as you give this report to the committee, I
would like to get some sense of your own concern about this type ofactivity, and how you react, having assumed this important responsibility with the confidence of President Carter and the overwhelming
support, obviously, of the. Congress, under this set of circumstances.
I did not get much of a feeling in reviewing your statement here thismorning of the kind of abhorrence to this type of past activity which
I think the American people would certainly deplore and which I
believe that you do, but could you comment upon that question, and also
perhaps give us what ideas you have to insure that it cannot happen
again?
Admiral TURNER. Senator Kennedy, it is totally abhorrent to me tothink of using a human being as a guinea pig and in any way jeopardizing his life and his health, no matter how great the cause. I am nothere to pass judgment on my predecessors, but I can assure you that
this is totally beyond the pale of my contemplation of activities that
the CIA or any other of our intelligence agencies should undertake.
I am taking and have taken what I believe are adequate steps toinsure that such things are not continuing today.
Senator KENNEDY. Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Admiral TURNER. I have asked for a special report assuring me that.
there are no drug activities extant, that is, drug activities that involve
experimentation. Obviously, we collect intelligence about drugs anddruo use in other countries, but there are no experimentations being
conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency, and I have had a special
check made because of another incident that was uncovered some years
ago about the unauthorized retention of some toxic materials at theCIA. I have had an actual inspection made of the storage places andthe certification from the people in charge of those that there are nosuch chemical biological materials present in our keeping, and I haveissued express orders that that shall not be the case.
Beyond that, I have to rely in large measure on my sense of command and direction of the people and their knowledge of the attitude
I have just expressed to you in this regard.
Senator KENNEDY. I think that is very commendable.
Admiral TURNER. Thank you, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. I think it is important that the American people
understand that.

17
You know, much of the research which is our area of interest thatof acwas being done by the Agency and the whole involved sequence
in a
done
been
have
could
convinced
am
I
Agency,thebydone
tivities
InstiNational
theofprograms
legitimate way through the researchtutes of Mental Health, other sponsored activities. I mean, that is someother question, but I think you went to an awful lot of trouble, wherethese things could have been.
Let me ask you specifically, on the followup of MKULTRA, arethere now-I think you have answered, but I want to get a complete
answer about any experimentations that are being done on human beings., whether it is drugs or behavioral alterations or patterns or any
support, either directly or indirectly, being provided by the Agency interms of any experimentation on human beings.
Admiral TURNER. There is no experimentation with drugs on humanbeings, witting or unwitting, being conducted in any way.
Senator KENNEDY. All right. Or being supported indirectly? I mean,
are you contracted out?
Admiral TURNER. Or being in any way supported.
Senator KENNEDY. All right. How about the nondrug experimentation our Committee has seen-psychosurgery, for example, or psychological research?
Admiral TURNER. We are continually involved in what we call assessment of behavior. For instance, we are trying to continually improve our polygraph procedures to, you know, assess whether a person
is lying or not. This does not involve any tampering with the individnal body. This involves studying records of people's behavior under
different circumstances, and so on, but it is not an experimental thing.
Have I described that accurately, Al?
Mr. BRODY. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, it is limited to those areas?
Admiral TURNER. Yes; it does not involve attempting to modify behavior. It only involves studying behavior conditions, but not trying
to actively modify it, as was one of the objectives of MKULTRA.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, we are scarce on time, but I am interested
in the other areas besides polygraph where you are doing it. Maybe
you can either respond now or submit it for the record, if you would dothat. Would you provide that for the record?
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
[The material on psychological assessments follows:]
Psychological assessments are performed as a service to officers in the operations directorate who recruit and/or handle agents. Except for people involvedin training courses, the subjects of the assessments are foreign nationals. The
assessments are generally done to determine the most successful tactic to persuade
the subject to accept covert employment by the CIA, and to make an appraisal of
his reliability and truthfulness.
A majority of the work is done by a staff of trained psychologists, some ofwhom are stationed overseas. The assessments they do may be either direct orindirect. Direct assessments involve a personal interview of the subject by thepsychologist. When possible the subject is asked to complete a formal "intelligence test" which is actually a disguised psychological test. Individuals being
assessed are not given drugs, nor are they subjected to physical harassment or
torture. When operating conditions are such that a face-to-face interview is notpossible, the psychologist may do an indirect assessment, using as source materials descriptions of the subject by others, interviews with people who know
him, specimens of his writings, etc.

The other psychological assessments involve handwriting analysis or graphological assessment. The work is done by a pair of trained graphologists, assisted
by a small number of measurement technicians. They generally require at leasta page of handwritten script by the subject. Measurements are made of about
30 different writing characteristics, and these are charted and furnished to thegraphologist for assessments.
The psychologists also give courses in psychological assessment to group of
operations officers, to sharpen their own capabilities to size up people. As part of
the training course, the instructor does a psychological assessment of each
student. The students are witting participants, and results are discussed withthem.
It is important to reiterate that psychological assessments are only a service
to the operations officers. In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of theoperations officer to decide how a potential agent should be approached, or to
make a judgement as to whether any agent is telling the truth.

Admiral TURNER. The kind of thing we are interested in is, what
will motivate a man to become an agent of the United States in a difficult situation. We have to be familiar with that kind of attitudinal
response that we can expect from people we approach to for one reason
or another become our spies, but I will be happy to submit a very
specific listing of these.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you do that for the committee?
In the followups, in the MKSEARCH, in the OFTEN, and theCHICKWIT, could you give us also a report on those particular
programs?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Did they involve experimentation, humanexperimentation?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. None of them?
Admiral TURNER. Let me say this, that CHICKWIT program is thecode name for the CIA participation in what was basically a Department of Defense program. This program was summarized and reported to the Church committee, to the Congress, and I have since they
have been rementioned in the press in the last 2 days here, I have not
had time to go through and personally review them. I have ascertainedthat all of the files that we had and made available before are intact,
and I have put a special order out that nobody will enter those files
or in any way touch them without my permission at this point, butthey are in the Retired Records Center outside of Washington, andthey are available.
I am not prepared to give you full details on it, because I simply
haven't read into that part of our history, but in addition I would suggest when we want to get into that we should get the Department of
Defense in with us.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you will supply that information to theIntelligence Committee, the relevant, I mean, the health aspects, obviously, and the research we are interested in?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Will you let us know, Admiral Turner?
Admiral TURNER. I will be happy to.
[See p. 169 for the material referred to.]Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. I am running out of time. Do you
support the extension of the protection of human subjects legislation
to include the CIA and the DOD? You commented favorably on that

before, and I am hopeful we can get that on the calendar early in
September, and that is our strong interest.
Admiral TURNER. The CIA certainly has no objection to that proposed legislation, sir. It is not my role in the administration to be thesupporter of it or the endorser of it.
Senator KENNEDY. As a personal matter, since you have reviewed
these subjects, would you comment? I know it is maybe unusual, but
you can understand what we are attempting to do.
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. From your own experience in the agency, you
can understand the value of it.
Just finally, in your own testimony now with this additional information, it seems quite apparent to me that you can reconstruct in very
careful detail this whole project in terms of the responsible CIA
officials for the program. You have so indicated in your testimony.
Now with the additional information, and the people, that have been
revealed in the examination of the documents, it seems to be pretty
clear that you can track that whole program in very careful detail,and I would hope, you know, that you would want to get to the bottomof it, as the Congress does as well. I will come back to that in my next
round. Thank you very much.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Goldwater?
Senator GOLDWATER. I have no questions.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Schweiker?
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, I would like to go back to your testimony on page12, where you discuss the contribution to the building fund of a
private medical institution. You state, "Indeed, it was mentioned in a1957 Inspector General report on the Technical Service Division ofCIA, pertinent portions of which had been reviewed by the Churchcommittee staff." I would like to have you consider this question very
carefully. I served as a member of the original Church committee.
My staffer did a lot of the work that you are referring to here. He
made notes on the IG's report. My question to you is, are you sayingthat the section that specifically delineates an improper contribution
was in fact given to the Church committee staff to see?
Admiral TURNER. The answer to your question is "Yes." The information that a contribution had been made was made available, to thebest of my knowledge.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Only certain sections of the report were madeavailable. The report had to be reviewed out at Langley; it was notreviewed here, and copies were not given to us here. I just want you tocarefully consider what you are saying, because the only record wehave are the notes that the staff took on anything that was ofsignificance.
Admiral TURNER. My understanding was that Mr. Maxwell was

shown the relevant portion of this report that disclosed that the contribution had been made.
Senator SCHWEIKER. To follow this up further, I'd like to say that
I think there was a serious flaw in the way that the IG report washandled and the Church committee was limited. I am not making any
accusations, but because of limited access to the report, we have a situ-

ation where it is not even clear whether we actually saw that material
or not, simply because we could not keep a copy of the report under
the procedures we had to follow. We were limited by notetaking, andso it is rather ambiguous as to just what was seen and what was notseen. I certainly hope that the new Intelligence Committee will not
be bound by procedures that so restrict its ability to exercise effective
oversight.
I have a second question. Does it concern you, Admiral, that we used
a subterfuge which resulted in the use of Federal construction grant
funds to finance facilities for these sorts of experiments on our own
people? Because as I understand what you are saying, while the CIA
maybe only put up $375,000, this triggered a response on the part of
the Federal Government to provide on a good faith basis matching
hospital funds at the same level. We put up more than $1 million ofmatching funds, some based on an allegedly private donation which
was really CIA money.
Isn't there something basically wrong with that?
Admiral TURNER. I certainly believe there is. As I stated, the General Counsel of the CIA at that time rendered a legal opinion that
this was a legal undertaking, and again I am hesitant to go back andrevisit the atmosphere, the laws, the attitudes at that time, so whether
the counsel was on good legal ground or not, I am not enough of alawyer to be sure, but it certainly would occur to me if it happened
today as a very questionable activity.
Senator SCH1WEIKER. Well, I think those of us who worked on andamended the Hill-Burton Act and other hospital construction assistance laws over the years, would have a rather different opinion on
the legal intent or object of Congress in passing laws to provide hospital construction project money. These funds weren't intended for
this.
It reminds me a little bit of the shellfish toxin situation which turned
up when I was on the Church committee. The Public Health Service
was used to produce a deadly poison with Public Health money. Here
we are using general hospital construction money to carry on a series ofdrug experiments.
Admiral TURNER. Excuse me, sir. If I could just be, I think, accurate, I don't think any of this $375,000 or the matching funds wereused to conduct drug experiments. They were used to build the hospital. Now, the CIA then put more money into a foundation that was
conducting research on the CIA's behalf supposedly in that hospital, so
the intent was certainly there, but the money was not used forexperimentation.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I understand it was used for bricks andmortar, but the bricks were used to build the facility where the experiments were carried on; were they not?
Admiral TURNER. We do not have positive evidence that they were.
It certainly would seem that that was the intent, but I do not want todraw inferences hereSenator SCHWEIKER. Well, why else would they give this money forthe building fund if the building was not used for a purpose that
benefited the CIA program?
Admiral TURNER. I certainly draw the inference that the CIA
expected to benefit from it, and some of the wording says the General

Counsel's opinion was that this was legal only if the CIA was going
to derive adequate benefit from it, but, sir, there is no evidence of what
benefit was derived.
Senator ScHW-EIKER. There must have been some pretty good benefits
at stake. The Atomic Energy Commission was to bear a share of thecost, and when they backed out for some reason or another, the CIA
picked up part of their tab. So, at two different points there wereindications that CIA decisionmakers thought there was great benefit
to be derived from whatever happened within the brick and mortar
walls of that facility.
Admiral TURNER. You are absolutely right. I am only taking theposition that I cannot substantiate that there was benefit derived.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The agreement documents say that the CIA
would have access to one-sixth of the space involved in the constructionof the wing, so how would you enter into an agreement that specificallysays that you will have access to and use of one-sixth of the space andnot perform something in that space? I cannot believe it was empty.
Admiral TURNER. Sir, I am not disputing you at all, but both of us
are saying that the inference is that one-sixth of the space was used,that experimentation was done, and so on, but there is no factual evidence of what went on as a result of that payment or what went on inthat hospital. It is just missing. It is not that it didn't happen.
Senator SCHTWEIKER. Admiral Turner, one other
Senator KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield on that point?
Senator SCHWEIKEu. I understand that in the agency's documentson the agreement it was explicitly stated that one-sixth of the facility
would be designated for CIA use and made available for CIA research. Are you familiarMr. BnoDY. Senator, as I recall, you are right in that there is a mention of one-sixth, but any mention at all has to do with planning. There
are no subsequent reports as to what happened after the construction
took place.
Senator SCIWKEnR. Admiral Turner, I read in the New York Times
that part of this series of MKULTRA experiments involved an arrangement with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to test LSD surreptitiously on unwitting patrons in bars in New York and San
Francisco. Some of the subjects became violently ill and were hospitalized. I wonder if you would just briefly describe what we were
doing there and how it was carried out? I assume it was through a safe
house operation. I don't believe your statement went into much detail.
Admiral TURNER. I did mention the safe house operation in mystatement, sir, and that is how these were carried out. What we havelearned from the new documentation is the location and the dates atwhich the safe houses were run by the CIA and the identification of
three individuals who were associated with running those safe houses.
We know something about the construction work that was done inthem because there were contracts for this. Beyond that, we are prettymuch drawing inferences as to the things that went on as to what you
are saying here.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, the subjects were unwitting. You caninfer that much, right?
Admiral TURNER. Right.

Senator SCHWEIKER. If you happened to be at the wrong bar at thewrong place and time, you got it.
Mr. BRODY. Senator, that would be-contacts were made, as weunderstand it, in bars, et cetera, and then the people may have been
invited to these safe houses. There really isn't any indication as tothe fact that this took place in the bars.
Admiral TURNER. We are trying to be very precise with you, sir, andnot draw an inference here. There are 6 cases of these 149 where wehave enough evidence in this new documentation to substantiate that
there was unwitting testing and some of that involves these safe
houses. There are other cases where it is ambiguous as to whether thetesting was witting or voluntary. There are others where it was clearlyvoluntary.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Of course, after a few drinks, it is questionable
whether informed consent means anything to a- person in a bar
anyway.
Admiral TURNER. Well, we don't have any indication that all thesecases where it is ambiguous involved drinking of any kind. There arecases in penal institutions where it is not clear whether the prisoner
was given a choice or not. I don't know that he wasn't given a choice,but I don't positively know that he was, and I classify that as an
ambiguous incident.
Senator INoUYE. Your time is up, Senator.
Senator Huddleston?
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, you stated in your testimony that you are convinced there was no attempt to conceal this recently discovered documentation during the earlier searches. Did you question the individuals connected with the earlier search before you made that judgment?
Admiral TURNER. Yes; I haven't, I don't think, questioned everybody who looked in the files or is still on our payroll who looked in
the files back in 1975, but Mr. Laubinger on my left is the best authority on this, and I have gone over it with him in some detail.
Senator HUDDLESTON. But you have inquired, you think, sufficiently
to assure yourself that there was no intent on the part of any person
to conceal these records from the previous committee?
Admiral TURNER. I am persuaded of that both by my questioningof people and by the circumstances and the way in which these documents were filed, by the fact. which I did not and should have mentioned in my testimony, that these were not the official files. The ones
that we have received or retrieved were copies of files that were working files that somebody had used, and therefore were slipped into a
different location, and again I say to you, sir, I can't imagine theirdeliberately concealing these particular files and revealing the otherthings that they did reveal in 1975. I don't see the motive for that,
because these are not that damning compared with the overall material
that was provided.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Is this the kind of operation that if it were
continuing now or if there were anything similar to it, that you would
feel compelled to report to the Select Committee on Intelligence?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. You mean, if I discovered that something like this were going on without my knowledge? Yes, I would
feel absolutely the requirement to-Senator HUDDLESTON. But if it were going on with your knowledge,
would you report it to the committee? I assume you would.
Admiral TURNER. Yes. Well, it would not be going on with myknowledge, but theoretically the answer is yes, sir.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Well, then, what suggestions would you haveas we devise charters for the various intelligence agencies? What
provision would you suggest to prohibit this kind of activity fromtaking place? Would you suggest that it ought to be specifically outlined in a statutory charter setting out the parameters of the permissible operation of the various agencies?
Admiral TURNER. I think that certainly is something we must consider as we look at the legislation for charters. I am not on the faceof it opposed to it. I think we would have to look at the particularwording as we are going to have to deal with the whole charter issue
as to exactly how precise you want to be in delineating restraints andcurbs on the intelligence activities.
Senator HUDDLESTON. In the case of sensitive type operations, which
this certainly was, which might be going on today, is the oversightactivity of the agency more intensive now than it was at that time?
Admiral TURNER. Much more so. I mean, I have briefed you, sir,and the committee on our sensitive operations. We have the Intelligence Oversight Board. We have a procedure in the National Security Council for approval of very sensitive operations. I think theamount of spotlight focused on these activities is many, manyfold
what it was in these 12 to 24 years ago.
Senator HUDDLESTON. How about the record keeping?
Admiral TURNER. Yes; I can't imagine anyone having the gall tothink that he can just blithely destroy records today with all of theattention that has come to this, and certainly we are emphasizing thatthat is not the case.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Admiral, I was particularly interested in theactivity that took place at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at
Lexington, Ky., in which a Dr. Harris Isbell conducted experimentson people who were presumably patients there. There was a narcotics
institution, I take it, and Dr. Isbell was, according to the New YorkTimes story, carrying on a secret series of correspondence with anindividual at the agency by the name of Ray. Have you identified whothat person is?
Admiral TURNER. Sir, I find myself in a difficult position here ata public hearing to confirm or deny these names in view of my legal
responsibilities under the Privacy Act not to disclose the names ofindividuals here.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I am just. asking you if you have identified
the person referred to in that article as Ray. I am not asking you who
he was. I just want to know if you know who he is.
Admiral TURNER. No. I am sorry, was this W-r-a-y or R-a-y?
Senator HUDDLESTON. It is listed in the news article as R-a-y, in
quotations.
Admiral TURNER. No, sir, we have not identified him.
Senator HUDDLESTON. So you have no knowledge of whether or
not he is still a member of your staff or connected with the Agency in
any way. Have you attempted to identify him?

[Pause.]Admiral TURNER. Senator, we have a former employee whose
first
name is Ray who may have had some connection with these
activities.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You suspect that but you have notverifiedthat at this time, or at least you are not in a position to indicatethat
you have verified it?
Admiral TURNER. That is correct.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Wallopi?
Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, not all of the-and in no way trying to excuse
you of the hideous nature of some of these projects, but not all of the
projects under MKULTRA are of a sinister or even a moral nature.
Is that a fair statement?
Admiral TURNER. That is correct.
Senator WALLOP. Looking down through some of these 17 projects
not involving human testing, aspects of the magician's art, it doesn't
seem as though there is anything very sinister about that. Studies ofhuman behavior and sleep research, library searches. Now, those
things in their way are still of interest, are they not, to the processof intelligence gathering?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. I have not tried to indicate that weeither are not doing or would not do any of the things that wereinvolved in MKULTRA, but when it comes to the witting or unwitting
testing of people with drugs, that is certainly verboten, but there areother things.
Senator WALLOP. Even with volunteer patients? I mean, I am nottrying to put you on the spot to say whether it is going on, but I mean,
it is not an uncommon thing, is it, in the prisons of the United States
for the Public Health Service to conduct various kinds of experimentswith vaccines and, say, sunburn creams? I know in Arizona they havedone so.
Admiral TURNER. My understanding is, lots of that is authorized.
but I am not of the opinion that this is not the CIA's business, andthat if we need some information in that category, I would preferto go to the other a'ppropriate authorities of the Government and ask
them to get it for us r-ther than to in any waySenator WALLOP. Well, you know, you have library searches and attendants at the national seminars. This is why I wanted to ask you if
the bulk of these projects were in any way the kinds of things that the
Agency might not do now. A President would not have been horrified
by the list of the legitimate types of things. Isn't that probably thecase?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator WALLOP. And if it did in fact appear in the IG report, isthere any reason to suppose that the President did not know of thisproject? You said there was no reason to suppose that he did, but letme reverse that. Is there any reason to suppose that they did not?
Admiral TURNER. No.
Senator WALLOP. Well, you know, I just cannot imagine you orliterally anybody undertaking projects of the magnitude of dollars
here and just not knowing about it, not informing your superior that

these were going on, especially when certain items of it appear in the
Inspector General's report on budget matters.
Admiral TURNER. Well, I find it difficult when it is that far back tohypothesize what the procedures that the Director was using in termsof informing his superiors were. It is quite a different climate fromtoday, and I think we do a lot more informing today than they did
back then, but I find it very difficult to guess what the level of knowledge was.
Senator WALLOP. I am really not asking you to second-guess it, but
it just seems to me that, while the past is past, and thank goodness weare operating under different sets of circumstances, I think it is naive
for us to suppose that these things were conducted entirely without theknowledge of the Presidents of the United States during those times.
It is just the kinds of research information that was being sought wasvital to the United States, not the means, but the information that they
were trying to find.
Admiral TURNER. I am sorry. Your question is, was this vital? Did
we view it as vital?
Senator WALLOP. Well, your implication at the beginning was that
it was a response to the kinds of behavior that were seen in Cardinal
Mindszenty's trial and other things. I mean, somebody must havethought that this was an important defensive reaction, if nothing else,on the part of the United States.
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir, I am sure they did, but again I just don't
know how high that -permeatedthe executive branch.
Senator WALLOP. But the kinds of information are still important
to you. I mean, I am not suggesting that anyone go back and do thatkind of thing again, but I'm certain it would be of use to you to knowwhat was going to -happen to one of your agents assuming someone had
put one of these things into his bloodstream, or tried to modify his
behavior.
Admiral TURNER. Absolutely, and you know, we would be very concerned if we thought there were things like truth serums or otherthings that our agents or others could be subjected to by use or improper use of drugs by other powers against our people or agents.
Senator WALLOP. Are there? I don't ask you to name them, but are
there such serums?
Admiral TURNER. I don't know of them if there are. I would have toanswer that for the record, sir.
Senator WALLOP. I would appreciate that.
[The material referred to follows:]"TRUTH"DRUGS IN INTERROGATIONThe search for effective aids to interrogation is probably as old as man's need
to obtain information from an uncooperative source and as persistent as his
impatience to shortcut any tortuous path. In the annals of police investigation,
physical coercion has at times been substituted for painstaking and time-consuming inquiry in the belief that direct methods produce quick results. Sir James
Stephens, writing in 1883, rationalizes a grisly example of "third degree" practices by the police of India : "It is far pleasanter to sit comfortably in the shaderubbing red pepper in a poor devil's eyes than to go about in the sun hunting up
evidence."
More recently, police officials in some countries have turned to drugs for assistance in extracting confessions from accused persons, drugs which ara esumed

26
to relax the individual's defenses to the point that he unknowingly reveals truthiS
humanitarianhe has been trying to conceal. This investigative technique, however of individual
as an alternative to p~hysical torture, still raises serious questions
only marginalrights and liberties. In this country, where drugs have ofgained"psychological third
acceptance in police work, their use has provoked cries that after a quarter ofdegree" and has precipitated medico-legal controversies
a century still occasionally flare into the open.
accepted
The use of so-called "truth" drugs in police work is similar to thein the two procedures lies
psychiatric practice of narco-analysis; the difference.is concerned with empiricalin their different objectives. The police investigator
truth that may be used against the suspect, and therefore almost solely withultimately on
probative truth: the usefulness of the suspect's revelations depends
their acceptance in evidence by a court of law. The psychiatist, on the other hand,mentally ill, isusing the same "truth" drugs in diagnosis and treatment of thereality rather than
primarily concerned with psychological truth or psychologicalthe time they occur,
empirical fact. A patient's aberrations are reality for him at rather
than reliable
and an accurate account of these fantasies and delusions,recollection of past events, can be the key to recovery.
The notion of drugs capable of illuminating hidden recesses of the mind, helpof justice,ing to heal the mentally ill and preventing or reversing the miscarriage
literature.
has provided an exceedingly durable theme for the press and popular
While acknowledging that "truth serum" is a misnomer twice over-the drugs
are not sera and they do not necessarily bring forth probative truth-journalistic
accounts continue to exploit the appeal of the term. The formula is to play up
a few spectacular "truth" drug successess and to imply that the drugs are moremaligned than need be and more widely employed in criminal investigation thancan officially be admitted.
Any technique that promises an increment of success in extracting informationfrom an uncompliant source is ipso facto of interest in intelligence operations.
If the ethical considerations which in Western countries inhibit the use of narcointerrogation in police work are felt also in intelligence, the Western services
must at least be prepared against its possible employment by the adversary. An
understanding of "truth" drugs, their characteristic actions, and their potentialities, positive and negative, for eliciting useful information is fundamental to an
adequate defense against them.
This discussion, meant to help toward such an understanding, draws primarily
upon openly published materials. It has the limitations of projecting from criminal investigative practices and from the permissive atmosphere of drug psychotherapy.
SCOPOLAMINE

AS "TRUTH SERUM"

Early in this century physicians began to employ scopolamine, along withmorphine and chloroform, to induce a state of "twilight sleep" during childbirth.
A constituent of henbane, scopolamine was known to produce sedation and drowsiness, confusion and disorientation, incoordination, and amnesia for events experienced during intoxication. Yet physicians noted that women in twilight sleep
answered questions accurately and often volunteered exceedingly candid remarks.
In 1922 it occurred to Robert House, a Dallas, Texas obstetrician, that a similar
technique might be employed in the interrogation of suspected criminals, and hearranged to interview under scopolamine two. prisoners in the Dallas county
jail whose guilt seemed clearly confirmed. Under the drug, both men denied thecharges on which they were held; and both, upon trial, were found not guilty.
Enthusiastic at this success, House concluded that a patient under the influenceof scopolamine "cannot create a lie . . . and there is no power to think or reason." [14] His experiment and this conclusion attracted wide attention, and theidea of a "truth" drug was thus launched upon the public consciousness.
The phrase "truth serum" is believed to have appeared first in a news -reportof House's experiment in the Los Angeles Record, sometime in 1922. House resisted
the term for a while but eventually came to employ it regularly himself. He published some eleven articles on scopolamine in the years 1921-1929, with a noticeable increase in polemical zeal as time went on. What had begun as somethingof a scientific statement turned finally into a dedicated crusade by the "father oftruth serum" on behalf of his offspring, wherein he was "grossly indulgent of its
wayward behavior and stubbornly proud of its minor achievements." [11]

Only a handful of cases in which scopolamine was used for police interrogation came to public notice, though there is evidence suggesting that some police
forces may have used it extensively. [2, 16] One police writer claims that thethreat of scopolamine interrogation has been effective in extracting confessions
from criminal suspects, who are told they will first be rendered unconscious bychloral hydrate placed covertly in their coffee or drinking water.[16]Because of a number of undesirable side effects, scopolamine was shortly disqualified as a "truth" drug. Among the most disabling of the side effects arehallucinations, disturbed perception, somnolence, and physiological phenomena
such as headache, rapid heart, and blurred vision, which distract the subject fromthe central purpose of the interview. Furthermore, the physical action is long, faroutlasting the psychological effects. Scopolamine continues, in some cases, to makeanesthesia and surgery safer by drying the mouth and throat and reducing secretions that might obstruct the air passages. But the fantastically, almost painfully,
dry "desert" mouth brought on by the drug is hardly conducive to free talking,even in a tractable subject.
THE BARBITURATESThe first suggestion that drugs might facilitate communication with emotionally disturbed patients came quite by accident in 1916. Arthur S. Lovenhart
and his associates at the University of Wisconsin, experimenting with respiratory
stimulants, were surprised when, after an injection of sodium cyanide, a catatonic
patient who had long been mute and rigid suddenly relaxed, opened his eyes, andeven answered a few questions. By the early 1930's a number of psychiatrists
were experimenting with drugs as an adjunct to established methods of therapy.
At about this time police officials, still attracted by the possibility that drugs
migh help in the interrogation of suspects and witnesses, turned to a class ofdepressant drugs known as the barbiturates. By 1935 Clarence W. Muehlberger,
head of the Michigan Crime Detection Laboratory at East Lansing, Was usingbarbiturates on reluctant suspects, though police work continued to be hamperedby the courts' rejection of drug-induced confessions except in a few carefully
circumscribed instances.
The barbiturates, first synthesized in 1903, are among the oldest of modern
drugs and the most versatile of all depressants. In this half-century some 2,500
have been prepared, and about two dozen of these have won an important placein medicine. An estimated three to four billion doses of barbiturates are prescribed by physicians in the United States each year, and they have come to be
known by a variety of commercial names and colorful slang expressions: "goofballs," Luminal, Nembutal, "red devils." "yellow jackets." "pink ladies," etc.
Three of them which are used in narcoanalysis and have seen service as "truth"
drugs are sodium amytal (amobarbital), pentothal sodium (thiopental), and to alesser extent seconal (secobarbital).
As one pharmacologist explains it, a subject coming under the Influence of abarbiturate injected intravenously goes through all the stages of progressive
drunkenness, but the time scale is on the order of minutes instead of hours.
Outwardly the sedation effect is dramatic, especially if the subject is a psychiatricpatient in tension. His features slacken, his body relaxes. Some people are
momentarily excited; a few beocme silly and giggly. This usually passes, andmost subjects fall asleep, emerging later in disoriented semi-wakefulness.
The descent into narcosis and beyond with progressively larger doses can bedivided as follows:
I. Sedative stage.
II. Unconsciousness, with exaggerated reflexes (hyperactive stage).
III. Unconsciousness, without reflex even to painful stimuli.
IV. Death.
Whether all these stages can be distinguished in any given subject depends
largely on the dose and the rapidity with which the drug is induced. In
anesthesia, stages I and II may last only two or three seconds.
The first or sedative stage can be further divided:
Plane 1. No evident effect, or slight sedative effect.
Plane 2. Cloudiness, calmness, amnesia. (Upon recovery, the subject will
not remember what happened at this or "lower" planes or stages.)
Plane 3. Slurred speech, old thought patterns disrupted, inability to integrate or learn new patterns. Poor coordination. Subject becomes unawareof paniful stimuli.

Plane 3 is the psychiatric "work" stage. It may last only a few minutes, but
it can be extended by further slow injection of drug. The usual practice is tobring the subject quickly to Stage II and to conduct the interview as he passes
back into the sedative stage on the way to full consciousness.
CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIESThe general abhorrence in Western countries for the use of chemical agents"to make people do things against their will" has precluded serious systematic
study (at least as published openly) of the potentialities of drugs for interrogation. Louis A. Gottschalk, surveying their use in information-seeking interviews, [13] cites 136 references; but only two touch upon the extraction ofIntelligence information, and one of these concludes merely that Russian techniques in interrogation and indoctrination are derived from age-old police
methods and do not depend on the use of drugs. On the validity of confessions
obtained with drugs, Gottschalk found only three published experimental studies.that he deemed worth reporting.
One of these reported experiments by D. P. Morris in which intravenous sodium
amytal was helpful in detecting malingerers. [12] The subjects, soldiers, wereat first sullen,.negativistic, and non-productive under amytal, but as the interview proceeded they revealed the fact of and causes for their malingering. Usually
the interviews turned up a neurotic or psychotic basis for the deception.
The other two confession studies, being more relevant to the highly specialized, untouched area of drugs in intelligence interrogation, deserve more detailed
review.
Gerson and Victoroff [12] conducted amytal interviews with 17 neuropsychiatricpatients, soldiers who had charges against them, at Tilton General Hospital,
Fort Dix. First they were interviewed without amytal by a psychiatrist, who,
neither ignoring nor stressing their situation as prisoners or suspects under
scrutiny, urged each of them to discuss his social and family background, hisarmy career, and his version of the charges pending against him.

The patients were told only a few minutes in advance that narcoanalysis would
be performed. The doctor was considerate, but positive and forthright. He indicated that they had no choice but to submit to the procedure. Their attitudes
varied from unquestioning compliance to downright refusal.
Each patient was brought to complete narcosis and permitted to sleep. As he
became semiconscious and could be stimulated to speak, he was held in this stage
with additional amytal while the questioning proceeded. He was questioned
first about innocuous matters from his background that he had discussed before
receiving the drug. Whenever possible, he was manipulated into bringing up
himself the charges pending against him before being questioned about them.
If he did this in a too fully conscious state, it proved more effective to ask him
to "talk about that later" and to interpose a topic that would diminish suspicion,delaying the interrogation on his criminal activity until he was back in theproper stage of narcosis.
The procedure differed from therapeutic narcoanalysis in several ways: thesetting, the type of patients, and the kind of "truth" sought. Also, the subjects
were kept in twilight consciousness longer than usual. This state proved richestin yield of admissions prejudicial to the subject. In it his speech was thick,mumbling, and disconnected, but his discretion was markedly reduced. This valuable interrogation period, lasting only five to ten minutes at a time, could bereinduced by injecting more amytal and putting the patient back to sleep.
The interrogation technique varied from case to case according to backgroundinformation about the patient, the seriousness of the charges, the patient's attitude under narcosis, and his rapport with the doctor. Sometimes it was useful topretend, as the patient grew more fully conscious, that he had already confessed
during the amnestic period of the interrogation, and to urge him, while his memory and sense of self-protection were still limited, to continue to elaborate thedetails of what he had "already described." When it was obvious that a subject
was withholding the truth, his denials were quickly passed over and ignored,
and the key questions would be reworded in a new approach.

Several patients revealed fantasies, fears, and delusions approaching delirium,

much of which could readily be distinguished from reality. But sometimes there
was no way for the examiner to distinguish truth from fantasy except by reference to other sources. One subject claimed to have a child that did not exist,

29
another threatened to kill on sight a stepfather who had been dead a year, andyet another confessed to participating in a robbery when in fact he had only
purchased goods from the participants. Testimony concerning dates and specificplaces was untrustworthy and often contradictory because of the patient's lossof time-sense. His veracity in citing names and events proved questionable. Because of his confusion about actual events and what he thought or feared had
happened, the patient at times managed to conceal the truth unintentionally.
As the subject revived, he would become aware that he was being questioned
about his secrets and, depending upon his personality, his fear of discovery, or
the degree of his disillusionment with the doctor, grow negativistic, hostile, or
physically aggressive. Occasionally patients had to be forcibly restrained during
this period to prevent injury to themselves or others as the doctor continued tointerrogate. Some patients, moved by fierce and diffuse anger, the assumptionthat they had already been tricked into confessing, and a still limited sense of
discretion, defiantly acknowledged their guilt and challenged the observer to"do something about it." As the excitement passed, some fell back on their original stories and others verified the confessed material. During the follow-up
interview nine of the 17 admitted the validity of their confessions; eight repudiated their confessions and reaffirmed their earlier accounts.
With respect to the reliability of the results of such interrogation, Gerson
and Victoroff conclude that persistent, careful questioning can reduce ambiguities in drug interrogation, but cannot eliminate them altogether.
At least one experiment has shown that subjects are capable of maintaining alie while under the influence of a barbiturate. Redlich and his associates at
Yale[25] administered sodium amytal to nine volunteers, students and professionals, who had previously, for purposes of the experiment, revealed shamefuland guilt-producing episodes of their past and then invented false self-protective
stories to cover them. In nearly every case the cover story retained some elements of the guilt inherent in the true story.
Under the influence of the drug, the subjects were crossexamined on theircover stories by a second investigator. The results, though not definitive, showedthat normal individuals who had good defenses and no overt pathological traits
could stick to their invented stories and refuse confession. Neurotic individuals
with strong unconscious self-punitive tendencies, on the other hand, both confessed more easily and were inclined to substitute fantasy for the truth, confessing to offenses never actually committed.
In recent years drug therapy has made some use of stimulants, most notably
amphetamine (Benzedrine) and its relative methamphetamine (Methedrine).
These drugs, used either alone or following intravenous barbiturates, produce
an outpouring of ideas, emotions, and memories which has been of help in diagnosing mental disorders. The potential of stimulants in interrogation has received little attention, unless in unpublished work. In one study of their psychiatric use Brussel et al. [7] maintain that methedrine gives the liar no time tothink or to organize his deceptions. Once the drug takes hold, they say, an insurmountable urge to pour out speech traps the malingerer. Gottschalk, on
the other hand, says that this claim is extravagant, asserting without elaboration that the study lacked proper controls. [13] It is evident that the combined
use of barbiturates and stimulants, perhaps along with ataraxics (tranquilizers),
should be further explored.
OBSERVATIONSFROMPRACTICE

J. M. MacDonald, who as a psychiatrist for the District Courts of Denverhas had extensive experience with narcoanalysis, says that drug interrogation
is of doubtful value in obtaining confessions to crimes. Criminal suspects under
the influence of barbiturates may deliberately withhold information, persist in
giving untruthful answers, or falsely confess to crimes they did not commit.
The psychopathic personality, in particular, appears to resist successfully the
influence of drugs.
MacDonald tells of a criminal psychopath who, having agreed to narco-interrogation, received 1.5 grams of sodium amytal over a period of five hours. Thisman feigned amnesia and gave a false account of a murder. "He displayed little
or no remorse as he (falsely) described the crime, including burial of the body.
Indeed he was very self-possessed and he appeared almost to enjoy the examination. From time to time he would request that more amytal be injected."[211MacDonald concludes that a person who gives false information prior to re-

96-408

0 - 77 - 3

30
ceiving drugs is likely to give false information also under narcosis, that thedrugs are of little value for revealing deceptions, and that they are more effective
in releasing unconsciously repressed material than in evoking consciously suppressed information.
Another psychiatrist known for his work with criminals, L. Z. Freedman,gave sodium amytal to men accused of various civil and military antisocial acts.
The subjects were mentally unstable, their conditions ranging from character
disorders to neuroses and psychoses. The drug interviews proved psychiatricallybeneficial to the patients, but Freedman found that his view of objective reality
was seldom improved by their revelations. He was unable to say on the basis of
the narco-interrogation whether a given act had or had not occurred. Like MacDonald, he found that psychopathic individuals can deny to the point of unconsciousness crimes that every objective sign indicates they have committed.[10]F. G. Inbau, Professor of Law at Northwestern University, who has had considerable experience observing and participating in "truth" drug tests, claims
that they are occasionally effective on persons who would have disclosed thetruth anyway had they been properly interrogated, but that a person determined to lie will usually be able to continue the deception under drugs.
The two military psychiatrists who made the most extensive use of narcoanalysis during the war years, Roy R. Grinker and John C. Spiegel, concluded thatin almost all cases they could obtain from their patients essentially the samematerial and give them the same emotional release by therapy without the useof drugs, provided they had sufficient time.
The essence of these comments from professionals of long experience is thatdrugs provide rapid access to information that is psychiatrically useful but of
doubtful validity as empirical truth. The same psychological information and aless adulterated empirical truth can be obtained from fully conscious subjects
through non-drug psychotherapy and skillful police interrogation.
APPLICATION TO CI INTERROGATION

The almost total absence of controlled experimental studies of "truth" drugs
and the spotty and anecdotal nature of psychiatric and police evidence requirethat extrapolations to intelligence operations be made with care. Still, enoughis known about the drugs' action to suggest certain considerations affecting thepossibilities for their use in interrogations.
It should be clear from the foregoing that at best a drug can only serve as
an aid to an interrogator who has a sure understanding of the psychology andtechniques of normal interrogation. In some respects, indeed, the demands on his
skill will be increased by the baffling mixture of truth and fantasy in drug-induced
output. And the tendency against which he must guard in the interrogate to givethe responses that seem to be wanted without regard for facts will be heightenedby drugs: the literature abounds with warnings that a subject in narcosis isextremely suggestible.
It seems possible that this suggestibility and the lowered guard of the narcotic
state might be put to advantage in the case of a subject feigning ignorance of alanguage or some other skill that had become automatic with him. Lipton[20]found sodium amytal helpful in determining whether a foreign subject was merely
pretending not to understand English. By extension, one can guess that a druggedinterrogatee might have difficulty maintaining the pretense that he did not comprehend the idiom of a profession he was trying to hide.
There is the further problem of hostility in the interrogator's relationship toa resistance source. The accumulated knowledege about "truth" drug reaction
has come largely from patient-physician relationships of trust and confidence.
The subject in narcoanalysis is usually motivated a priori to cooperate with thepsychiatrist, either to obtain relief from mental suffering or to contribute to ascientific study. Even in police work, where an atmosphere of anxiety and threat
may be dominant, a relationship of trust frequently asserts itself: the drug is
administered by a medical man bound by a strict code of ethics; the suspectagreeing to undergo narcoanalysis in a desperate bid for corroboration of his
testimony trusts both drug and psychiatrist, however apprehensively; and finally,as Freedman and MacDonald have indicated, the police psychiatrist frequently
deals with a "sick" criminal, and some order of patient-physician relationshipnecessarily evolves.

Rarely has a drug interrogation involved "normal" individuals in a hostileor genuinely threatening milieu. It was from a non-threatening experimental
setting that Eric Lindemann could say that his "normal" subjects "reported ageneral sense of euphoria, ease and confidence, and they exhibited a marked increase in talkativeness and conimunicability."[18] Gerson and Victoroff list poor
doctor-patient rapport as one factor interfering with the completeness and authenticity of confessions by the Fort Dix soldiers, caught as they were in acommand performance and told they had no choice but to submit to narcointerrogation.
From all indications, subject-interrogator rapport is usually crucial to obtaining the psychological release which may lead to unguarded disclosures. Role-playing on the part of the interrogator might be a possible solution to the problemof establishing rapport with a drugged subject. In therapy, the British narcoanalyst William Sargent recommends that the therapist deliberately distort thefacts of the patient's life-experience to achieve heightened emotional response
and abreaction.[27] In the drunken state of narcoanalysis patients are prone toaccept the therapist's false constructions. There is reason to expect that a drugged
subject would communicate freely with an interrogator playing the role of relative, colleague, physician, immediate superior, or any other person to whom his
background indicated he would be responsive.
Even when rapport is poor, however, there remains one facet of drug action
eminently exploitable in interrogation-the fact that subjects emerge fromnarcosis feeling they have revealed a great deal, even when they have not. As
Gerson and Victoroff demonstrated 'at Fort Dix, this psychological set provides amajor opening for obtaining genuine confessions.
POSSIBLE VARIATIONSIn studies by Beecher and his associates, [3-6] one-third to one-half theindividuals tested proved to be placebo reactors, subjects who respond withsymptomatic relief to the administration of any syringe, pill, or capsule, regardless of what it contains. Although no studies are known to have been made of theplacebo phenomenon as applied to narco-interrogation, it seems reasonable thatwhen a subject's sense of guilt interferes with productive interrogation, a placebo
for pseudo-narcosis could have the effect of absolving him of the responsibility
for his acts and thus clear the way for free communication. It is notable thatplacebos are most likely to be effective in situations of stress. The individuals
most likely to react to placebos are the more anxious, more self-centered, more
dependent on outside stimulation, those who express their needs more freely
socially, talkers who drain off anxiety by conversing with others. The nonreactors are those clinically more rigid and with better than average emotional
control. No sex or I.Q. differences between reactors and non-reactors have beenfound.
Another possibility might be the combined use of drugs with hypnotic trance
and post-hypnotic suggestion: hypnosis could presumably prevent any recollection of the drug experience. Whether a subject can be brought to trance against
his will or unaware, however, is a matter of some disagreement. Orne, in a surveyof the potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation,[23] asserts that it is doubtful, despite many apparent indications to the contrary, that trance can be induced
in resistant subjects. It may be possible, he adds, to hypnotize a subject unaware,
but this would require a positive relationship with the hypnotist not likely to
be found in the interrogation setting.
In medical hypnosis, pentothal sodium is sometimes employed when only lighttrance has been induced and deeper narcosis is desired. This procedure is apossibility for interrogation, but if a satisfactory level of narcosis could beachieved through hypnotic trance there would appear to be no need for drugs.
DEFENSIVE MEASURES

There is no known way of building tolerance for a "truth" drug without creating a disabling addiction, or of arresting the action of a barbiturate once induced.
The only full safeguard against narco-interrogation is to prevent the administration of the drug. Short of this, the best defense is to make use of the sameknowledge that suggests drugs for offensive operations: if a subject knows thaton emerging from narcosis he will have an exaggerated notion of how much hehas revealed he can better resolve to deny he has said anything.

32
The disadvantages and shortcomings of drugs in offensive operations become
positive features of the defense posture. A subject in narco-interrogation is
intoxicated, wavering between deep sleep and semi-wakefulness. His speech is
garbled and irrational, the amount of output drastically diminished. Drugs
disrupt established thought patterns, including the will to resist, but they do so
indiscriminately and thus also interfere with the patterns of substantive information the interrogator seeks. Even under the conditions most favorable forthe interrogator, output will be contaminated by fantasy, distortion, and untruth.
Possibly the most effective way to arm oneself against narco-interrogation
would be to undergo a "dry run." A trial drug interrogation with output tapedfor playback would familiarize an individual with his own reactions to "truth"
drugs, and this familiarity would help to reduce the effects of harassment by
the interrogator before and after the drug has been administered. From the viewpoint of the intelligence service, the trial exposure of a particular operative todrugs might provide a rough benchmark for assessing the kind and amount of
information he would divulge in narcosis.
There may be concern over the possibility of drug addiction intentionally or
accidentally induced by an adversary service. Most drugs will cause addiction
with prolonged use, and the barbiturates are no exception. In recent studies at
the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital for addicts in Lexington, Ky., subjects
received large doses of barbiturates over a period of months. Upon removal ofthe drug, they experienced acute withdrawal symptoms and behaved in every
respect like chronic alcoholics.
Because their action is extremely short, however, and because there is little
likelihood that they would be administered regularly over a prolonged period,
barbiturate "truth" drugs present slight risk of operational addiction. If theadversary service were intent on creating addiction in order to exploit withdrawal, it would have other, more rapid.means of producing states as unpleasant
as withdrawal symptoms.
The hallucinatory and psychotomimetic drugs such as mescaline, marihuana,
LSD-25, and microtine are sometimes mistakenly associated with narcoanalyticinterrogation. These drugs distort the perception and interpretation of the sensory input to the central nervous system and affect vision, audition, smell, thesensation of the size of body parts and their position in space, etc. Mescaline and
LSD-25 have been used to create experimental "psychotic states," and in aminor way as aids in psychotherapy.
Since information obtained from a person in a psychotic drug state would beunrealistic, bizarre, and extremely difficult to assess, the self-administration of
LSD-25, which is effective in minute dosages, might in special circumstances
offer an operative temporary protection against interrogation. Conceivably, on
the other hand, an adversary service could use such drugs to produce anxiety or
terror in medically unsophisticated subjects unable to distinguish drug-induced
psychosis from actual insanity. An enlightened operative could not be thus
frightened, however, knowing that the effect of these hallucinogenic agents istransient in normal individuals.
Most broadly, there is evidence that drugs have least effect on well-adjusted
individuals with good defenses and good emotional control, and that anyone who
can withstand the stress of competent interrogation in the waking state can doso in narcosis. The essential resources for resistance thus appear to lie within
the individual.
CONCLUSIONSThe salient points that emerge from this discussion are the following. No suchmagic brew as the popular notion of truth serum exists. The barbiturates, by
disrupting defensive patterns, may sometimes be helpful in interrogation, buteven under the best conditions they will elicit an output contaminated by deception, fantasy, garbled speech, etc. A major vulnerability they produce in the subject is a tendency to believe he has revealed more than he has. It is possible, however, for both normal individuals and psychopaths to resist drug interrogation;
it seems likely that any individual who can withstand ordinary intensive interrogation can hold out in narcosis. The best aid to a defense against narco-interrogation is foreknowledge of the process and its limitations. There is an acuteneed for controlled experimental studies of drug reaction, not only to depressantsbut also to stimulants and to combinations of depressants, stimulants, andataraxics.

33
REFERENCES

1. Adams, E. Barbiturates. Sci. Am., Jan. 1958,198 (1), 60-64.
2. Barkham, J. Truth Drugs: The new crime solver. Coronet, Jan. 1951, 29,
72-76.
3. Beecher, H. K. Anesthesia. Soi. Am., Jan. 1957, 198, p. 70.
4. Appraisal of drugs intended to alter subjective Tesponses, symptoms.
J. Amer. Med. Assn., 1955,158, 399-401.
5. . Evidence for increased effectiveness of placebos with increased
stress. Amer. J. Physiol., 1956.187, 163-169.
6. . Experimental pharmacology and measurement of the subjective
response. Science, 1953, 116. 157-162.
7. Brussel, J. A., Wilson, D. C., Jr., & Shankel, L. W. The use of methedrine inpsychiatric practice. Psychiat. Quart., 1954, 28, 381-394.
8. Delay, J. Pharmacologic explorations of the personality: narcoanalysis and"mnethedrine" shock. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., 1949, 42, 492-496.
9. deRopp, R. S. Drugs and the Mind. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1960.
10. Freedman. L. Z. "Truth" drugs. Sci. An., March 1960. 145-154.
11. Geis, G. In scopolamine veritas. The early history of drug-induced statenients. J. of Grin. Law, Criminal. & Pot. Sci., Nov.-Dec. 1959, 50(4), 347-358.
12. Gerson, M. J., & Victoroff, V. Experimental investigation into the validityof confessions obtained under sodium amytal narcosis. J. Clin. and Exp. Psychopath., 1948, 9, 359-375.
13. Gottschalk, L. A. The use of drugs in information-seeking interviews. Technical report #2, ARDC Study SR 177-D Contract AF 18 (600) 1797. Dec. 1958.
Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
14. House, R. E. The use of scopolamine in criminology. Texas St. J. of Med.,
1922, 18, 259.
15. Houston, F. A preliminary investigation into abreaction comparing methedrine and sodium amytal with other methods. J. Ment. Seo., 1952, 98. 707-710.
16. Inbau, F. G. Self-incrimination.Springfield: C. C. Thomas, 1950.
17. Kidd., W. R. Police interrogation.1940.
18. Legal dose of truth. Newsweek, Feb. 23, 1959, 28.
19. Lindemann, E. Psychological changes in normal and abnormal individuals
under the influence of sodium amytal. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1932, 11, 10&3-1091.
20. Lipton, E. L. The amytal interview. A review. Amer. Practit.Digest Treat.,
1950, 1, 148-163.
21. MacDonald, J. M. Narcoanalysis and criminal law. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1954,
111, 283-288.
22. Morris, D. P. Intravenous barbiturates: an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of conversion hysteria and malingering. Mil. Surg., 1945, 96, 509-513.
23. Orne, M. T. The potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation. An evaluation.
ARDC Study SR 177-D Contract AF 18(600) 1797, Dec. 1958. Bureau of Social
Science Research, Inc.
24. Pelikan, E. W., & Kensler, C. J. Sedatives: Their pharmacology and uses.
Reprint from The Medical Clinics of North America. W. B. Saunders Company,
Sept. 1958.
25. Redlich, F. C., Ravitz, L. J., & Dession, G. H. Narcoanalysis and truth.
Amer. J. Psychiat.,1951. 107, 586-593.
26. Rolin, J. Police Drugs. Translated by L. J. Bendit. New York: PhilosophicalLibrary, 1956.
27. Sargant, W., & Slater, E. Physical methods of treatment in psychiatry. (3rd.
ed.) Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1954.
28. Snider, R. S. Cerebellum. Sci. Am., Aug. 1958, 84.
29. Uhr, L., & Miller, L. G. (eds.). Drugs and Behavior. New York-London:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960.

Senator WALLOP. If they are, I would assume that you would still
try to find from either theirs or somebody else's information how toprotect our people from that kind of activity.
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
Senator WALLOP. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Chafee?
Senator CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Turner, I appreciate that these tawdry activities were taking place long before your watch, and I think you have correctly
labeled them as abhorrent, 'but not only were they abhorrent, it seems
to me they were rather bungled, amateurish experiments that don'tseem to have been handled in a very scientific way, at least from thescanty evidence we have.
It seems to me that there were the minimum of reports and the
Agency didn't have the ability to call it quits. It went on for some 12
years, as you mentioned. What I would like to get to is, are you convinced now in your Agency that those scientific experiments, legitimate ones that you were conducting with polygraph and so forth, werebeing conducted in a scientific manner and that you are handling it ina correct manner to get the best information that you are seeking in
the end?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, I am, and I also have a sense of confidence
that we are limiting ourselves to the areas where we need to be involved as opposed to areas where we can rely on others.
Senator CHAFEE. I am convinced of that from your report. I just dohope that you have people who are trained in not only handling thistype of experiment, but in preparing the proper reports and drawing
the proper data from the reports. You are convinced that you havethis type of people?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator CHAFEE. The second point I am interested in was the final
lines in your testimony here, which I believe are very important, andthat is that the Agency is doing all it can in cooperation with otherbranches of the Government to go about tracking down the identity of
those who were in some way adversely affected, and see what can bedone to fulfill the government's responsibilities in that respect. I might
add that I commend you in that, and I hope you will pursue itvigorously.
A hospital in my State was involved in these proceedings, and it isunclear exactly what did take place, so I have both a parochial interestin this and a national interest as well, and I do hope you will press onwith it. It involves not only you, I appreciate, but also HEW and perhaps the Attorney General.
Admiral TURNER. Thank you, sir. We will.
Senator CHAFEE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.
Admiral Turner, MKULTRA subproject 3 was a project involving
the surreptitious administration of LSD on unwitting persons,.was it
not?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator INOUYE. In February 1954, and this was in the very earlystages of MAKULTRA, the Director of Central Intelligence wrote to
the technical services staff officials criticizing their judgment because
they had participated in an experiment involving the administrationof LSD on an unwitting basis to Dr. Frank Olson, who later committed
suicide. Now, the individuals criticized were the same individuals who
were responsible for this subproject 3, involving exactly the same practices. Even though these individuals were clearly aware of the dangers
of surreptitious administration and had been criticized by the Director

of Central Intelligence, subproject 3 was not terminated immediately
after Dr. Olson's death.
In fact. according to documents, it continued for a number of years.
Can you provide this committee with any explanation of how suchtesting could have continued under these circumstances?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir, I really can't.
Senator INOUYE. Are the individuals in the technical services whocarried on subproject 3 still on the CIA payroll?
Admiral TURNER. I am sorry. Are you asking, are they today?
Senator INOUYE. Yes.
Admiral TURNER. No, sir.
Senator INOUYE. What would you do if you criticized officials of thetechnical services staff and they continued to carry on experimentation for a number of years?
Admiral TURNER. I would do two things, sir. One is, I would be sureat the beginning that I was explicit enough that they knew that I
didn't want that to be continued anywhere else, and two, if I found it
being continued, I would roll some heads.
Senator INOUYE. Could you provide this committee with information as to whether the individuals involved had their heads rolled?
Admiral TURNER. I don't believe there is any evidence they did, but
I will double check that.
[See p. 170 for material referred to.]Senator INOUYE. As you know, Senator Huddleston and his subcommittee are deeply involved in the drafting of charters and guidelines
for the intelligence community. We will be meeting with the President
tomorrow. Our concern is, I think, a basic one. Can anything like thisoccur again?
Admiral TURNER. I think it would be very, very unlikely, first, because we are all much more conscious of these issues than we were backin the fifties, second, because we have such thorough oversight procedures. I cannot imagine that this kind of activity could take place
today without some member of the CIA itself bypassing me, if I wereauthorizing this, and writing to the Intelligence Oversight Board, andblowing the whistle on this kind of activity.
I am also doing my very best, sir, to encourage an openness withmyself and a free communication in the Agency, so that I am the one
who finds these things if they should happen. The fact is that we must
keep you and your committee and now the new committee in the House
informed of our sensitive activities. I think all of these add up to adegree of scrutiny such that this kind of extensive and flagrant activity
could not happen today without it coming to the attention of the proper
authorities to stop it.
Senator INOUYE. A sad aspect of the MKULTRA project was that
it naturally involved the people who unwittingly or wittingly got involved in experimentation. I would appreciate it if you would reportback to this committee in 3 months on what the Agency has done to
notify these individuals and these institutions, and furthermore, tonotify us as to what steps have been taken to identify victims, and if
identified, what you have done to assist them, monetarily or otherwise.
Admiral TURNER. All right, sir. I will be happy to.
Senator GOLDWATER. Will the Senator yield?

Senator INoUYE. Yes, Sir.
Senator GOLDWATER. I wonder if he could include in that report forour information only a complete listing of the individuals and theexperiments done on them, and whether they were'witting or unwitting,volunteer or nonvolunteer, and what has been the result in each case.
I think that would be interesting.
Admiral TURNER. Fine. Yes, Sir.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Kennedy?
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. It is your intention to notify the individuals who have been the subjects of the research, is that right,
Admiral Turner? Do you intend to notify those individuals?
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. If you can identify them, you intend to notify
them?
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And you intend to notify the universities or research centers as well?
Admiral TURNER. Senator, I am torn on that. I understand youropening statement. I put myself in the position of the president of oneof those universities, let's say. If he were witting-if his university
had been witting of this activity with us, he has access to all that information today. If he were not witting, I wonder if the process of
informing him might put his institution's reputation in more jeopardy
than letting them go on the way they are today, not knowing. I really
don't know the equities here.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, the problem is, all you have to do is pick up
the newspapers and you see these universities mentioned. In many instances, I think you are putting the university people at an extraordinary disadvantage, where there is a complete change of administration, and they may for one reason or another not have informationthat they are under suspicion. There is innuendo; there is rumor. I
cannot help but believe that it will just get smeared all over the newspapers in spite of all the security steps that have been taken.
It seems to me that those universities should be entitled to that information, so that the ones with other administrations can adapt procedures to protect those universities. The importance of preserving theindependence of our research areas and the communities seems to me to
be a very fundamental kind of question about the protection of theintegrity of our universities and our research centers.
Admiral TURNER. You are saying that you feel that if we identify
them privately to themselves, we can benefit them in an adequate way tocover the risk that this will lead to a more public disclosure? There arelots of the 80 who have not been identified publicly at this point.
Senator KENNEDY. I think the universities themselves should be notified. I think then the universities can take whatever steps in terms of
their setting up the procedures to protect their own kinds of integrityin terms of the future. I would certainly hope that they would feelthat they could make a public comment or a public statement on it.
I think it is of general public interest, particularly for the people thatare involved in those universities, to have some kind of awareness ofwhether they were used or were not used and how they were used.
I think they are entitled to it, and quite frankly, if there is a public
official or an official of the university that you notify and he wants

for his own particular reasons not to have it public, I don't see why
those in a lesser echelon or lower echelon who have been effectively usedby it should not have the information as well.
So, I would hopethat you would notify the universities and thenalso indicate to the public. I can't conceive that this information will
not be put out in the newspapers, and it puts the university people at
an extraordinary disadvantage, and of course some of it is wrong,which is the fact of the matter, and I think some university official
saying, well, it isn't so, is a lot different than if they know it is confirmed or it is not confirmed in terms of the Agency itself. I think that
there is a responsibility there.
Admiral TURNER. I have great sympathy with what you are saying.
I have already notified one institution because the involvement was so
extensive that I thought they really needed to protect themselves, andI am most anxious to do this in whatever way will help all of thepeople who were perhaps unwitting participants in this, and the difficulty I will have is, I can't quite do, I think, what you suggested, inthat I may not be able to tell an institution of the extent and nature of
its participation.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you can tell them to the best of your information, and it seems to me that just because the university or anindividual is going to be embarrassed is not a reason for classifying
the information. So, I would hope-I mean, I obviously speak as anindividual Senator, but I feel that that is an incredible disservice tothe innocent individuals and, I think, a disservice to the integrity of
the universities unless they are notified, to be able to develop procedures you are developing with regards to your own institution and
we are trying to in terms of the Congress. Certainly the universities
are entitled to the same.
Admiral TURNER. Yes. Not all of these, of course, were unwitting.
Senator KENNEDY. That's right.
Admiral TURNER. Many of them were witting, and therefore they
can take all those precautionary steps on their own, but I am perfectly
open to doing this. I am only interested in doing it in a way that whenidentifying a university it will not lead to the public disclosure of theindividuals, whom I am not allowed to disclose, and so on.
Senator KENNEDY. That could be done, it seems to me.
Admiral TURNER. So, we will see if we can devise a way of notifying
these institutions on a private basis so that they can then make theirown decision whether their equities are best served by their announcing it publicly or their attempting to maintain itSenator KENNEDY. Or you. I wonder. What if they were to ask you
to announce or indicate ?
Admiral TURNER. My personal conscience, sir, at this time, is that I
would be doing a disserve to these universities if I notified the public.
Senator KENNEDY. Would you meet with some university officials
and ask what their views are or whether they feel that the preservation of the integrity of the universities would be better served or not?
I think that would be useful to find out from small, large, private, andpublic universities' officials how they view the integrity
Admiral TURNER. Fine. I will phone several university presidents
today who are my friends and who are not involved in this, and ask
them what they think the equities would be.

Senator KENNEDY. All right. You let us know, too.
Admiral TURNER. But I am not sure that I see that there is any great
benefit in my notifying the public as opposed to the university notifying them. Let him have his choice whether he wants-each institution
wants to have it made public.
Senator KENNEDY. Yes. The fact would remain that the institution's
credibility would be better served if the institution's president were todeny it and the university indicated that it did not participate in that
program than if the university were to deny it and the Agency says
nothing. It seems to me that that would be the strongest, and the only
way that that is going to be credible. I would value it if you would getsome input from universities as to what they believe is the fairest way
in terms of the preservation of the integrity of the universities.
Let me, if I could, ask on the question of the uses of these safe
houses, as I understand from information that was provided to us in
the course of our last committee, the testing of various drugs on individuals happened at all social levels, high and low, it happened onnative Americans and also on foreign nationals. That is what I understand was the nature of the project itself.
Now, I am just wondering whether those tests were conducted at the
two locations on the east coast and the west coast which were known
as safe houses. To your knowledge, is that correct?
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. In terms of the research in this particular program, it did not go beyond the safe houses located on the east coast andthe west coast? I believe I am correct on that.
Admiral TURNER. That type of unwitting testing of sort of randomly selected individuals, yes.
Senator KENNEDY. It was just located in those two places?
Admiral TURNER. To the best of our knowledge, there were only two
locations.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, how do we interpret randomly selected?

Admiral TURNER. Well, as opposed to prisoners in a prison who weresomehow selected.
Senator KENNEDY. All right. Do you know from this information
how many people were recruited during this period?
Admiral TURNER. No idea.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you know approximately?

Admiral TURNER. I asked that question the other day, and we just
don't have-apparently we are very-well, either there were norecords kept of the actual numbers and types of people tested or they
were destroyed.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Schweiker.
Senator SCmWEKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Turner, I would like to come back to the experiments
which may have been conducted at the hospital research facilities
which the CIA helped to finance. It wasn't clear to me from your previous answers what kind of work was done there. I gather you are unclear on that, too, from your remarks, yet I find in the CIA documentation which you have supplied us, a list describing some of theadvantages the Agency hoped to gain. It says:(a) One-sixth of the total space in the new hospital wing will be available to theChemical Division of TSS * * * ; (b) Agency sponsorship of sensitive research

projects will be completely deniable; (c) Full professional cover will be provided
for up to three biochemical employees of the Chemical Division; (4) Human
patients and volunteers for experimental use will be available under controlled
clinical conditions with the full supervision ofand there is a blank, something has been deleted.
It seems pretty clear to me what they intended to do in that particular wing. Doesn't it to you? Why would you go to such elaborate

preparations, to buy part of the wing, bring three of your own personnel there, give them a cover, and give them access to patients?
Why would you go to such trouble and expense to arrange all that, if
you weren't planning to experiment on people in the hospital?
Admiral TURNER. I agree with you 100 percent, sir. Those wereclearly the intentions. I have no evidence that it was carried out inthat way. I am not trying to be defensive, Senator. I am only trying
to be absolutely precise here.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, then, as to the nature of what was done
there, the last paragraph on the same page of the document says,"The facilities of the hospital and the. ability to conduct controlled
experimentations under safe clinical conditions using materials withwhich any agency connection must be completely deniable will augment and complement other programs recently taken over by TSS,
such as," and then there's another deletion.
Now, the words following "such as" have been deleted. That is stillclassified, or at least it was removed when this document was sanitized
and released. It seems to be that whatever was deleted right there would
give you a pretty good clue as to what they were doing, since it saysthat the activities would "augment and complement other -programs"
undertaken by TSS. So, I have trouble understanding why you don't
know what was contemplated. Just the fact.that similar programs arereferred to in the document, though what they are is still deleted,should enable you to check it out.
You could look at what went on in the similar programs mentioned
following the "such as" in the classified version of this document.
Admiral TURNER. Senator, I have not said that we don't know what
was contemplated being done there. We do not know what was done
there.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Why did you delete that reference? Why isthat still classified, that particular project of whatever it is?
Admiral TURNER. I don't know this particular case. We will get you
the exact answer to that one and inform you about it, but it is quite
probable that that other case is unrelated to this in the-well, not unrelated, but that that was a project that still deserves to be classified.
[The material referred to follows:]
Construction of the Gorman Annex was begun in 1957 and the Annex wasdedicated in March 1959. Of the several MKULTRA projects conducted at

Georgetown only one involving human testing covered a time span subsequent
to March 1959. Subproject 45 ran from 1955 to 1963, thus it is possible thatthe final four years (1959-1963) of the subproject could have been spent in
the Gorman Annex. However, there is no reference to the Gorman Annex or a"new Annex" in Subproject 45 papers, neither is there any mention of the subproject moving to a new location in 1959 or later years.
Authorization to contribute CIA funds toward construction of the Gorman
Annex is contained in Subproject 35 of MKULTRA. Recently discovered materialindicated that Dr. Geschickter continued his research for sleep- and amnesiaproducing drugs under Project MKSEARCH through July 1967 at Georgetown
University Hospital. But it is impossible to determine if the facilities of theGorman Annex were involved.

Senator SCHWEIKER. I think that would give us a pretty good clue
as to what was going to be done in the wing the CIA helped to finance.
Was there any indication at all in the records you found that the
project ultimately used cancer patients or terminally ill patients inconnection with this facility?
Admiral TURNER. I'm sorry. I missed your question because I wastrying to get the data on the last one. I will read you the blank.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Go ahead.
Admiral TURNER. QKHILLTOP. It doesn't help you, butSenator SCHWEIKER. Can you tell us what that is, or is it stillclassified?
Admiral TURNER. I don't know, and I assume from the fact that
we deleted it, it is still classified, but I will get you that answer, sir.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you. I'd like to see that information.
[See p. 171 for material referred to.]*Now my next question was: Is there any indication, Admiral, thatprojects in that particular center involved experimentation on terminally ill cancer patients?
Admiral TURNER. I missed the first part of your question, sir. I amvery sorry.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Do you have any indication that some experiments in the facility used terminally ill cancer patients as subjects?
You do acknowledge in your statement and it is clar from other documents that these kinds of experiments were at some point being done
somewhere. My question is, is there any indication that cancer patientsor terminally ill patients were experimented with in this wing?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, it does appear there is a connection here, sir.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The other question I had relates to the development of something which has been called the perfect concussion.
A series of experiments toward that end were described in the CIA
documents. I wonder if you would just tell us what your understandingof perfect concussion is.
Admiral TURNER. Is that in my testimony, sir, or in some otherdocument?
Senator SCHWEIKER. Subproject 54, MKULTRA, which involved
examination of techniques to cause brain concussions and amnesia byusing weapons or sound waves to strike individuals without giving
warning and without leaving any clear physical marks. Someone
dubbed it "perfect concussion"-maybe that was poetic license on thepart of our staff rather than your poets over there. I wonder if you
could just tell us what brain concussion experiments were about?
Admiral TURNER. This project, No. 54, was canceled, and nevercarried out.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I do believe the first year of the projectin 1955 was carried out by the Office of Naval Research, according to
the information that you supplied us. The CIA seems to have been participating in some way at that point, because the records go on to saythat the experimenter at ONR found out about CIA's role, discoveredthat it was a cover, and then the project was transferred to
MKULTRA in 1956. Again, this is all from the backup material you
have given us. So, it was canceled at some time. I am not disagreeing

with that, but apparently for at least a year or two, somebody wasinvestigating the production of brain concussions with special blackjacks, sound waves, and other methods as detailed in the backup
material.
Admiral TURNER. The data available to me is that this project wasnever funded by the CIA, but I will d)uble-check that and furnish theinformation for the record for you as to whether there was ever any
connection here and if so, what the nature of the work was.
[The material referred to follows:]
Mr. Laubinger corrected his testimony regarding Subproject 54 during the
September 21, 1977 hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific
Research of the Human Resources Committee. The relevant portion is reproduced
below:
Mr. LAIBINGER. On project 54, it has got a rather sensational proposal in there,
in terms of the.work that they propose to do, and you asked about the proposal
and I said, in fact, it was never funded under MKULTRA. Now, I overlooked--atleast, my memory did not serve me correctly when I went through that file folder
to see one memorandum dated January 10, 1956, which makes it quite clear, as amatter of fact, that that proposal was based on prior work that was funded by
the Agency.
Senator ScnwnxKER. By what?
Mr. LAUBINGER. By the CIA. So, that information was in their file folder. It
did not happen to be in my head when I testified.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I think I might have read you that, and that is why I
argued at the time with you, because I think I had in front of me, as I recall,some indication that it was funded there. I did read that to you. So, you did
supply it to us; there is no argument about that information.
Mr. LAUBINGER. Perhaps I am sort of headstrong, myself, and in my own view,
I am reading under the ULTRA project, that if it had been funded under
ULTRA, it would have had a project number and identified as such. The thingthat threw me was that it was funded, apparently, outside of any MKULTRA
activity and it was under the normal contracting process, so that it was notincluded in MKULTRA as 'any work done under that funding umbrella.
The file folder that you have and I have, right here, makes it quite clear,
however, that a year's work was done through navy funding-a navy funding
mechanism-on which the proposal was based that ultimately came into the
MKULTRA program. That second proposal was never funded. So, there wasconflict and I, personally, I think, introduced a little bit of confusion in that in
my testimony.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, do you agree or not agree with DOD's statement
here that even though the initial funding was navy, it was really a conduit for
the CIA?
Mr. LAUBINGER. I think that is correct.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Yes; I would appreciate that. I would like toknow how it went from ONR to CIA after a year. Somebody made adecision to make that transfer, and to make this an MKULTRA subject. There had to be some sort of review that led to a decision tocontinue that kind of concussion-total blackout, maximum amnesia,
and whatever else it was you were interested in-study and testing.
Mr. LAUBINGER. Senator, if I may try to say a few words on that,the files that were available to us for inspection, which are limited,indicated that there was a project being carried on by the Navy having
to do with the effects of brain concussion. The CIA developed an interest in that, and considered funding it, but actually never did, and as
the admiral testified, the MKULTRA is merely a funding mechanism,a place they go for money to do such things, but there is no evidence
that I know of that that project was ever funded.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, I am confused, because here
again is another quote from a document that we have seen, whichyouhave released and supplied to us:
Following is the technical progress made undercurrent [deleted] contract:(a) Specialized instrumentation and numerous thetesting techniques have beendeveloped to obtain the desired dynamic data; (b)considerable data has now
been obtained supporting the resonance-cav~ilation theoryof brain concussion; and(c) preliminary accelerationi threshold data has been obtained
for a fluid-filled
glass simulated skull.

It goes on to talk about a blast range and a 2 ,5 0 0 -square-footlaboratory. The document notes that "Three blast test series
have been run
to date." It describes a special blackjack device, "a pancake-type
blackjack giving a high peak impact force with a low unit
surface pressure."
I agree the records are inconclusive as to the resultsof this work,
but it certainly seems that some testing was done.
Mr. LAUBINGER. Senator, you are putting us insame position
I think you were stating that you were in earlier in thereferringto docunments not before us, but I believe you are quoting
from a proposaLthat someone sent to the Agency to fund
this work, and he is referring
to past work. The past work would have encompassed
a lot of things
like that, but CIA was not involved with that.
Senator SCHWETKER. What do you mean, Admiral, on
6 of yourtestimony when you mention projects using magician's pageart? How domagicians get into the spook business?
Admiral TURNER. I have interpreted this as to how to slip the mickey
into the finn, but I would like to ask my advisers here to comment.
Mr. Bory. I think that is essentially it, Senator. It is surreptitious
administration of material to someone, deceptive practices, howtodistract someone's attention while you are doing something else,as
I understand it. It was also some type of a covert communication
project involved with the study of how magicians and their assistants
perhaps communicate mformation to one another without having otherpeople know it. This is the type of thing that was involved, sir.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INoUYE. Senator Huddleston?
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, in your checking these newly discovered documents andinterviewing members of the CIA staff, did you find information thatwould confirm the contention described by the reporters for the New
York Times that this type of experimentation was begun out of afear at the Agency that foreign powers might have had drugs which
would allow them to alter the behavior of American citizens or agentsor members of the Armed Forces who were taken into custody, andwhich would have resulted in false confessions and the like? Is myquestion clear?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. I haven't personally read the documentation on that. In my discussions with the people who are well informed in this area at the Agency, I am told that that is the case.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Was there any evidence or any indication that
there were other motives that the Agency might also be looking for(1-ugs that could be applied for other purposes, such as debilitating an
individual or even killing another person? Was this part of this kindof experimentation?

Admiral TURNER. Yes; I think there is. I have not seen in this seriesof documentation evidence of desire to kill, but I think the projectturned its character from a defensive to an offensive one as it went
along, and there certainly was an intention here to develop drugs that
could be of use.
Senator HUDDLESTON. The project continued for some time after it
was learned that, in fact, foreign powers did not have such a drug as
was at first feared, didn't it?
Admiral TURNER. That is my understanding. Yes, sir.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Is there any indication that knowledge gained
as a result of these experiments has been useful or is being applied inany way to present operations?
Mr. BRODY. Senator, I am not sure if there is any body of knowledge.
A great deal of what there was, I gather, was destroyed in 1973. I
would like to defer to Frank here. Do you know of any?
Mr. LAUBINGER. I know of no drugs or anything like that developed
under this program that ever reached operational use or are in use-today.-Senator HUDDLESTON.

So apparently any information that was

gathered was apparently useless and not worth continuing, not worth
further development on the part of the Agency.
Mr. LAUBINGER. I am having difficulty hearing your questions.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I can hardly hear myself.

Admiral TURNER. I think the answer to your question is that we haveno evidence of great usefulness on this, and yet I think we should
rememberSenator HUDDLESTON. Well, is it accurate to say that this experimentation produced few useful results or had little application at all to theoperations of the Agency or anybody else as far as we know?
Admiral TURNER. I think that is basically correct. At the same time,
I would point out that we had two CIA prisoners in China and one in
the Soviet Union at this time, and we were concerned as to what kindsof things might be done to them, but I am not saying thatSenator HUDDLESTON. Have you detected any sign that any other na-

tion is continuing or has in the past conducted experiments similar tothis or with a similar objective?
Admiral TURNER. I am not prepared to answer that one off the topof my head, sir, but I will get it to you.
[The material referred to follows:]

We maintain no files of up-to-date information on. the testing of drugs inforeign countries. Some years ago we occasionally would review foreign research
on antibiotics and pharmaceuticals in connection with public bhealth and civil
defense assesments. For a few years beginning in 1949 we assessed foreign
research on LSD under Project ARTICHOKE because of concern that suchdrugs might be employed. gainst Agency and other U.S. personnel. Information
relative to this work has already been provided to relevant Committees. In thisearly work we also occasionally looked at foreign human experimentation; welong ago eliminated our holdings on this subject and no collection requirements
are any longer served. As consumer interest in this area has dropped off
and higher priority areas need attention, we have virtually no present coveragewith the possible exception of an occasional scanning of the literature for a
specific program. To the best of our knowledge no other unit in the Intelligence
Community is tracking this subject now.

Senator HUDDLESTON. You don't know whether any of your agents
anywhere in the world have been subjected to any kind of procedure
like this?
Admiral TURNER. We certainly know of other powers conducting
research in these areas, yes.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know how they go about that research?
Admiral TURNER. It is pretty sketchy, the information we have.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know of any other organization in thiscountry or any institution that has conducted extensive research on
unwitting individuals and through unwitting institutions?
Admiral TURNER. Well, I have read something in the newspapers
about this, but I have not familiarized myself with it in specifics.
Senator HUDDLESTON. It is not a normal mode of operation for human research, is it?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Wallop?
Senator WVALLOP. Mr. Chairman, I only have one to follow up on
Senator Huddleston's questions and my earlier ones. You are not reallysaying, are you, Admiral Turner, that there are no mind-alteringdrugs or behavior modification procedures which have been used byforeign powers?
Adiniral TURNER. No, sir, I am not.
Senator WALLOP. I drew that inference partly in answer to my question that you knew of no truth serum. Maybe that is a misnomer, but
surely there are relaxants that make tongues looser than they would
otherwise be. Isn't that true?
Admiral TURNER. Yes.
Senator WALLOP. So I think it is fair to say, too, that the experienceof many American prisoners of war in the Korean conflict would
indicate that there are behavior modification procedures in use byforeign powers of a fairly advanced degree of sophistication.
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator WALLOP. Again, I will just go back and say I think thismust have been part of the motivation. I don't think you would havementioned Cardinal Mindszenty had you thought his behavior was
normal at the time or had anybody else. So, I would just again say
I think it is a little bit scapegoating. I don't think the object of thishearing is in any way to lay blame on those passed or those dead orotherwise, but I think it is a little bit scapegoating to say that it
stopped with the directors of the CIA or the DCI's of the time. Also
I think it is a little bit scapegoating to say they didn't even know it,
but that it was some lower echelon acting alone.
I think this was a behavior pattern that was prevalent in those
years, and I think the object lesson is that we have discovered, we
think and we hope, through your assurances and other activities of
the Congress, means of avoiding future incidents of that kind. I thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Chafee?
Senator CTrAFEE. No questions.
Senator INOUYE. Senator Kennedy, I think you have anotherquestion.

Senator KENNEDY. Just talking about the two safe houses on theeast and west coast as being the sources for the unwitting trials, now,
the importance of this and the magnitude of it, I think, is of significance, because we have seen from your records that these were usedover a period of 8 or 9 years, and the numbers could have been considerable. You are unable to determine, at least in your own research,what the numbers would be and what the drugs were, how many people
were involved, but it could have been considerable during this periodof time.
It would certainly appear to me in examining the documents andthe flow charts of cash slips that were expended in these areas that itwas considerable, but that is a judgmental factor on it, but I think
it is important to try and find out what the Agency is attempting to
do to get to the bottom of it.
Now, the principal agent that was involved as I understand it isdeceased and has been deceased for 2 years. The overall agent, Mr.
Gottlieb, has indicated a fuzzy memory about this whole area. He
has testified before the Intelligence Committee. Yet he was responsible for the whole program. Then, the Director had indicated thedestruction of the various materials and unfamiliarity with the
project.
Now, you have indicated in your testimony today that there are two
additional agents on page 9 of your testimony, you indicated there
are two additional agents which you have uncovered at the bottom of
it, and you say, the names of CIA officials who approved or monitored
the various projects. You talk about the two additional agents in yourtestimony.
Now, I am just wondering if you intend to interview those agents
to find out exactly what is being done. I suppose, first of all, shouldn't
the project manager know what was being done?
Admiral TURNER. Our first problem, Senator, is that we have been
unable to associate an individual with those names at this point. We
are still burrowing to find out who these people are. We haven't identified them as having been CIA employees, and we don't know whether
these were false names.
Senator KENNEDY. You are tracking that down, as I understand it?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. You are tracking that down, and you have every
intention of interviewing those people to find out whatever you canabout the program and project?
Admiral TURNER. My only hesitation here is whether I will do thisor the Justice Department.
Senator KENNEDY. It will be pursued, though, I understand?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Either through the Agency or through the Justice Department?
Admiral TURNER. [Nods in the affirmative.]
Senator KENNEDY. Is it plausible that the director of the program
would not understand or know about the details of the program?
Is it plausible that Dr. Gottlieb would not understand the full rangeof activities in those particular safe houses?

96-408 0 - 77 - 4

Admiral TURNER. Let me say it is unlikely. I don't know Mr. Gottlieb.
Senator KENNEDY. Has anybody in the Agency talked with Mr.
Gottlieb to find out about this?
Admiral TURNER. Not since this revelation has come out.
Senator KENNEDY. Not since this revelation? Well, why not?
Armiral TURNER. He has left our employ, Senator.
Senator KENNEDY. Does that mean that anybody who leaves is, youknow, covered for lifetime?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Why wouldn't you talk with him and find out?
You have new information about this program. It has been a matterof considerable interest both to our committee and to the Intelligence
Committee. Why wouldn't you talk to Mr. Gottlieb?
Admiral TURNER. Well, again, I think the issue is whether thisshould be done by the Justice Department or ourselves.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, are we wrestling around because you andAttorney General Bell can't agreeAdmiral TURNER. No, sir.
Senator KENNEDY [continuing]. On who ought to do it?
Admiral TURNER. We are proceeding together in complete agreement
as to how to go. I have, in connection with trying to find all of these
Americans or others who were unwittingly tested, I have some considerable concern about the CIA running around this country interviewing and interrogating people, because I don't want to give any
impression that we are doing domestic intelligence.
Senator KENNEDY. I am just talking about one, in this case. That
was the man who was responsible for the whole program, and tofind out whether anyone within the Agency since you have had thisnew material has talked to Gottlieb since 1975, and if the answer isno, I want to know why not.
Admiral TURNER. The reason he was not interviewed in connection
with the 1975 hearings was that he had left the employ of the CIA
and there was a concern on the part of the Agency that it would appear
to the investigators that the CIA was in some way trying to influence
him and influence his testimony before the committee. If thesecommittees have no objection, we would be happy to contact Dr.
Gottlieb and see if he can augment anything here in this new information, though I don't think there is much in this new informationthat he can add to as opposed to what was available in 1975.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, you see, Admiral Turner, you come to thetwo committees this morning and indicate that now at last we have theinformation. We don't have to be concerned about anything in the
future on it. Now, I don't know how you can give those assurances tothe members of these committees as well as to the American people
when you haven't since 1975 even talked to the principal person thatwas in charge of the program, and the records were destroyed. He is
the fellow that was running the program, and the Agency has nottalked to him since the development of this new material.
Admiral TURNER. Our only concern here is the proprieties involved,
and we will dig into this and work with the Justice Department on

who, if either of us, should get into discussions with Dr. Gottlieb so as
not to prejudice any legal rights that may be involved 'here, or to appear in any way to be improper.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, do I understand you have not contacted theJustice Department about this particular case since the developmentof this new material about Gottlieb?
Admiral TURNER. Not about Gottlieb specifically. We have contacted
him.
Senator KENNEDY. Well, it is amazing to me. I mean, can you understand the difficulty that any of us might have in terms of comprehending that when you develop a whole new series of materials that are on
the front page of every newspaper in the country and are on every television, I mean, that means something, but it does not mean nearly as
much as the interest that we have in the fact about the testing of unwitting Americans, and every single document that the staff reviews
has Mr. Gottlieb's name on it and you come up to tell us that we don't
have to worry any more, we have these other final facts, and Mr. Gottlieb has not been talked to?
Admiral TURNER. Sir, I am not saying that these are in any way the
final facts. I am saying these are all the facts we have available.
Senator KENNEDY. And you have not talked to the person who wasin charge of the program, so what kind of value or what kind of weight
can we give it?
Admiral TURNER. We are happy to talk to him. I thinkthe issue
here again is one of propriety and how to go about this. We have not,I believe, enough new information about Gottlieb's participation here
to signal that his interview would be that much more revealing thanwhat was revealed in 1975.
Senator KENNEDY. The importance of it, I think, from our pointof view, is, he would know the drugs that were administered, the volume of drugs, how it was administered, and in terms of your ability
to follow up to protect these people and their health, to the extent thatit can be done, that opportunity is being lost.
I want to get on to some others, but will you give us the assurance
that you will get ahold of Gottlieb or that you will talk to Attorney
General Bell and talk with Gottlieb?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. And let us know as to the extent of it. I don't
see how we can fufill our responsibility in this area on the drug testing without our hearing from Gottlieb as well, but I think it is important that you do so, particularly since all of the materials havebeen destroyed.
These other two agents, have they talked to them?
Admiral TURNER. We don't know who they are, sir. We are trying
to track down and see whether these names can be releated to anybody.
Senator KENNEDY. That is under active investigation by the Agency?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. And you have the intention of talking to thosepeople when you locate them. Is that correct?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir, under the same circumstances as Gottlieb.
Senator KENNEDY. And you have people working on it?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. With regards to the activities that took place inthese safe houses, as I understand from the records, two-way mirrors
were used. Is that your understanding?
Admiral TURNER. Yes, sir. We have records that construction was
done to put in two-way mirrors.
Senator KENNEDY. And they were placed in the bedroom, as I
understand.
[Pause.]Senator KENNEDY. Well, we have documents
Admiral TURNER. I believe that was in the Church record, but I
don't have the details.
Senator KENNEDY. And rather elaborate decorations were added, as
I understand, at least, to the one in San Francisco, in the bedroom,
which are French can-can dancers, floral pictures, drapery, including
installation of bedroom mirrors, three framed Toulouse Lautrec posters with black silk mats, and a number of other-red bedroom curtains and recording equipment, and then a series of documents whichwere provided to the committee which indicate a wide proliferationof different cash for $100, generally in the $100 range over any periodof time on the particular checks. Even the names are blocked out, as
to the person who is receiving it. Cash for undercover agents, operating expenses, drinks, entertainment while administering, and then it
is dashed out, and then the other documents, that would suggest, atleast with the signature of your principal agent out there, that"called to the operation, midnight, and climax."
What can you tell us that it might suggest to you about what techniques were being used by the Agency in terms of reaching that sortof broad-based group of Americans that were being evidently enticed
for testing in terms of drugs and others? Do you draw any kind of
conclusion about what might have been going on out there in thesesafe houses?
Admiral TURNER. No, sir.
[General laughter.]
Senator KENNEDY. There is a light side to it, but there is also anenormously serious side. And that is that at least the techniques which
are used or were used in terms of testing, and trying to find out exactly the range of drugs used and the numbers of people involved andexactly what that operation was about, as well as the constant reiteration of the use of small sums of cash at irregular intervals. A variety
of different techniques were employed but there is an awful lot of
documentation putting these matters together.
When you look at the fact that it is a broad range population thathas been tested, tested in these two areas, with the kind of cash slips
that were used in this, payment mechanisms and decorations and allof the rest, we are not able to put a bottom line on it but one thing is
for sure, and that is, Gottlieb knows. That is one thing for sure, because his name appears on just about every one of these documents,
and it is, I think, very important to find out what his understanding
is of the nature of that. So, we will hear more about that.
Admiral TURNER. I believe Gottlieb has been interviewed by theCongress.
Senator KENNEDY. That's right, he has, and in reviewing the record,
it is not very satisfactory, and it just seems with the new information

and the new documentation and the new memoranda-and he did nothave the checks at that time-and with the wide variety of different
memoranda with his name on it, his memory could be stimulated on
that.
Thank you.
Senator INOUYE. I would like to thank the admiral and his staff forparticipating in this hearing. I believe the record should show that thishearing was held at the request of the Agency and the admiral. It was
not held because we insisted upon it. It was a volunteer effort on thepart of the Agency. I think the record should also indicate that Admiral Turner has forwarded to this committee a classified file including
all of the names of the institutions and the persons involved as theexperimentors.
I should also indicate that this hearing is just one step involved in
the committee's investigation of drug abuse. Just as you have had muchwork in going over the 8,000 pages, the staff of this committee has had
equal problems, but I would like the record to show that you havemade these papers and documents available to the committee. I thankyou for that.
As part of the ongoing investigation, we had intended to call upon
many dozens of others, experimentors, or those officials in charge, andone of those will be Dr. Gottlieb.
In thanking you, I would like to say this to the American people,
that what we have experienced this morning in this committee room
is not being duplicated in any other committee room in any other partof the world. I doubt that very much. Our Agency and our intelligencecommunity has been under much criticism and has been subjected tomuch abuse, in many cases justified, but this is the most open societythat I can think of. For example, in Great Britain there are about six
people who are aware of the identity of the man in charge of intelligence. In other countries, similar conditions exist. Here in the UnitedStates we not only know Admiral Turner, we have had open hearings
with him, such as this. The confirmation hearings were all open.
In a few weeks, the Senate of the United States will debate a resolution to decide upon whether we should disclose the amounts and funds
being used for counterintelligence and national intelligence. I would
hope that in presenting this issue to the public, the media will take notethat the Agency has cooperated and will continue to. The abuse that
we have learned about this morning is one I hope will never happen
again, but without constant oversight on the part of the Executive
Office, on the part of the Congress, it could happen again. It is important therefore that we continue in this oversight activity.
So, once again, Admiral, I thank you very much for helping us. We
will continue to call upon you for your assistance. We would like tosubmit to you several questions that the members and staff have prepared. We hope you will look them over carefully and prepare responses for the record, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator INOUYE. Yes, sir?
Senator KENNEDY. I, too, want to thank Admiral Turner for his
responsiveness. I have had meetings with him in the committees andalso conversations, telephone conversations, and private meetings, andI have found him personally to be extremely responsive, and it is avery difficult challenge which he has accepted in heading this Agency.
I want you to know, personally, I, too, would like to see this put behind
us. I don't think we are quite there yet in terms of this particular areathat we are interested in. I think the Intelligence Committee has
special responsibilities in this area of the testing, so we look forward
to working with you in expediting the time that we can put it behind,but it does seem to me that we have to dig in and finish the chapter.
So, I want to personally express my appreciation to you, Admiral
Turner, and thank you for your cooperation and your help, and I lookforward to working with you.
Admiral TURNER. Thank you.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure you emphasized
this enough, but I think the record ought to show that Admiral Turner
informed the Select Committee on his own initiative when the new
documentation was found. The documentation has been made available to us voluntarily, in a spirit of cooperation.
I think this shows a vast difference from the mode of operation thatexisted prior to the formation at least of the Church committee, anda difference that is very helpful.
Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Thank you very much,
Admiral.
We would now like to call upon Mr. Philip Goldman and Mr. John
Gittinger.
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Gittinger, will you please rise and take theoath.
Do you solemly swear that the testimony you are about to give isthe truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I do.
Mr. GITTINGER. I do.
Senator INouYE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Goldman, will you identify yourself, and after that, Mr.
Gittinger.
Senator KENNEDY. Before we start in, we had a third witness, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Pasternac, who planned to testify, traveled to Washington-he lives in Washington, and was contacted recently-with
the intention of testifying this morning. And something-he called
us late this morning and indicated that he wanted to get a counsel
before he would wish to testify.
Senator INOUYE. Mr. Goldman.

Mr. Goldman, will you identify yourself, sir.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP GOLDMAN, FORMER EMPLOYEE, CENTRALINTELLIGENCE 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
MKULTIRA was in operation?
Mr. GoLDMAN. There were some MKULTRA's in operation at thetime I was there.

Senator INoUYE. And Mr. John Gittinger, are you a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency?
TESTIMONY OF JOHN GITTINGER, FORMER EMPLOYEE, CENTRALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Mr. GITINGER. I am.
Senator INOuYE. Are you still an employee?
Mr. GITINGER. No.
Senator INouYE. Were you a member of the Agency at the time
MKULTRA was in operation?
Mr. GITINGER. 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 safei-ouse irrSan 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 wasprovided by the Agency that lists your name as a monitor of the program and I would appreciate it if you would lookMr. GOLDMAN. I think the misunderstanding arises because I wasproject 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,
mySenator KENNEDY. That document is correct?
Mr. GOLDMAN. As far as I see on the first page, the project. But
mySenator 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 topof that document.
Senator KENNEDY. And you knew that he was running the projectin 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 ofactually what he was doing, because there would be other things
involved.
I did receive
Senator KENNEDY. What were you doing?

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 indicatesthat you were a monitor for the program, one of the few monitors ofthat particular program which you mentioned for San Francisco andMill Valley, Calif., you described your responsibility only as a carrierof money, is that correct?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I would say as a disburser or carrying out-seeingthat the moneys were handled properly. There was within that-I
don't know what's done or what he did do in conjunction with otherpeople.
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 hefurnished 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 itit's a classified document-but you wrote a rather substantive reviewof the program in May of 1963, talking about the experiments, thefactual data that had been collected, covert and realistic field trials,
albout 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 onlyMr. 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 asafe house in New York; now we find out that you're the carrier forthe 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 werethe courier, and here we have just one document, and there are manyothers that talk about the substance of that program with your nameon it and I am just trying to find out exactly what role you wereplaying.
Mr. GOIDMAN. The only thing I can tell you about this and I am

drawing completely on my memory is that this individual who wasin charge out there conducted these things and reported them back to
the Afrency. I didn't participate in any of them. All I know was that hefurnished me with receipts for things that were done and told of thework that they had done.
Senator KENNEnY. 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. GOT DMAN. "A numher 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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 theopinion that all you were was a courier of resources when we see adocument with your name on it, signed, that talks about the substanceof 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 thesubstance, and I'm just trying to find out whether you're willing totell 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 thesethings, 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 aid 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 tosomebody.
Senator KENNEDY. You travel out there to find out about the workthat's being done, and what does he tell you, that the work is being
done well andMr. GOLDMAN. He told me that the work that they were doing wasgoing along, progressing satisfactorily, but to be very frank with
youSenator KENNEDY. But he didn't tell you what the work was?
Mr. GOLDMAN. To be very frank with you, Senator, I cannot re-member the things that happened back in those days. I've been awayfrom the company-from the Agency for over 10 years, and that iseven farther back than that, and that was just about the time when I
first engaged in this, so it was my firstSenator KENNEDY. Did they disburse a series of $100 checks, toyour recollection?
Mr. GOLDMAN. I don't recollect it, but if you have it there, thenthey did.
Senator KENNEDY. Did you know Dr. Gottlieb?
Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.

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 heapproves 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 thework was going along all right, whether his reports were being turnedin, and whether he was satisfied with the way things were goingand did he have any complaints about the way other people wererequesting 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 thethings appeared to be going along all right. I was repeating and parroting back the words that were giveh 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 picturesMr. 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 theMr. 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?

Mr. GOLDMAN. Yes.

Senator KENNEDY. What were those expenditures for?

Mr. GOLDMAN. That was a transfer of money over for the use inan apartment in New York by the Bureau of Narcotics. It was fortheir use.
Senator KENNEDY. Do you have any knowledge of what was goingon 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 wereinterested 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 andit's a long time ago, but the Agency does indicate that you were projectmonitor 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 acomplete 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 observedin 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 carriedthem back and they are contained in the report that you have in frontof 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 thinkanyone 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'sMr. 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. GINGER. It's Mr. Gittinger.
Senator KENNEDY. How long did you serve with the Agency?

Mr. GIrrNGER. Twenty-six years.
Senator KENNEDY. Excuse me?
Mr. GITINGER. Twenty-six years.,
Senator KENNEDY. Twenty-six years.
And at some point you moved into the operational support side, isthat correct?
Mr. GrlINGER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And did you know Sidney Gottlieb?
Mr. GirrINGER. 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 awareof 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 thosetests?
Mr. GIrrINGER. LSD. And I can't remember for sure much of theothers. What is the substance of marihuana, cannabis, is that right, thatcan 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. GITINGER. Absolutely not.
Senator KENNEDY. Now, to your knowledge, how were the drugs administered to the unwitting subjects?
Mr. GIrTINGER. 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 ofmyself, 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 theperiod 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 meansof 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 ofbrainwashing, 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.

And among other things, we decided or I decided that one of the bestsources 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 knowledgeof interrogation. The reason for this is that we had become pretty wellconvinced after the experience of the brainwashing problems coming
out of China, that it was the techniques of the interrogators that werecausing the individuals to make confessions and so forth in relationshipto this, rather than any kind of drugging and so forth. So we werevery 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. GirrlNGER. If I understand-would you say that again?
Senator KENNEDY. The name Morgan Hall has been-that is thename that has been used.
Mr. GrINGER. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. And that is the agent that you met with.
Mr. GIrrlNGER. That is right.
Senator KENNEDY. And you met at the safe house.
Mr. GIrrINGER. 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 forjust 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 thatyou had similarMr. GITTINGER. I couldn't possibly say with any certainty on that.
Four or five times.
Senator KENNEDY. Four or five times.
Mr. GirrlNGER. 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 timethat I know anything about what you are talking about here today.
Senator KENNEDY. Did Morgan Hall make the arrangements forthe prostitutes to meet with you?
Mr. GITTINGER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Did the interviews that you had have anything to
do with drugs?
Mr. GIrrINGER. Well, as I tried to explain earlier when this was
being discussed a little bit beforehand, again I think it is pretty hardfor most people now to recognize how little there was known about
drugs at the period of time that we are talking about, because the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 ameans of doing this. Consequently, other types of things that wereinvolved in discussions at that time would have to do with the underground use of drugs.. When 1 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 hadtalked 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 orSenator KENNEDY. But they had 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 largelyin 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 insmall quantities, $100 bills and the kinds of elaborate decorations andtwo-way mirrors in the bedrooms and all the rest, is there any questionin 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 inany 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 termsof 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.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, we're not interested in names or institutions, so we prefer that you do not. That has to be worked out inarrangements between Admiral Turner and the individuals and theinstitutions.
But we're interested in what the Foundation really was and how it
functioned and what its purpose was.
Mr. GirriNGER. Tell, it was established to undertake research in thegeneral 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 thesense 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 panelof the most representative high-level behavioral scientists we could tooversee and help in terms of developing the Society for the Investigation of Hunan 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 noknowledge that they were getting CIA money.
Senator KENNEDY. Over what period of time did this take place?
Mr. GrrrINGER. As far as I was concerned, it was the period of timeending in 1961. I 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 ofindividual 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 Foundationacquired the money to make the grants from the Agency, and then it
made the grants to these various research programs.
Mr. GrrrlNGER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. And that included eight universities as well as
individual researchers?
Mr. GIrlNGER. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. Then what follow-up was there to that, sir?
Mr. GIrrlNGER. Well, in every sense of the word, the organization
was run exactly like any other foundation, and it carried with it thesame 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, butthere were no strings attached to anybody. There wasn't any reason
they couldn't publish anvthing thst thev put out.
Senator KENNEDY. What sort of budget are we talking about here?
Mr. GrrrlNGER. I honestly do not remember. I would iuess we aretalking in the realm of about $150,000 a year, but don't hold me to that,
because I don't know.

Senator KENNEDY. What is your view about such funding as a professional person, in terms of compromising the integrity of a university, sir? .
Mr. GITrlNGER. Well, obviously, sir, insofar as today there is noquestion 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. GirlNGERZ. 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 thegeneral 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. GlrrNGER. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. You believeMr. GirlNGER. You mean, CIA, other CIA?
Senator KENNEDY. Right.
Mr. GITrrNGER. Well, my answer is in the sense that I know of noother 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. GIrrlNGER. I certainly have.
Senator KENNEDY. What was that? What function did that have?
Mr. GITTrNGER. 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 anotherfoundation, was it not? It was another foundation supported by the
Agency?
Mr. GrTNGER. What, the Psychological Assessment?
Senator KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. GrnNGER. No, sir, it was not.
Senator KENNEDY. It did not get any support at all from the
Agency?
Mr. GIrlNGER. 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. GIrrINGER. It got money from it, but it definitely was not in

MKULTRA or in any way associated with this.

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 gooddeal 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 andfor your helpful timeliness.
Mr. GITINGER. Thank you, sir.
Senator INoU-i. 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 aboutpart 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 yourstandpoint as a scientist, as well as a citizen, if you will.
Mr. GITINGER. 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 categoricallystate to my knowledge and I don't claim a complete knowledge all theway across of the human ecology functions, but to my knowledge, andthis 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 andeducational background is?
Dr. GOLDMAN. I have already given a biography for the record.
Senator SCHWETKER. 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 wastold 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 SOHWEIKER. 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.

96-408 0 - 77 - 5

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 afew questions. We appreciate your frankness and candor with the committee, and we realize this is a very difficult area to go into. I am notquite 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. GrTiNGER. Not to my direct knowledge.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Would you have been in a position to know theanswer 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 somework 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 aboutbrainwashing 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 workon this, and there is still a great deal of controversy. I can tell you thatas 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 wereused, did not exist even though "The Manchurian Candidate" as amovie 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 tointerviewing and interrogation, and that they could produce anychange that way without having to resort to any kind of esotericmeans.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Are there ways that we can ascertain this froma distance when we see a captive prisoner either go on television, ina photograph, or at a press conference? In other words, are there certain signs that you have learned to recognize from your technicalbackground, to tell when brainwashing has occurred? Or is that very
difficult to do?
Mr. GITTINGER. It is difficult to do. I think it is posible now in termsof looking at a picture of somebody who has been in enemy hands fora long period of time. We can get some pretty good ideas of what kindof circumstances he has been under, if that is what you mean.

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 subpena.
Gentlemen, I realize that this experience may have been an unhappy
one and possibly a painful one. Therefore, we thank you very muchfor participating this morning. We also realize that the circumstancesof that time differed very much from this day, and possibly the national attitude, the national political attitude condoned this type ofactivity. So, we have not asked you to come here as persons who havecommitted 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 wethank you for your participation, and we look forward to working
with you further in this case.
Thank you very much.
Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Ohairman, I would like also to thank thewitnesses. 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 importantthat 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 factthat we are questioning the past to learn about the future. I think itshould be looked at in that light.
Senator KENNEDY. I think that is the spirit in which we have hadthese hearings. It seems to me that from both these witnesses andothers, Gottlieb knows the information and can best respond, and weare going to make every effort in the Senate Health Committee to get
Mr. Gottlieb to appear, and we obviously look forward to cooperatingwith Senator Inouye and the other members of the committee in getting the final chapter written on this, but we want to thank you verymuch for your appearance here.
Senator INOUYE. The hearing will stand in recess, subject to the callof the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the -hearing was recessed, subject to thecall of the Chair.]APPENDIX A
XVII. TESTING AND USE OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS BY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
Under its mandate ' the Select Committee has studied the testing anduse 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, theirmonitoring and control, and what the Committee's investigation has
revealed about the relationships among the intelligence agencies andabout 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 andearly 1950s. These experimental programs originally included testingof 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 biologicalagents 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 theagencies, 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 inpart by an observation made by the CIA Inspector General that, "theknowledge that the Agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activi1 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))."'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.
(385)

(65)

386
ties would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles3
and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its missions."
The research and development program, and particularly the covert testing programs, resulted in massive abridgments of the rightsof American citizens, sometimes with tra'gic consequences. The deathsof 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 administrationof 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, andprivate institutions and individuals. The CIA's normal administrative
controls were waived for programs involving chemical and biologicalagents to protect. their security. According to the head of the Audit
Branch O-f the CIA. these waivers produced "gross administrative
failures." They prevgnted the CIA's internal review mechanisms (theOffice 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 waiversof normal administrative controls, but also by a high degree of compartmentation within the CIA. This compartmentation excluded theCIA's Medical Staff from the principal research and testing program
employing chemical and biological agents.
It also may have led to agency policymakers receiving differingand inconsistent responses when they posed questions to the CIAcomponent involved.
Jurisdictional uncertainty within the CIA was matched by jurisdictional conflict among the various intelligence agencies. A spirit ofcooperation and reciprocal exchanges of information which initiallycharacterized the programs disappeared. Military testers withheld inlormation from the CIA, ignoring suggestions for coordination fromtheir superiors. The CIA similarly failed to provide informiation to
the military on the CIA's testing program. This failure to cooperate
was conspicuously manifested in an attempt by the Army to conceal
3CIA Inspector General's Survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217.
" 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 undera 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'sReport, issued on October 1975, on the events and circumstances of Mr. Blauer's
death. His death was directly atributable to the administration of the synthetic
mescaline derivative.

387
their overseas testing program, which included surreptitious administration of LSD, from the CIA. Learning of the Army's program,the Agency surreptitiously attempted to obtain 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 thesurreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting Americans, may wellhave resulted in the institution of an unnecessary and potentially lethal
program.
The development, testing, and use of chelnical and biological agentsby intelligence agencies raises serious questions about the relationshipbetween the intelligence community and foreign governments, otheragencies of the Federal Government, and other institutions and individuals. The questions raised range from the legitimacy of Americancomplicity 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 of1947. Responding to reports of "amazing results" achieved by theSoviets in using "truth drugs," the program focused on the identification and testing of. such drugs for use in interrogations and in the
recruitmenc of agents. The research included laboratory experiments
on animals and hump , subjects involving Anabasis aphylla, scopolamine, and rhescaline 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, andended shortly after the war, in 1953. .

2. Project BLUEBIRD/ARTICHOKE
The'earliest of the CIA's major programs involving the use ofchemical 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 defensivemeans 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 unconvent:ional interrogation techniques, including hypnosis and drugs. In*August1951, the project was renamed ARTICHOKE. Project ARTICHOKE included in-house experiments on interrogation techniques,conducted "under medical and security controls which would ensure'CIA memorandum to the Select Committee, "Behavioral Drugs and Testing,"
2/11/75.

388
that no damage was done to individuals who volunteer for the experiments."' 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 scientificadvances 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.- 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. 8These discussions included the planning of overseas interrogations as well as further
experimentation in the U.S.
. Information about project ARTICHOKE 'after the fall of 1953is 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. IKNAOMIMKNAOMI 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 uniqueitems 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 toof reassure absence of defects and complete predictability
9sults to be expected under operational conditions.
Under an agreement reached with the Army in 1952, the Snecial
Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick was to assist CIA indeveloping, 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.
a Memorandum from H. Marshall Chadwell. Assistant Director. Scientific Intelligence, to the Deputy Director/Plans (DDP) "Proiect ARTICHOKE," 8/29/52.
*"Progress Report, Project ARTICHOKE." 1/12/53.
Memorandum from Chief, TSD/Biological Braneh to Chief. TSD "MKNAOMI:
Funding. Obiectives. and Accornnli-br-nts." 10/18/17. T). 1. For a fuller description of MKNAOMI and the relationship between CIA and SOD. see p. 360 ff.

389
systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, andfacilities of the Army to develop biological weapons suited for CIA
use.
SOD developed darts coated with biological agents and pills containing several dif.rent biological agents which could remain potent
for weeks or months. SOD also 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 toconsciousness when leaving. SOD scientists were unable to develop

a similar incapacitant for humans. SOD also physically transferredto 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 agentsagainst 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.sa
MKNAOMI was terminated in 1970. On November 25, 1969, President Nixon renounced the use of any form of biological weapons thatkill or incapacitate and ordered the disposal of existing stocks of bacteriological weapons. On February 14, 1970, the President clarified theextent of his earJier order and indicated that toxins-chemicals thatare not living organisms but are produced by living organisms-wereconsidered biological weapons subject to his previous directive andwere to be destroyed. Although instructed to relinquish control ofmaterial held for the CIA by 9OD, 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.' 0

4. MKULTRAMKULTRA was the principal CIA program involving the researchand development of chemical and biological agents. It was "concerned with the research and development of chemical, biological, andradiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior." 11
In January 1973, MKULTRA records were destroyed by Technical
Services Division personnel actin 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* Ibid. p. 2.

'0 Senate Select Committee, 9/16/75, Hearings, Vo. 1.

n Memorandum from the CIA Inspector General to the Director, 7/26/63.

390
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 alea involves the production of various physiological conditions which could support
present or future clandestine operations. Aside from the offefisive 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 theoreticalpotential, thus enabling us to defend ourselves against a foe
as restrained in the use of these techwho might not 1be2niques as we are.
MKULTRA was approved by the DCI on April 13, 1953 along thelines proposed by ADDP Helms.
Part of the rationale for the establishment of this special funding mechanism was its extreme sensitivity. The Inspector General'ssurvey of MKULTRA in 1963 noted the following reasons for thissensitivity:
a. Rih earch in the mailipulation of human behavior is considered by man7. zuthorities in medicine and related fields
to be professionaily unethical, therefore the reputation of
professional participants in the MIKULTRA-program are on
occasion in jeopardy.
b. Some MKILTRA 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. citi7ens 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 actionin this field on the part of foreign intelligence services."3Over the ten-year life of the program, many "additional avenues tothe control of human behavior" were designated as appropriate forinvestigation under the MICULTRA charter. These include "radiation,
electroshock, various fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, andanthropoloy, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitarydevices 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 snbiects in various types of institutions; third, the applicationof MKTTLTRA materials in normal life settings.
The search for suitable materials was conducted through standing
arrangements with snecialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses,
hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private research orgamu'femorandum from ADDP Holms to DCI Dulles, 4/3/53, Tab A, pp. 1-2.
T.G. Report on MKULTRA, 1963, pp. 1-2.
rbid, p. 4.

71391
zations. The annual grants of funds to these specialists were madeunder ostensible research foundation auspices, thereby concealing the
CIA's interest from the specialist's institution.
The next phase of the MKITLTRA program involved physicians,
toxicologists, and other specialists in mental, narcotics, and general
hospitals, and in prisons. Utilizing the products and findings of thebasic research phase, they conducted intensive tests on human subjects.
I 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 wasthen 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 druz of their addiction.
LSD was one of the materials tested in the MIKULTRA 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 thattest subjects could be sought and cultivated within the settingof narcotics control. Some subjects have been informers or
members of suspect criminal elements from whom the [Bureau of Narcotics] has obtained results of orwrational value
through the tests. On the other hand, the effectiveness of thesubstances on individuals at all social levels, high and low,
native American and foreign, is of great significance andtesting has been performed an a variety of individualswithinthese categories. [Emphasis added.] 16
A special procedure. designated MKDELTA, was es'ablished togovern the use of MKULTRA materials abrond. Such materials wereused on a number of occasions. Because MKULTRA records were
dostroved, it is imnossible to reconstruct the operational use of
MKULTRA materials by the CIA overseas; it has been determinedthat the use of these materials abroad began in 1953, and possibly as
early as 1950.
Druns 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 oroject involving
the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting, nonvolunteer
SIbid, p. 21.
* Ibid., pp. 11-12.

72
392
subjects-the CIA had developed six drugs for operational use andthey had been used in six different operations on a total of thirty-threesubjects.' By 1963 the number of operations and subjects had increased substantially.
In the spring of 1963, during a wide-ranging Inspector Generalsurvey 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 thefirst, LSD was administered to more than 1,000 American soldiers who
volunteered to be subjects in chemical warfare experiments. In thesecond 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 fieldtests.
B. CIA DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS

1. The Rationale for the Testing Programs
The late 1940s 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 Statesconcern 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 biologicalagents so that the intelligence community could understand the mechanisms by which these substances worked and how their effects could
be defeated.,"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 theworld'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
Ibid, 1957, p. 201.
sThus an officer in the Office of Security of the CIA stressed the "urgency ofthe discovery of techniques and method that would permit our personnel, in theevent of their capture by the enemy, to resist or defeat enemy interrogation."(Minutes of the ARTICHOKE conference of 10/22/53.)

393
had ever been able to locate that really had potential fantastic possibilities if used wrongly." 19
But the defensive orientation soon became secondary. Chemical andbiological agents were to be studied in order "to perfect techniques . . .
for the abstraction of information from individuals whether willing ornot" and in order to "develop means for the control of the activities andmental 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. 2 1 In
other programs, the CIA began to develop, produce, stockpile, andmaintain in operational readiness materials which could be used toharass, 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 ofthe Central Intelligence Agency wrote in 1952:
There is ample evidence in the reports of innumerable interrogations that the Communists were utilizing drugs, physicalduress, 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 thismounting evidence to assume a more aggressive role in thedevelopment of these techniques, but must be cautious tomaintain strict inviolable control because of the havoc that
could be wrought by such techniques in unscrupulous hands. 2 3
In order to meet the perceived threat to the national security, substantial programs for the testing and use of chemical and biologicalagents-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, andimplemented. These programs resulted in substantial violations of therights of individuals within the United States.

1 Testimony of CIA officer, 11/21/75, p. 33.
'0 Memorandum from the Director of Security to ARTICHOKE

representatives, Subject: "ARTICHOKE Restatement of Program."n ARTICHOKE memorandum, 7/30/53.
" 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 beadministered unwittingly and permit the exercise of a measure of control over theactions 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 forthe dissemination of biological and chemical materals."' Memorandum from the Chief of the Medical Staff, 1/25/52.

394
inAlthough the CIA recognized these effects of LSD to unwitting
24
dividuals 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 the cessation of unwitting testing:
While I share your uneasiness and distaste for any program which tends to intrude upon an individual's privateand legal prerogatives, I believe it is necessary that the
Agency maintain a central role in this activity, keep currentof human behavior,on enemy capabilities the manipulation25
and maintain an offensive capability.
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 wasdeemed 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 enemyeforces 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 accomplishmentof its mission.26
2. The Death of Dr.FrankOlson
The most tragic result of the testing of LSD by the CIA was thedeath of Dr. Frank Olson, a civilian employee of the Army, who diedon 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 deathfrom a tenth story window in the Statler Hotel.
*"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 Directorof 5Central Intelligence from the Deputy Director for Plans, 12/17/63, p. 2.)' Ibid., pp. 2-3.
2 I.G. survey of TSD, 1957, p. 217.

395
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 biologicalweapons; and27(3) biological research for the CIA.
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." " 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 memoranda written after
Olson's death.
b. The Experiment.-On November 18, 1953, a group of ten scientists fiom 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 Divisionparticipants "agreed that an unwitting experiment would bedesirable." "3This account directly contradicts Vincent Ruwet's recollection. Ruwet recalls no such discussion, and has asserted that hewould remember any such discussion because the SOD participants
32
would have strenuously objected to testing on unwitting subjects.
meeting
In May, 1953, Richard Helms, Assistant DDP, held a staff
which the Chief of Technical Services Staff attended. At this meeting
Helms "indicated that the drug [LSD] was dynamite and that heshould be advised at all times when it was intended to use it." 3 In
addition, the then DDP, Frank Wisner, sent a memorandum to TSS
stating the requirement that the DDP personally 34approve the use of
LSD. Gottlieb went ahead with the experiment, securing the apStaff summary of Vincent Ruwet Interview, 8/13/75, p. 3.
" Memorandum of Col. Vincent Ruwet, To Whom It May Concern, no date,p. 2.
" Ruwet Memorandum, p. 3.
aJoseph B. Treaster, New York Times, 7/19/75, p. 1.
Memorandum for the Record from Lyman Kirkpatrick, 12/1/53, p. 1.
2 Ruwet (staff summary), 8/13/75, p. 6.
* Inspector General Diary, 12/2/53.
" Ibid. Dr. Gottleib has testified that he does not remember either the meetingwith Helms nor 'the Wisner memorandum. (Gottlieb, 10/18/75, p. 16.)27

396
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.3 6 a "very small dose" of LSD was placed ina 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 the SOD participants received LSD. One did
not drink; the other had a heart condition.3 7 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," heobserved nothing unusual in Olson's behavior.3 7a 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.3 8 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" atbreakfast, but that he "did not consider this to be abnormal under thecircumstances." 40c. 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 hin
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 conDr. 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 suchresearch in a prophetic manner. "The second reason to doubt Professor Rothlandcame when I raised the question as to any accidents which had arisen fromthe 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 isa 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 ofeither the report or that particular section of it. (Sidney Gottlieb testimony,
10/19/75, p. 78.)
" Memorandum of Sheffield Edwards for the record, 11/28/53, p. 2.
' Lashbrook (staff summary), 7/19/75, p. 3.
"a Gottlieb Memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 2.
Edwards memorandum, 11/28/53, p. 3.
Gottlieb memorandum. 12/7/53, p. 3.
0' Ruwet memorandum, p. 3.

397
versation, it was decided that medical assistance for Dr. Olson was
desirable."1
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 Yorkat 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 indirectlyby the CIA. Gottlieb and Dr. Lashbrook both followed his work closelyin the early 1950s. 4 3 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, thethree flew back to Washington so that Olson could spend Thanksgivingwith 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 ."Lashbrook and Olson flew back to New York the same day, again
for consultations with Abramson. They spent Thursday night in aLong 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.4 5
d. The Death.-Because they could not obtain air transportation fora return trip on Friday night, Lashbrook and Olson made reservationsfor 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 particulary 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] cameto New York." " Olson then left a call with the hotel operator to wakethem 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 throughthe closed window blind and the closed window and he fell to his deathfrom the window of our room on the 10th floor." 48"Ibid., p. 4.
'2 Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 1.
43 Staff summary of Dr. Harold Abramson interview, 7/29/75, p. 2.
" Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 3.
4 Abramson memorandum, 12/4/53.
* Lashbrook memorandum, 12/7/53, p. 3.
7 Ibid., p. 4.
0 Ibid.
96-408 0 - 77 - 6

398
Immediately after finding that Olson had leapt to his death, Lashbrook telephoned Gottlieb at his home and informed him of the incident.4" 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 laterchanged his mind and agreed to assist Lashbrook.5'
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." 65e. The Aftermath.-Following Dr. Olson's death, the CIA madea 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 thedeath 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 noteliminate the need for taking risks, but I do believe, especially when human health or life is at stake, that at least theprudent, reasonable measures which can be taken to mini. mize 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 reasonableprecautions."
As a result of the investigation DCI Allen Dulles sent a personal
letter to the Chief of Technical Oneiations of the Technical Services
Staff who had approved the experiment criticizing him for "poorjudgment... 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. Gotilieb, Chief of the Chemical Division of the Techifiical Services Staff, criticizing him for recommending the "unwitting
application of the drug" in that the proposal "did not give sufficientemphasis for medical collaboration and for the proper considerationof the rights of the individual to whom it was being administered."
CTA Field Office Report, 12/3/53, p. 3.
Ruwet Memorandum, p. 11.
CIA Field Office Report, 12/3/53, p. 3.
Z2 Ibid.
Memorandum from the General Counsel to the Inspector General. 1/4/54.
" Memorandum from DCI to Chief, Technical Opeiutions, TSS, 2/12/54.
7 Memorandum from DCI to Sidney Gottlieb, 2/12/54.

79
399
The letters were hand carried to the individuals to be read andreturned. 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." 5Thus, although the Rockefeller Commission has characterized themas 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 11 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 theirinformed 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 individuals, eliciting information, and implanting suggestions and other forms of mental control.5s
On February 12, 1954, the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency wrote TSS officials criticizing them for "poor judgment" inadministering LSD on "an unwitting basis and without proximate
medical safeguards" to Dr. Olson and for the lack of "proper consideration of the rights of the individual to whom it was being administered." 59 On the same day, the Inspector General reviewed a reporton Subproject Number 3 of MKULTRA, in which the same TSS
officers who had just received letters from the Director were quoted
as stating that one of the purposes of Subproject Number 3 was to
6 Note from DDCI to Richard Helms, 2/13/54.
" The 1963 IG Report, which described the project involving the surreptitious
administration of LSD, placed the project beginning in 1955. Other CIA documents reveal that it was in existence as early as February 1954. The CIA has
told the Committee that the project began in 1953 and that the experiment which
led to Dr. Olson's death was part of the project.
" Memorandum from ADDP items to DOI Dulles, 4/3/53, tab A, p. 2.
0 Memorandum from DCI to Sidney Gottlieb, 2/12/54; and memorandum from
DCI to Chief of Operations, TSS, 2/12/54.

400"observe the behavior of unwitting persons being questioned after
having been given a drug." o There is no evidence that Subproject
Number 3 was terminated even though these officers were unequivocally aware of the dangers of the surreptitious administration of LSD
and the necessity of obtaining informed consent and providing medical
safeguards. Subproject Number 3, in fact, used methods which showedeven less concern than did the OLSON experiment for the safety andsecurity of the participants. Yet the evidence indicates the projectcontinued until 1963.61
In the project, the individual conducting the test might makeinitial contact with a prospective subject selected at random in a bar.
He would then invite the person to a "safehouse" where the test drug
was administered to the subject through drink or in food. CIA personnel might debrief the individual conducting the test, or observe
the test by using a one-way mirror and tape recorder in an adjoining
room.
Prior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects.
There was also, obviously, no medical prescreening. In addition, thetests were conducted by individuals who were not qualified scientificobservers. There were no medical personnel on hand either to administer the drugs or to observe their effects, and no follow-up was conducted on the test subjects.
As the Inspector General noted in 1963:
A significant limitation on the effectiveness of such testing is
the infeasibility of performing scientific observation of results. The [individuals conducting the test] are not qualified
scientific observers. Their subjects are seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. The testing may be useful in
perfecting delivery techniques, and in identifying surface
62
characteristics of onset, reaction, attribution, and side-effect.
This was particularly troublesome as in a
number of instances, . . . the test subject has become ill forhours or days, including hospitalization in at least one case,and the agent could only follow up by guarded inquiry
after the test subject's return to normal life. Possible sickness
and attendant economic loss are inherent contingent effectsof the testing.6 3
Paradoxically, greater care seems to have been taken for the safetyof foreign nationals against whom LSD was used abroad. In several64
cases medical examinations were performed prior to the use of LSD.
0 Memorandum to Inspector General from Chief, Inspection and Review, on
Subproject #3 of MKULTRA, 2/10/54.
IG Report on MKULTRA, 1963.
* Ibid., p. 12.

"'Ibid. According to the IG's survey in 1963, physicians associated with
MKULTRA could be made available in an emergency.
" The Technical Services Division which was responsible for the operationaluse of LSD abroad took the position that "no physical examination of the subject
is required prior to administration of [LSD] by TSS trained personnel. A physi-

401
Moreover, the administration abroad was marked -by constant observation made possible because the material was being used against
prisoners of foreign intelligence or security organizations. Finally,
during certain of the LSD interrogations abroad, local physicians
were on call, though these physicians had had no experience with LSD
65
and would not be told that hallucinogens had been administered.
of
The CIA's project involving the surreptitious administration
LSD to unwitting human subjects in the United States was finallyhalted in 1963, as a result of its discovery during the course of an
Inspector General survey of the Technical Services Division. Whenthe Inspector General learned of the project, he spoke to the Deputy
Director for Plans, who agreed that the Director should be briefed.
The DDP made it clear that the DCI and his Deputy were generallyfamiliar with MKULTRA. He indicated, however, that he, was not
sure it was necessary to brief the DDCI at that point.
On May 24, 1963, the DDP advised the Inspector General that he hadbriefed the Director on the MKULTRA program and in particular
had covered the question of the surreptitious administration of LSD
to unwitting human subjects. According to the Inspector General, the
DDP said that "the Director indicated no disagreement and therefore
the 'testing' will continue." 66
One copy of an "Eyes Only" draft report on MKULTRA wasprepared by the Inspector General who recommended the terminationof the surreptitious administration project. The project was suspended
following the Inspector General's report.
On December 17, 1963, Deputy Director for Plans Helms wrote a
memo to the DDCI, who with the Inspector General and the Executive
Director-Comptroller had opposed the covert testing. He noted two
aspects of the problem: (1) "for over a decade the Clandestine Services has had the mission of maintaining a capability for influencing
human behavior;" and (2) "testing arrangements in furtherance of
this mission should be as operationally realistic and yet as controllable
as possible." Helms argued that the individuals must be "unwitting"as this was "the only realistic method of maintaining the capability,
considering the intended operational use of materials to influence
human behavior as the operational targets will certainly be unwitting.
Should the subjects of the testing not be unwitting, the program would
only be "pro forma" resulting in a "false sense of accomplishment andreadiness." 67 Helms continued:
clan need not be present. There is no danger medically in the use of this material
as handled by TSS trained personnel." The Office of Medical Services had taken
the position that LSD was "medically dangerous." Both the Office of Security
and the Office of Medical Services argued that LSD "should not be administered
unless preceded by a medical examination .. . and should be administered only
by or in the presence of a physician who had studied it and its effect." (Memorandum from James Angleton, Chief, Counterintelligence Staff to Chief of Operations, 12/12/57, pp. 1-2.
* Physicians might be called with the hope that they would make a diagnosisof mental breakdown which would be useful in discrediting the individual who
was the subject of the CIA interest.
" Memorandum for the Record prepared by the Inspector General, 5/15/63, p. 1.
6
Ibid., p. 2.

402
If one grants the validity of the mission of maintaining thisunusual capability and the necessity for unwitting testing,there is only then the question of how best to do it. Obviously,
the testing should be conducted in such a manner as to permit
the opportunity to observe the results of the administrationon the target. It also goes without saying that whatever testing arrangement we adopt must afford maximum safeguards
for the protection of the Agency's role in this activity, as
well as minimizing the possibility of physical or emotional
damage to the individual tested. 68
In another memo to the Director of Central Intelligence in June,
1964, Helms again raised the issue of unwitting testing. At that time
General Carter, then acting DCI, approved several changes in the
MKTULTRA program proposed by Mr. Helms as a result of negotiations between the Inspector General and the DDP. In a handwrittennote, however, Director Carter added that "unwitting testing will be
subject to a separate decision." 69.
No specific decision was made then or soon after. The testing had
been halted and, according to Walter Elder, Executive Assistant to
DCI McCone, the DCI was not inclined to take the positive step ofauthorizing a resumption of the testing. At least through the summer,
the DDP did not press the issue. On November 9, 1964, the DDP
raised the issue again in a memo to the DCI, calling the Director's
attention to what he described as "several other indications during
the past year of an apparent Soviet aggressiveness in the field ofcovertly administered chemicals which are, to say the least, inexplicable and disturbing." oHelms noted that because of the suspension of covert testing, theAkgency's "positive operational capability to use drugs is diminishing,owing to a lack of realistic testing. With increasing knowledge of thestate of the art, we are less capable of staying up with Soviet advancesin this field. This in turn results in a waning capability on our partto restrain others in the intelligence community (such as the Department of Defense) from pursuing operations in this area." "Helms attributed the cessation of the unwitting testing to the highrisk of embarrassment to the Agency as well as the "moral problem."He noted that no better covert situation had been devised than thatwhich had been used, and that "we have no answer to the moral
issue." 72

Helms asked for either resumption of the testing project or its definitive cancellation. He argued that the status quo of a research and development program without a realistic testing program was causing
the Agency to live "with the illusion of a capability which is becoming
minimal and furthermore is expensive." "7Once again no formal action
was taken in response to the Helms' request.
Memorandum from DDP Helms to DDCI Carter, 12/17/63.
* Memorandum from DDP Helms to DCI, 6/9/64, p. 3.
70Ibid., 11/9/64, p. 1.
n Ibid., pp. 1-2.
"Ibid., p. 2.
7 Ibid.

403 .
From its beginning in the early 1950's until its termination in 1963,
the program of surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting nonvolunteer human subjects demonstrates a failure of the CIA's leadership to pay adequate attention to the rights of individuals and to provide effective guidance to CIA employees. Though it was known thatthe testing was dangerous, the lives of subjects were placed in jeopardy and their rights were ignored during the ten years of testing
which followed Dr. Olson's death. Although it was clear that the lawsof the United States were being violated, the testing continued. Whilethe individuals involved in the Olson experiment were admonishedby the Director, at the same time they were also told that they were
not being reprimanded and that their "bad judgment" would not bemade part of their personnel records. When the covert testing project
was terminated in 1963, none of the individuals involved were subject
to any disciplinary action.
4. Monitoring and Control of the Testing and Use of-Chemical andBiologicalAgents by the CIA
The Select Committee found numerous failures in the monitoring
and control of the testing and use of chemical and 'biological agentswithin the CIA.74 An analysis of the failures can be divided into four
sections: (a) the waiver of normal regulations or requirements; (b)the problems in authorization procedures; (c) the failure of internal
review mechanisms such as the Office of General Counsel, the Inspector
General, and the Audit Staff; and (d) the effect of compartmentationand competition within the CIA.
a. The Waiver of Administrative Control.-The internal controls
within any agency rest on: (1) clear and coherent regulations; (2)clear lines of authority; and (3) clear rewards for those who conduct
themselves in accord with agency regulations and understandable andimmediate sanctions against those who do not. In the case of the testing and use of chemical and biological agents, normal CIA administrative controls were waived. The destruction of the documents on thelargest CIA program in this area constituted a prominent example of
the waiver of normal Agency procedures by the Director.
These documents were destroyed in early 1973 at the order of then
DCI Richard Helms. According to Helms, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, thenDirector of TSD:...

came to me and said that he was retiring and that I was

retiring and he thought it would be a good idea if these files
were destroyed. And I also believe part of the reason forour thinking this was advisable was there had been relationships with outsiders in government agencies and other organizations and that these would be sensitive in this kind of athing but that since the program was over and finished anddone with, we thought we would just get rid of the files as"Section 2(9) of S. Res. 21 instructs the Committee to examine: the "extent
to which United States intelligence agencies are governed by Executive Orders,rules, or regulations either published or secret."84404
well, so that anybody who assisted us in the past would not
be subject to follow-up or questions, embarrassment, if you
will."The destruction was based on a waiver of an internal CIA regulation, CSI 70-10, which regulated the "retirement of inactive records."
As Thomas Karamessines, then Deputy Director of Plans, wrote inregulation CSI-70-10: "Retirement is not a matter of convenience orof storage but of conscious judgment in the application of the rules
modified by knowledge of individual component needs. The heart ofthis judgment is to ensure that the complete story can be reconstructedin later years and by people who may be unfamiliar with the events." "The destruction of the MKULTRA documents made it impossible
for the Select Committee to determine the full range and extent of thelargest CIA research program involving chemical and biologicalagents. The destruction also prevented the CIA from locating and providing medical assistance to the individuals who were subjects in the
program. Finally, it prevented the Committee from determining thefull extent of the operations which made use of materials developed in
the MKULTRA program.7 7
From the inception of MKULTRA normal Agency procedures were
waived. In 1953, Mr. Helms, then Assistant Deputy Director for Plans,
proposed the establishment of MKULTRA. Under the proposal six
percent of the research and development budget of TSD would be
expended "without the establishment of formal contractual relations"because contracts would reveal government interest. Helms also voted
that qualified individuals in the field "are most reluctant to enter into
signed agreements of any sort which connect them with this activity
since such a connection would jeopardize their professional reputa" Richard Helms testimony, 9/11/75, p. 5.
'Many Agency documents recording confidential relationships with individuals
and organizations are retained without public disclosure. Moreover, in the case of
MKULTRA the CIA had spent millions of dollars developing both materials anddelivery systems which could be used by the Clandestine Services; the reconstruction of the research and development program would be difficult if not impossible, without the documents, and at least one assistant to Dr. Gottlieb protested
against the document destruction on those grounds.
" Clandestine Services Institution (CSI) 70-10. When asked by the SelectCommittee about the regularity of the procedure by which he authorized Dr.
Gottlieb to destroy the MKULTRA records, Helms responded:"Well, that's hard to say whether it would be part of the regular procedure ornot, because the record destruction program is conducted according to a certain
pattern. There's a regular record destruction pattern in the Agency monitored bycertain people and done a certain way. So that anything outside of that, I suppose,
would have been unusual. In other words, there were documents being destroyed
because somebody had raised this specific issue rather than because they wereencompassed in the regular records destruction program. So I think the answer
to your question is probably yes." (Helms testimony, 9/11/75, p. 6.)
7 Even prior to the destruction of documents, the MKULTRA records were far
from complete. As the Inspector General noted in 1963:"Files are notably incomplete, poorly organized, and lacking in evaluative statements that might give perspective to management policies over time. A substantial portion of the MKULTRA record appears to rest in the memories of the principal officers and is therefore almost certain to be lost with their departures."(G Report on MKULTRA, p. 23.)

405
tions"."8 Other Agency procedures, i.e., the forwarding of documents
in support of invoices and the provision for regular audit procedures,
were also to be waived. On April 13, 1953, then DCI Allen Dulles
approved MKULTRA, noting that security considerations precluded
handling the project through usual contractual agreements.
Ten years later investigations of MKULTRA by both the Inspector
General and the Audit Staff noted substantial deficiencies which resulted from the waivers. Because TSD had not reserved the right toaudit the books of contractors in MKULTRA, the CIA had been
unable to verify the use of Agency grants by a contractor. Anotherfirm had failed to establish controls and safeguards which would assure "proper accountability" in use of government funds with theresult that "funds have been used for purposes not contemplated by
grants or allowable under usual contract relationship." " The entire
MKULTRA arrangement was condemned for having administrativelines which were unclear, overly permissive controls, and irresponsible supervision.
The head of the Audit Branch noted that inspections and audits:
led us to see MKULTRA as frequently having provided a
device to escape normal administrative controls for researchthat is not especially sensitive, as having allowed practices
that produce gross administrative failures, as having permitted the establishment of special relationships with unreliable organizations on an unacceptable basis, and as having
produced, on at least one occasion, a cavalier treatment of abona fide contracting organization.
While admitting that there may be a need for special mechanisms
for handling sensitive projects, the Chief of the Audit Branch wrotethat "both the terms of reference and the ground rules for handlingsuch special projects should be spelled out in advance so that diversion from normal channels does not mean abandonment of controls.
Special procedures may be necessary to ensure the security of highly
sensitive operations. To prevent the erosion of normal internal control mechanisms, such waivers should not be extended to less sensitive
operations. Moreover, only those regulations which would endanger
security should be waived; to waive regulations generally would
result in highly sensitive and controversial projects having looserrather than stricter administrative controls. MKNAOMI, the Fort
Detrick CIA project for research and development of chemical andbiological agents, provides another example where efforts to protect
the security of agency activties overwhelmed administrative controls.
No written records of the transfer of agents such as anthrax or shellfish toxin were kept, "because of the sensitivity of the area and thedesire to keep any possible use of materials like this recordless." 81 The
11Memorandum from ADDP Helms to DCI Dulles, 4/3/53, Tab. A, p. 2.
- Memorandum from IG to Chief, TSD, 11/8/63, as quoted in memorandum
from Chief, Audit Branch.
' The memorandum suggested that administrative exclusions, because of theimportance of such decisions, should require the personal approval of the Deputy
Director of Central Intelligence on an inidividual case basis. Present CIA policy
is that only the DCI can authorize certain exemptions from regulations.
sxSidney Gottlieb testimony, 10/18/75, Hearings, Vol. 1, p. 51.

86406
result was that the Agency had no way of determining what materials were on hand, and could not be certain whether delivery systems
such as dart guns, or deadly substances such as cobra venom had been
issued to the field.
b. Authorization.-The destruction of the documents regarding
MKULTRA made it difficult to determine at what level specific projects in the program were authorized. This problem is not solely a result of the document destruction, however. Even at the height of
MKULTRA the IG noted that, at least with respect to the surreptitious administration of LSD, the "present practice is to maintain norecords of the planning and approval of test programs." 82
While it is clear that Allen Dulles authorized MiKULTRA, the record is unclear as to who authorized specific projects such as that involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting nonvolunteer human subjects. Even given the sensitive and controversial
nature of the project, there is no evidence that when John McCone
replaced Allen Dulles as the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency he was briefed on the details of this project and asked whether
it should be continued."3 Even during the 1963 discussions on the propriety of unwitting testing, the DDP questioned whether it was "necessary to brief General Carter," the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence and the Director's "alter ago," because CIA officers felt it necessary to keep details of the project restricted to an absolute minimum
number of people. 4
In May of 1963, DDP Helms told the Inspector General that thecovert testing program was authorized because he had gone to the
Director, briefed him on it and "the Director indicated no disagreement and therefore the testing will continue." 85 Such authorizationeven for noncontroversial matters is clearly less desirable than explicit authorization; in areas such as the surreptitious administrationof drugs, it is particularly undesirable. Yet according to testimony
2 IG Report on MKULTRA,
1963, p. 14.
" According to an assistant to Dr. Gottlieb, there were annual briefings of the
DCI and the DDP on MKULTRA by the Chief of TSD or his deputy. However, aMay 15, 1963 Memorandum for the Record from the Inspector General noted that
Mr. McCone had not been briefed in detail about the program. Mr. McCone's Executive Officer, Walter Elder, testified that it was "perfectly apparent to me" thatneither Mr. McCone nor General Carter, then the DDCI, was aware of the surreptitious administration project "or if they had been briefed they had not understood it." (Elder, 12/18/75, p. 13.) Mr. McCone testified that he "did not know"whether he talked to anyone about the project but that no one had told him about
it in a way that "would have turned on all the lights." (John McCone testimony,
2/3/76, p. 10.)
" According to Elder's testimony, "no Deputy Director, to my knowledge,
has ever been briefed or was it ever thought necessary to brief them to the extent
to which you would brief the Director."" IG Memorandum for the Record. 5/15/63.
On the question of authorization of the covert testing program, Elder testified
as follows:"But my reasonable judgment is that this was considered to be in the area ofcontinuing approval, having once been approved by the Director."
The theory of authorization carrying over from one administration to the next
seems particularly inappropriate for less visible, highly sensitive operations
which, unless brought to his attention by subordinates, would not come to theattention of the Director.

87
407
before the Committee, authorization through lack of agreement -is
even more prevalent in sensitive situations."* The unauthorized retention of shellfish toxin by Dr. Nathan Gordon
and his subordinates, in violation of a Presidential Directive, may haveresulted from the failure of the Director to issue written instructions toAgency officials. The retention was not authorized by senior officials in
the Agency. The Director, Mr. Helms, had instructed Mr. Karamessines, the Deputy Director of Plans, and Dr. Gottlieb, the Chief ofTechnical Services Division, to relinquish control to the Army of any
chemical or biological agents being retained for the CIA at Fort Detrick. Dr. Gottlieb passed this instruction on to Dr. Gordon. Whileorders may be disregarded in any organization, one of the reasons that
Dr. Gordon used to defend the retention was the fact that he had notreceived written instructions forbidding it.87
In some situations the existence of written instructions did not prevent unauthorized actions. According to an investigation by the CIA's
Inspector General TSD officers had been informed orally that Mr.
Helns was to be "advised at all times" when LSD was to be used. In
addition TSD had received a memo advising the staff that LSD was
not to be used without the permission of the DDP, Frank Wisner. The
experiment involving Dr. Olson went ahead without notification ofeither Mr. Wisner or Mr. Helms. The absence of clear and immediate
punishment for that act must undercut the force of other internal instructions and regulations.
One last issue must be raised about authorization procedures within
the Agency. Chemical agents were used abroad until 1959 for discrediting or disabling operations, or for the purpose of interrogations
with the approval of the Chief of Operations of the DDP. Later theapproval of the Deputy Director for Plans was required for suchoperations. Although the medical staff sought to be part of the approval process for these operations, they were excluded because, as theInspector General wrote in 1957:
Operational determinations are the responsibility of the
DD/P and it is he who should advise the DCI in theserespects just as it is he who is responsible for the results. It
is completely unrealistic to consider assigning to the Chief,
Medical Staff, (what, in effect, would be authority over clandestine operations.)"
Given the expertise and training of physicians, participation of theMedical Staff might well have been useful.
Questions about authorization also exist in regard to those agencies
which assisted the CIA. For instance, the project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD to unwitting non-volunteer humansubjects was conducted in coordination with the Bureau of Narcotics
and Dangerous Drugs. There is some question as to the Commissionerof Narcotics' knowledge about the project.

a Mr. Elder was asked whether the process of bringing forward a description ofactions by the Agency in getting approval through the absence of disagreement
was a common one. He responded, "It was not uncommon. . . . The more sensitive
the project the more likely it would lean toward being a common practice, basedon the need to keep the written record to a minimum."8 Nathan Gordan testimony, 9/16/75, Hearings, Vol. 1.
* 1957 IG Report.

88
-

408

In 1963, the Inspector General noted that the head of the BNDD
had been briefed about the project, but the IG's report did not indicate the level of detail provided to him. Dr. Gottlieb testified that "Iremember meeting Mr. Anslinger and had the general feeling that he
was aware." 89 Another CIA officer did not recall any discussion of
testing on unwitting subjects when he and Dr. Gottlieb met with Commissioner Anslinger.
In a memorandum for the record in 1967 Dr. Gottlieb stated that
Harry Giordano, who replaced Mr. Anslinger, told Dr. Gottlieb thatwhen he became Commissioner he was "only generally briefed on thearrangements, gave it his general blessing, and said he didn't want toknow the details." The same memorandum states, however, that there
were several comments which indicated to Dr. Gottlieb that Mr. Giordano was aware of the substance of the project. It is possible that
the Commissioner provided a general authorization for the arrangement without understanding what it entailed or considering its propriety. A reluctance to seek detailed information from the CIA, andthe CIA's hesitancy to volunteer it, has -been found in a number of
instances during the Select Committee's investigations. This problem
is not confined to the executive branch but has also marked congressional relationships with the Agency.
c. Internal Review.-The waiver of regulations and the absence of
documentation make it difficult to determine now who authorizedwhich activities. More importantly, they made internal Agency review
mechanisms much less effective."o Controversial and highly sensitive
projects which should have been subject to the most rigorous inspection
lacked effective internal review.
Given the role of the General Counsel and his reaction to the surreptitious administration of LSD to Dr. Olson, it would have seemed
likely that he would be asked about the le'ality or propriety of any
subsequent projects involving such administration. This was not done.
He did not learn about this testing until the 1970's. Nor was the General Counsel's opinion sought on other MKULTRA projects, thoughthese had been characterized by the Inspector General in the 1957
Report on TSD as "unethical and illicit."91
There is no mention in the report of the 1957 Inspector General'ssurvey of TSD of the project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD. That project was apparently not brought to the attentionof the survey team. The Inspector who discovered it during the IG's
1963 survey of TSD recalls coming upon evidence of it inadvertently," Gottlieb, 10/18/75, p. 28.
9 The IG's report on MKULTRA In 1963 stated:"The original charter documents specified that TSD maintain exacting control of MKULTRA activities. In so doing, however, TSD has pursued a philosophy of minimum documentation in keeping with the high sensitivity of someof the projects. Some files were found to present a reasonably complete record,
including most sensitive matters, while others with parallel objectives contained
little or no data at all. The lack of consistent records precluded use of routine
inspection procedures and raised a variety of questions concerning management and fiscal controls."" CIA, Inspector General's report on TSD, 1957, p. 217.

409
been called to his attention as an especiallyrather than its having
sensitive project. 9 2Thus both the General Counsel and the Inspector General, the principal internal mechanisms for the control of possibly improper actions,were excluded from regular reviews of the project. When the project
was discovered the Executive Director-Comptroller voiced strong opposition to it; it is possible that the project would have been terminated in 1957 if it had been called to his attention when he then served
as Inspector General.
The Audit Staff, which also serves an internal review function
through the examination of Agency expenditures, also encounteredsubstantial difficulty with MKULTRA. When MKULTRA was first
proposed the Audit Staff was to be excluded from any function. Thiswas soon changed. However, the waiver of normal "contractual procedures" in MIULTRA increased the likelihood of "irregularities"
as well as the difficulty in detecting them. The head of the Audit
Branch characterized the MKULTRA procedures as "having allowed
practices that produced gross administrative failures," including alack of controls within outside contractors which would "assure properaccountability in use of government funds." It also diminished theCIA's capacity to verify the accountings provided by outside firms.
d. Compartmentation and Jurisdictional Conflict Within the
Agency.-As has been noted, the testing and use of chemical andbiological agents yas treated as a highly sensitive activity within theCIA, This resulted in a high degree of compartmentation. At the sametime substantial jurisdictional conflict existed within the Agency between the Technical Services Division, and the Office of Medical Services and the Office of Security.
This compartmentation and jurisdictional conflict may well have
led to duplication of effort within the CIA and to Agency policymakers being deprived of useful information.
During the early 1950's first the BLUEBIRD Committee and thenthe ARTICHOKE Committee were instituted to bring together representatives of the Agency components which had a legitimate interest in the area of the alteration of human behavior. By 1957 both thesecommittees had fallen into disuse. No information went to the Technical Services Division (a component supposedly represented on the
ARTICHOKE Committee) about ARTICHOKE operations being
conducted by the Office of Security and the Office of Medical Services.
The Technical Services Division which was providing support to the
Clandestine Services in the use of chemical and biological agents, but
provided little or no information to either the Office of Security or the
Office of Medical Services. As one TSD officer involved in these prowe were acquainted, we certainly didn't
grams testified: "Although
93
share experiences."" Even after the Inspector came upon it the IG did not perform a complete
investigation of it. It was discovered at the end of an extensive survey of TSD
and the Inspector was in the process of being transferred to another post within
the Agency.
"Testimony of CIA officer, 11/21/75, p. 14.

90410
QKHILLTOP, another group designed to coordinate research inthis area also had little success. The group met infrequently-only
twice a year-and little specific information was exchanged. 9
Concern over security obviously played some role in the failure toshare information,95 but this appears not to be the only reason. A TSD
officer stated that the Office of Medical Services simply wasn't "particularly interested in what we were doing" and never sought suchinformation.6 On the other hand, a representative of the Office ofMedical Services consistently sought to have medical personnel participate in the use of chemical and biological agents suggested that
TSD did not inform the Office of Medical Services in order to prevent their involvement.
Jurisdictional conflict was constant in this area. The Office ofSecurity, which had been assigned responsibility for direction of
ARTICHOKE, consistently sought to bring TSD operations involving psychochemicals under the ARTICHOKE umbrella. The
Office of Medical Services sought to have OMS physicians advise andparticipate in the operational use of drugs. As the Inspector General described it in 1957, "the basic issue is concerned with the extent
of authority that should be exercised by the Chief, Medical Staff, over
the activities of TSD which encroach upon or enter into the medical
field," and which are conducted by TSD "without seeking the priorapproval of the Chief, Medical Staff, and often without informing
him of their nature and extent." 97
As was noted previously, because the projects and programs of
TSD stemmed directly from operational needs controlled by the
DDP, the IG recommended no further supervision of these activities by the Medical Staff :It is completely unrealistic to consider assigning to theChief, Medical Staff, what, in effect, would be authority overclandestine operations. Furthermore, some of the activities
of Chemical Division are not only unorthodox but unethicaland sometimes illegal. The DDP is in a better position toevaluate the justification for such operations than the Chief,
Medical Staff .9 [Emphasis added.]
Because the advice of the Director of Security was needed for"evaluating the risks involved" in the programs and because theknowledge that the CIA was "engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic
circles," the IG recommended that the Director of Security be fully
advised of TSD's activities in these areas.
Even after the Inspector General's Report of 1957, the compartmentation and jurisdictional conflict continued. They may have had a subThe one set of minutes from a QKHILLTOP meeting indicated that individuals in the Office of Medical Services stressed the need for more contact.
' When asked why information on the surreptitious administration of LSI)
was not presented to the ARTICHOKE committee, Dr. Gottlieb responded: "Iimagine the only reason would have been a concern for broadening the awareness of its existence."'IA ifficer. 11/21/75. p. 14.
IG Survey of TS), 1957. p. 217.
0a Ibid.

91
411
stantial negative impact on policymaking in the Agency. As the Deputy Chief of the Counterintelligence Staff noted in 1958, due to thedifferent positions taken by TSS, the Office of Security, and the Officeof Medical Services on the use of chemical or biological agents, it waspossible that the individual who authorized the use of a chemical or
biological agent could be presented with "incomplete facts upon which
to make a decision relevant to its use." Even a committee set up by the
DDP in 1958 to attempt to rationalize Agency policy did not have access to records of testing and use. This was due, in part, to excessive
compartmentation, and jurisdictional conflict.
C. COVERT TESTING ON HUMAN SUBJECTS BY MILITARY INTELLIGENCE

Gnours: MATERIAL TESTING PROGRAM EA 1729, PROJECT THIRDCHANGE, AND PROJECT DERBY HATEA 1729 is the designator used in the Army drug testing programfor Ivsergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Interest in LSD was originallyby open literaaroused at the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories
99
intellipositiveThe
compound.
theof
effects
unusualtheonturecompounds likegence and counterintelligence potential envisioned for100
supported the
LSD, and suspected Soviet interest in such materials,
development of an American military capability and resulted in experiments conducted jointly by the U.S. Army Intelligence Board andthe Chemical Warfare Laboratories.
These experiments, designed to evaluate potential intelligence usesof LSD, were known collectively as "Material Testing Program EA
1729." Two projects of particular interest conducted as part of theseexperiments, "THIRD CHANCE" and "DERBY HAT", involved
the administration of LSD to unwitting subjects in Europe and theFar East.
In many respects, the Army's testing programs duplicated researchwhich had already been conducted by the CIA. They certainly involved
the risks inherent in the early phases of drug testing. In the Army's
tests, as with those of the CIA, individual rights were also subordinated to national security considerations; informed consent and followup examinations of subjects were neglected in efforts to maintain thesecrecy of the tests. Finally, the command and control problems whichwere apparent in the CIA's programs are paralleled by a lack of clear
authorization and supervision in the Army's programs.
" USAINTC staff study, "Material Testing Program, EA 1729," 10/15/59, p. 4.
'This same USAINTC study cited "A 1952 (several years prior to initial U.S.
interest in LSD-25) report that the Soviets purchased a large quantity of LSD-25
from the Sandoz Company in 1951, reputed to be sufficient for 50 million doses."(Ibid., p. 16.)
Generally accepted Soviet methods and counterintelligence concerns were alsostrong motivating factors in the initiation of this research:"A primary justification for field experimentation in intelligence with EA 1729
is the counter-intelligence or defense implication. We know that the enemy philosophy condones any kind of coercion or violence for intelligence purposes. Thereis proof that his intelligence service has used drugs in the past. There is strong
evidence of keen interest in EA 1729 by him. If for no other purpose than to knowwhat to expect from enemy intelligence use of the material and to, thus, he prepared to counter it, field experimentation is justified." (Ibid, p. 34)

412
1. Scope of Testing
Between 1955 and 1958 research was initiated by the Army Chemical
Corps to evaluate the potential for LSD as a chemical warfare incapacitating agent.. In the course of this research, LSD was administered
to more than 1,000 American volunteers who then participated in aseries of tests designed to ascertain the effects of the drug on theirability to function as soldiers. With the exception of one set of tests
at Fort Bragg, these and subsequent laboratory experiments to evaluate chemical warfare potential were conducted at the Army Chemical
Warfare Laboratories, Edgewood, Maryland.
In 1958 a new series of laboratory tests were initiated at Edgewood.
These experiments were conducted as the initial phase of Material
Testing Program EA 1729 to evaluate the intelligence potential of
LSD, and included LSD tests on 95 volunteers.o' As part of thesetests, three structured experiments were conducted:
1. LSD was administered surreptitiously at a simulatedsocial reception to volunteer subjects who were unaware of
the purpose or nature of the tests in which they wereparticipating;
2. LSD was administered to volunteers who were subsequently polygraphed; and3. LSD was administered to volunteers who were thenconfined to "isolation chambers".
These structured experiments were designed to evaluate the validityof the traditional security training all subjects had undergone in theface of unconventional, drug enhanced, interrogations.
At the conclusion of the laboratory test phase of Material Testing
Program EA 1729 in 1960, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff forIntelligence (ACSI) authorized operational field testing of LSD. The
first field tests were conducted in Europe by an Army Special Purpose Team (SPT) during the period from May to August of 1961.
These tests were known as Project THIRD CHANCE and involved
eleven separate interrogations of ten subjects, None of the subjects
were volunteers and none were aware that they were to receive
LSD. All but one subject, a U.S. soldier implicated in the theft ofclassified documents, were alleged to be foreign intelligence sources
or agents. While interrogations of these individuals were only moderately successful, at least one subject (the U.S. soldier) exhibited
symptoms of severe paranoia while under the influence of the drug.
The second series of field tests, Project DERBY HAT, were conducted by an Army SPT in the Far East during the period
from August to November of 1962. Seven subjects were interrogatedunder DERBY HAT, all of whom were foreign nationals either suspected of dealing in narcotics or implicated in foreign intelligence
operations. The purpose of this second set of experiments was to collect additional data on the utility of LSD in field interrogations, andto evaluate any different effects the drug might have on "Orientals."
Inspector General of the Army Report. "Use of Volunteers in Chemical Agent
Research," 3/10/76. p. 138.
Wt

413

2. Inadequate CoordinationAmong IntelligenceAgencies
On October 15, 1959, the U.S. Army Intelligence Center preparedlengthy staff study on Material Testing Program EA 1729. The statedpurpose of the staff study was: "to determine the desirability of EA
1729 on non-US subjects in selected actual operations under controlled
conditions. 1 0 2 It was on the basis of this study that operational fieldtests were later conducted.
After noting that the Chemical Warfare Laboratories began experiments with LSD on humans in 1955 and had administered the drug
to over 1,000 volunteers, the "background" section of the study
concluded:
There has not been a single case of residual ill effect. Studyof the prolific scientific literature on LSD-25 and personalcommunication between US Army Chemical Corps personnel and other researchers in this field have failed to disclose
an authenticated instance of irreversible change being produced in normal humans by the drug. 0 3
This conclusion was reached despite an awareness that there were
inherent medical dangers in such experimentation. In the body of thissame study it is noted that:
The view has been expressed that EA 1729 is a potentially
dangerous drug, whose pharmaceutical actions are not fully
understood and there has been cited the possibility of thecontinuance of a chemically induced psychosis in chronic:
form, particularly if a latent schizophrenic were a subject,with consequent claim or representation against the U.S.
Government.'0
An attempt was made to minimize potential medical hazards by careful selection of subjects prior to field tests. Rejecting evidence thatthe drug might be hazardous, the study continued:
The claim of possible permanent damage caused by EA 1729
is an unproven hypothesis based on the characteristic effectof the material. While the added stress of a real situation
may increase the probability of permanent adverse effect,
the resulting risk is deemed to be slight by the medical research personnel of the Chemical Warfare Laboratories.To
prevent even such a slight risk, the proposed plan for field
experimentation calls for overt, if possible, or contrivedthrough-ruse, if necessary, physical and mental examinationof any real situation subject prior to employment of thesubject.10 5This conclusion was drawn six years after one deaith had occurred
which could be attributed, at least in part., to the effects of thevery drug the Army was proposing to field test.. The USAINTC staff,
however, was apparently unaware of the circumstances surrounding Dr. Olson's death. This lack of knowledge is indicative of the" TISAINTC

Ibid., p. 4.
'Ibid.. p. 25.

"03

10

Ibid.

96-408 0 - 77 - 7

staff study. "Material TEsting Program EA 1729." 10/15/.9, p. 4.

414
general lack of interagency communication on drug related research.
As the October 1959 study noted, "there has been no coordination
with other intelligence agencies up to the present." 10G

On December 7, 1959, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelli-gence (ACSI, apparently a General Willems) was briefed on the
proposed operational use of LSD by VUSAINTC Project Officer Jacobson, in preparation for Project. THIRD CHANCE. General Willems
expressed concern that the project had not been coordinated with the
FBI and the CIA. He is quoted as saying "that if this project is going
to be worth anything it [LSD] should be used on higher types of
non-U.S. subjects" in other words "staffers." He indicated this could
be accomplished if the CIA were brought in. The summary of thebriefing prepared by a MajorMIehorskY continues: "Of particular noteis that ACSI did not. direct coordination with CIA and the FBI but
only mentioned it for consideration by the planners." 107After the briefing, four colonels, two lieutenant colonels and Major
Mehovsky iet to discuss interagency cooperation with CIA and FBI.
The group consensus was to postplone efforts toward coordination:
Lt. Col. Jacobson commented that before we coordinate with
CIA we should have more factual findings from field experimentation with counterintelligence cases that will strengthen
our position and proposal for cooperation. This approach
was agreed to by the conferees. 08
Had such coordination been achieved, the safety of these experiments
might have been viewed differently and the tests themselves might
have been seen as unnecessary.
3. Subordination of Individual Rights to National Security Considerations
Just as many of these experiments may have been unnecessary, thenature of the operational tests (polygraph-assisted interrogations ofdrugged suspects) reflects a basic disregard for the fundamental
human rights of the subjects. The interrogation of an American
soldier as part of the THIRD CHANCE 1961 tests is an example ofthis disregard.
The "trip report" for Project THIRD CHANCE, dated September 6, 1961, recounts the circumstances surrounding and the results ofthe tests as follows:[The subject] was a U.S. soldier who had confessed to theftof classified documents. Conventional methods had failed toascertain whether espionage intent was involved. A significant
new admission by subject that lie told a fellow soldier of thetheft while lie still had the documents in his possession was
obtained during the EA 1729 interrogation along with othervariations of Subject's previous account. The interrogation
results were deemed by the local operational authority satisfactory evidence of Subject's claim of innocence in regard toespionage intent.o 9'Ibid.,

p. 6.

Mehovsky Fact Sheet, 12/9/60, p. 1.
Ibid., p. 2.
1'
0

10

SPT Trip Report, Operation THIRD CHANCE, 9/6/61, p. 5.

415
The subject apparently reacted very strongly to the drug, and theinterrogation, while productive, was difficult. The trip reportconcluded:(1) This case demonstrated the ability to interrogate asubject profitably throughout a highly sustained and almost
incapacitating reaction to EA 1729.
(2) The apparent value of bringing a subject into the EA
1729 situation in a highly stressed state was indicated.
(3) The usefulness of employing as a duress factor the device of inviting the subject's attention to his EA 1729influenced state and threatening to extend this state indefinitely even to a permanent condition of insanity, or tobring it to an end at the discretion of the interrogators wasshown to be effective.
(4) The need for preplanned precautions against extreme
paranoiac reaction to EA 1729 was indicated.
(5) It was brought to attention by this case that where subject has undergone extended intensive interrogation prior to
the EA 1729 episode and has persisted in a version repeatedly
during conventional interrogation, adherence to the same version while under EA 1729 influence, however extreme the reaction, may not necessarily be evidence of truth but merely theability to adhere to a well rehearsed story."x0
This strong reaction to the drug and the accompanying discomfort
this individual suffered were exploited by the use of traditional interrogation techniques. While there is no evidence that physical violenceor torture were employed in connection with this interrogation, physical and psychological techniques were used in the THIRD CHANCE
experiments to exploit the subjects' altered mental state, and to maxiinize the stress situation. Jacobson described these methods in his trip
report:Stressing techniques employed included silent treatment before or after EA 1729 administration, sustained conventional
interrogation prior to EA 1729 interrogation, deprivation offood, drink, sleep or bodily evacuation, sustained isolation
prior to EA 1729 administration, hot-cold switches in approach, duress "pitches", verbal degradation and bodily discomfort, or dramatized threats to subject's life or mental
health."'Another gross violation of an individual's fundamental rights occurred in September 1962 as part of the Army's DERBY HAT tests
in the Far East. A suspected Asian espionage agent was given 6
micrograms of LSD per kilogram of bodyweight. The administrationof the drug was completed at 1035 that morning:
At 1120, sweating became evident, his pulse became thready.
He was placed in a supine position. He began groaning with
expiration and became semicomatose.112.o Ibid., pp. 17-18.
"' Ibid., p. 13.

""DERBY
p. D10-2.

HAT" Medical and Pharmacological Report: Case #1,

9/20/62,416
For the next 28 minutes, the subject remained semicomatose.
At 1148, responses to painful stimuli were slightly improved.
At 1155, he was helped to a sitting position.
At 1200, he became shocky again and was returned to supine
position.
At 1212, he was more alert and able to sit up with help.
At 1220, Subject was assisted to the interrogation table.
At 1230, he began moaning he wanted to die and usuallyignored questions. Rarely he stated "he didn't know."
At 1250, his phasic alertness persisted. He frequently refocused his eyes with eyelid assistance. He frequently threw
his head back with eyes closed.
At 1330, he was slightly more alert. He was forced-walked for
5 minutes. He physically would cooperate until he became
shocky again (sweating, thready pulse, pale).
For the next three hours the subject remained in about the same condition. Continued attempts at interrogation yielded no relevant
answers. Six hours after receiving the drug, the subject began giving
relevant answers to questions. Eight and one-half hours after the
initial dosage, the subject was polygraphed. The interrogation continued for seventeen and one-half hours after the drug was administered.
There was some psychological and medical screening of the individuals tested within the United States, in Europe, and in
Asia. The proposal for the field experimentation in fact called forsuch examinations. The fact of prescreening did not eliminate therisk of injury; .the availability of medical staff did, however, limit
injury and may well have prevented the death of one or more of thesubjects. As the medical corps member of the team which surreptitiously administered the LSD noted, "one subject. . . did collapse after
the interrogation and the presence of the medical officer was not onlyof value to the subject but to the interrogation team who were thus
assured that an unnecessary untoward result would not occur." "1
In the October 15, 1959, USAINTC staff study, moral and legal
ramifications of covert administration of LSD in field conditions wereconsidered.
It was always a tenet of Army Intelligence that the basic
American principle of the dignity and welfare of the individual will not be violated. . . . A more meticulous regard
for the prohibition against violence or duress is taken inpractice when the suspect is a US citizen or ally as against
an actual or potential enemy, in peace as against war, and inrespect to the nature of the crime. . . . In intelligence, thestakes involved and the interests of national security may
permit a more tolerant interpretation of moral-ethical values,
but not. legal"n Ibid., p. D10-3.

limits, through necessity. . . . Any' SPT Trip Report, Operation THIRD CHANCE, 7/25/61, p. 1.

claim

417
against the US Government for alleged injury due to EA
1729 must be legally shown to have been due to the material.
Proper security and appropriate operational techniques
can protect the fact of employment of EA 1729.116
On the basis of this evaluation, the stiidy concluded that in view of"the stakes involved and the interests of national security," the proposed phtn for field testing should be approved.
The surreptitious administration of drugs to unwitting subjects by
the Army raises serious constitutional and legal issues. The consideration given these issues by the Army was wholly insufficient. The character of the Army's volunteer testing program and the possibility thatdrugs were simply substituted for other forms of violence or duress infield interrogations raises serious doubts as to whether national security imperatives were properly interpreted. The "consent" forms
which each American volunteer signed prior to the administration of
LSD are a case in point. These forms contained no mention of the
medical and psychological risks inherent in such testing, nor do theymention the nature of the psychotrophic drug to be administered:
The general nature of the experiments in which I havevoluteered. have been explained to me from the standpointof jossible hazards to my health. It is my understandingthat
the experime:dz are so designed, based on the results ofaniibals and previous human experimentation, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. I understand further that experiments will be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and medical
suffering and injury, and that I ,uill be at liberty to requestthat the experiments be terminated at any time if in my opinion I have reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiments becomes undesirable.
I recognize that in the pursuit of certain experiments
transitorydiscomfort may occur. I recognize, also, that underthese circumstances, I must rely upon the skill and wisdomof the physician supervising the experiment to institute whatever medical or surgical measures are indicated. [Emphasis
added.] i1s

The exclusion of any specific discussion of the nature of LSD inthese forms raises serious doubts as to their validity. An "understanding . . . that the anticipated results will justify the performance ofthe experiment" without full knowledge of the nature of the experiment is an incomplete "understanding." Similarly, the nature of theexperiment limited the ability of both the subject to request its request its termination and the experimenter to implement such a request.
Finally, the euphemistic characterization of "transitory discomfort"
and the agreement to "rely on the skill and wisdom of the physician"combine to conceal inherent risks in the experimentation and may beviewed as disolving the experimenter of personal responsibility fordamaging aftereffects. In summary, a "volunteer" program in which
subjects are not fully informed of potential hazards to their persons
is ''voluinteer" in name only.
u9USAINTC staff study, "Material Testing Program EA 1729," 10/15/59, p. 26.
" Sample volunteer consent form.

418This problem was compounded by the security statements signed
by each volunteer before he participated in the testing. As part ofthis statement, potential subjects agreed that they would:. not divulge or make available any information related
to U.S. Army Intelligence Center interest or participation in
the Department of the Army Medical Research Volunteer
Program to any individual, nation, organization, business,
association, or other group or entity, not officially authorized
to receive such information.
I understand that any action contrary to the provisions of
this statement will render me liable to punishment under theprovisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.119
Under these provisions, a volunteer experiencing aftereffects of the test
might have been unable to seek immediate medical assistance.
This disregard for the well-being of subjects drug testing is inexcusable. Further, the absence of any comprehensive long-term
medical assistance for the subjects of these experiments is not only
unscientific; it is also unprofessional.

4. Lack of Normal Authorization and Supervision

It is apparent from documents supplied to the Committee that the
Army's testing programs often operated under informal and nonroutine authorization. Potentially dangerous operations such as these
testing programs are the very projects which ought to be subject tothe closest internal scrutiny at the highest levels of the military command structure. There are numerous examples of inadequate review,
partial consideration, and incomplete approval in the administrationof these programs.
When the first Army program to use LSD on American soldiers in"field stations" -was authorized in May 1955, the Army violated its
own procedures in obtaining approval. Under Army Chief of Staff
Memorandum 385, such proposals were to be personally approved by
the Secretary of the Army. Although the plan was submitted to him
on April 26, 1956, the Secretary issued no written authorization forthe project, and there is no evidence that he either reviewed or approved the plan. Less than a month later, 20the Army Chief of Staff
issued a memorandum authorizing the tests.1
Subsequent testing of LSD under Material Testing Program EA
1729 operated generally under this authorization. When the plans forthis testing were originally discussed in early 1958 by officials of the
Army Intelligence Center at Fort Holabird and representatives of
the Chemical Warfare Center at Edgewood Arsenal, aivinformal proposal was formulated. This proposal was submitted to the Medical
Research Directorate at Edgewood by the President of the Army Intelligence Board on June 3, 1958. There is no evidence that the plan
was approved at any level higher than the President of the Intelligence Board or the Commanding General of Edgewood. The approvalat Edgewood appears to have been issued by the Commander's Adjutant. The Medical Research Laboratories did not submit the plan to
the Surgeon General for approval (a standard procedure) because
Sample Volunteer Security Statement.
Inspector General of the Army Report, "Use of Volunteers in Chemical
Agent Research," 3/10/76, p. 109.

99419
the new program was ostensibly covered by the authorizations granted
in May 1956.121
The two projects involving the operational use of LSD (THIRD
CHANCE and DERBY HAT) were apparently approved by the
Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (General Willems) on
December 7, 1960.'22 This verbal approval came in the course of abriefing on previous drug programs and on the planned field experimentation. There is no record of written approval being issued by the
ACSI to authorize these specific projects until January 1961, andthere is no record of any specific knowledge or approval by the Secretary of the Army.
On February 4, 1963, Major General C. F. Leonard, Army ACSI,
forwarded a copy of the THIRD CHANCE Trip Report to Army
Chief of Staff, General Earl Wheeler. 123 Wheeler had apparently
requested a copy on February 2. The report was routed through a General Hamlett. While this report included background on the originsof the LSD tests, it appears that General 24Wheeler may only have readThe office 25memorandum
the conclusion and recommendations.
accompanying the Trip Report bears Wheeler's initials.1
5. Terminationof Te8ting
On April 10, 1963, a briefing was held in the ACSI's office on the
results of Projects THIRD CHANCE and DERBY HAT. Both
SPT's concluded that more field testing was required before LSD
could be utilized as an integral aid to counterintelligence interrogations. During the presentation of the DERBY HAT results, General
Leonard (Deputy ACSI) directed that no further field testing be
undertaken. 1 2 6 After this meeting the ACSI sent a letter to the Commanding General of the Army Combat Developments Command(CDC) requesting that he review THIRD CHANCE and DERBY
HAT and "make a net evaluation concerning the adoption of EA 1729
for future use as an effective and profitable aid in counterintelligenceinterrogations." 127 On the same day the ACSI requested that the CDC
Commander revise regulation FM 30-17 to read in part:...

in no instance will drugs be used as an aid to interro-gations in counterintelligence or security operations without
prior permission of the Department of the Army. Requests
to use drugs as an investigative aid will be forwarded throughintelligence channels to the OACSI, DA, for approval....
Medical research has established that information obtained
through the use of these drugs is unreliable and invalid....
It is considered that DA [Army] approval must be a prerequisite for use of such drugs because of the moral, legal,
problems inherent in their use for intelmedical and political
28
purposes.
ligence"' Ibid., pp. 135, 137, 138.

Mehovsky Fact Sheet, 12/9/60.
Memorandum from Leonard to Wheeler, 2/4/63.
u' SGS memorandum to Wheeler through Hamlett, 2/5/63.
'2s Ibid.
7 M1aj. F. Barnett, memorandum for the record, 8/12/63.
" Yamaki memorandum for the record, 7/16/63.
1"2

"7

Ibid.

420
The subsequent adoption of this regulation marked the effective termination of field testing of LSD by the Army.
The official termination date of these testing programs is rather
unclear, but a later ACSI memo indicates that it may have occurredin September of 1963. On the 19th of that month a meeting was held
between Dr. Van Sims (Edgewood Arsenal), Major Clovis (Chemical Research Laboratory), and ACSI representatives (General
Deholm and Colonel Schmidt). "As a result of this conference a determination was made to suspend the program and any further activity
pending a more profitable and suitable use." 129

D. COOPERATION AND COMPETITION AMONG THE INTELLIGENCE COM-

MUNITY AGENCIES AND BETWEEN THESE AGENCIES AND OTHERINDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS

1. RelationshipsAmong Ageicies Within the Intelligence Community
Relationships among intelligence community agencies in this areavaried considerably over time, ranging from full cooperation to intense
and wasteful competition. The early period was- marked by a highdegree of cooperation among the agencies of the intelligence community. Although the military dominated research involving chemicaland biological agents, the information developed was shared with the
FBI and the CIA. But the spirit of cooperation did not continue. The
failure by the military to share information apparently breached thespirit, if not the letter, of commands from above.
As noted above, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence
was briefed on the proposed operational testing of LSD under Project
THIRD CHANCE, and expressed concern that the project had notbeen coordinated with FBI and CIA. Despite this request, no coordination was achieved between the Army and either of these agencies.
Had such cooperation been forthcoming, this project may have been
evaluated in a different light.
The competition between the agencies in this area reached bizarre
levels. A military officer told a CIA representative in confidence about
the military's field testing of LSD in Europe under Project THIRD
CHANCE, and the CIA promptly attempted to learn surreptitiously
the nature and extent of the program. At roughly the same time Mr.
Helms argued to the DDCI that the unwitting testing program should
be continued, as it contributed to the CIA's capability in the area andthus allowed the CIA "to restrain others in the intelligence community(such as the Department of Defense) from pursuing operations.' 130
The MKNAOMI prdgram was also marked by a failure to share
information. The Army Special Forces (the principal customer of theSpecial Operations Division at Fort Dietrick) and the CIA rather
than attempting to coordinate their efforts promulgated different requirements which varied only slightly. This apparently resulted insome duplication of effort. In order to insure the security of CIA
operations, the Agency would request materials from SO) for operational use without fully or accurately describing the operational
requirements. This resulted in limitations on SOD's ability to assist
the CIA.
Undated ASCI memoifandui, p. 2.
2 Memorandum from the DDP to the DCI, 11/9/64, p. 2.

101
421
0. Relationships Between the Intelligence Community Agencies andForeignLiaisonServices
The subjects of the CIA's operational testing of chemical and biological agents abroad were generally being held for interrogation byforeign intelligence or security organizations. Although information
about the use of drugs was generally withheld from these organizations, cooperation with them necessarily jeopardized the security of
CIA interest in these materials. Cooperation also placed the American
Government in a position of complicity in actions which violated therights of the subjects, and which may have violated the laws of thecountry in which the experiments took place.
Cooperation between the intelligence agencies and organizations inforeign countries was not limited to relationships with the intelligenceor internal security organizations. Some MKULTRA research was
conducted abroad. While this is, in itself, not a questionable practice,
it is important that such research abroad not be undertaken to evade
American laws. That this was a possibility is suggested by an ARTICHOKE memorandum in which it is noted that working with thescientists of a foreign country "might be very advantageous" sincethat government "permitted certain activities which were not permitted by the United States government (i.e., experimeits on anthrax,etc.). "1313. The Relationships Between the Intelligence Community Agencies
and Other Agencies of the U.S. Government
Certain U.S. government agencies actively assisted the efforts ofintelligence agencies in this area. One form of assistance was to provide "cover" for research contracts let by intelligence agencies, inorder to disguise intelligence community interest in chemical andbiological agents.
Other forms of assistance raise more serious questions. Although
the CIA's project involving the surreptitious administration of LSD
was conducted by Bureau of Narcotics personnel, there was no open
connection between the Bureau personnel and the Agency. The Bureau
was serving as a "cut-out" in order to make it difficult to trace Agency
participation. The cut-out arrangement, however, reduced the CIA'sability to control the program. The Agency could not control theprocess by which subjects were selected and cultivated, and could not
regulate follow-up after the testing. Moreover, as the CIA's Inspector
General noted: "the handling of test subjects in the last analysis rests
with the [Bureau of Narcotics] agent working alone. Suppression ofknowledge of critical results from the top CIA management is an
inherent risk in these operations." 132 The arrangement also made it
impossible for the Agency to be certain that the decision to end thesurreptitious administration of LSD would be honored by the Bureau
personnel.
The arrangement with the Bureau of Narcotics was described as"informal." 113 The informality of the arrangement compounded the
problem is aggravated by the fact that the 40 Committee has had vir13

ARTICHOKE Memorandum, 6/13/52.

IG Report on M1KULTRA. 1963, p. 14.
'xIbid.. This was taken by one Agency official to mean that there would be no
written contract and no formal mechanism for payment. (Elder, 12/18/75, p. 31.)

422
apparent unwillingness on the part of the Bureau's leadership to ask
for details, and the CIA's hesitation in volunteering information.
These problems raise serious questions of command and control within
the Bureau.
Agencies and4. Relationships Between the Intelligence Community
and Private
Other Institutions and Individuals, Public

The Inspector General's 1963- Survey of MKULTRA notedthat "the research and development" phase was conducted throughstanding arrangements with "specialists in universities, pharmaceutical houses, hospitals, state and federal institutions, and private research organizations" in a manner which concealed "from the institution the interests of the CIA." Only a few "key individuals" in each
institution were "made witting of Agency sponsorship." The researchand development phase was succeeded by a phase involving "physicians, toxicologists, and other specialists in mental, narcotics, andgeneral hospitals and prisons, who are provided the products andfindings of the basic research projects and proceed with intensive testing on human subjects." 1
According to the Inspector General, the MKULTRA testing programs were "conducted under accepted scientific procedures . . .
where health permits, test subjects are voluntary participants in the
programs." 135 This was clearly not true in the project involving thesurreptitious administration of LSD, which was marked by a complete lack of screening, medical supervision, opportunity to observe, or
medical or psychological follow-up.
The intelligence agencies allowed individual researchers to design
their project. Experiments sponsored by these researchers (wiich inchided one where narcotics addicts were sent to Lexington, Kentucky,
who were rewarded with the drug of their addiction in return forparticipation in experiments with LSD) call into question the decision by the agencies not to fix guidelines for the experiments.
The MKUTLTRA research and development program raises otherquestions, as well. It is not clear whether individuals in prisons, mental,
narcotics and general hospitals can provide "informed consent" toparticipation in experiments such as these. There is doubt as to whether
institutions should be unwitting of the ultimate sponsor of research
being done in their facilities. The nature of the arrangements also
made it impossible for the individuals who were not aware of thesponsor of the research to exercise any choice about their participation based on the sponsoring organization.
Although greater precautions are now being taken in research conducted on behalf of the intelligence community agencies, the dilemmaof classification remains. These agencies obviously wished to conceal
their interest in certain forms of research in order to avoid stimulatinginterest in the same areas by hostile governments. In some cases today
contractors or researchers wish to conceal their, connection with theseagencies. Yet the fact of classification prevents open discussion anddebate upon which scholarly work depends.
"m Ibid. p. 9.
"3'

Ibid. p. 10.

103
APPENDIX B
DOCUMENTS

REFERRING TO DISCOVERY OF ADDITIONAL MKULTRA MATERIAL
22 June 1977

MEMIOR.ANDUN FOR:

Deputy Director'of Central Intelligence

THROUGH:

Deputy Director for Science and Technology

SUBJECT:

Request for Guidance on Handling
Recently Located MKULTRA Material

1. (U/AIUO) This memorandum is to advise you that
additional MKULTRA documents have been discovered and toobtain your approval for follow-on actions required.
Paragraph 7 contains a recommended course of action.
As a result of John Harks FOXA re(U/AIUO)
2.
quest (F-76-374),
all of the MIKULTRA material in OTS
possession was reviewed for possible release to him.
Following that review, the OTS material in the Retired
It was during that latter
Records Center was searched.
search that the subproject files were located among the.
retired records of the OTS Budget and Fiscal Section.
These files were not discovered earlier as the earlier
searches were limited to the examination of the-active
and retired records of those branches considered mo!tlikely to have generated or have had access tp NKULTRA
Chmistry,Those branches included:
documents.
Biological, Behavioral Activities, and Contracts ManageBecause Dr. Gottlieb retrieved and destroyed all
ment.
the MKULTRA documents he was able to locate, it is not
surprising that the earlier search for MIKULTRA documents,
directed at areas where they were most likely to be found,
The purpose of establishing the MKULTRA
was unsuccessful.
mechanism was to limit knowledge of the sensitive work
being performed to those with an absolute nO'd to know.
If those precepts had been followed, the recently found
B&F files should have contained only financial and(In retrospect, I realize thatadministrative documents.
-I"7

Dqcfaxl d by
dale
-__

.

2 9

qL

104
u

E

Request for Guidance on Handling Rece-.
Located MULTRA MaterialT:a serious error was made in not havina B&F files.- otherseemingly innocuous files searched earlier).Amost of the individual subproject folders contai: rciect
proposals and mer.oranda for the record, which i:-.-- adegrees, give a reasonably comalete picture ote-:of research funded through4.UTRA.
For your a:.:the original memorandum setting u- KULTRA, signel
Mr.-Dulies, is also anon; these docunents.
A cc:
me7oranu. is attached.
3.
.U!ATU0) At thiswritin;, it does in:.athat there is anything in these newly located fiet
would indicate theactiiies
WIKULTRA
were
More
-t"i
or iord cn:troversial than indicated ov the Senate(Church)eo...tee Report.
If anithe re-eritrue, i.e., m-os or the
K-n1r? subarciects--------.---Thus, the overview of MSUJLTPA is essentially Un !-c.
With twz exceptions, the present find fills c:!nin:-

One of these .cxcpt os is:c..:- concerns an activit- tht.:-eporec--Ilier.
That rro-iect deals wt.
a knockd:::drug which was concoeitant wi~t,
anz- ao, cancer research at a maior universr.v
It - -----.

.'A

rer

that an oaiective reading of that nroiect=nznstrateiwouldthe search for knockout materials and anesthet-cs
compatibl' actiities.
However, the re~searct:statedtht"ch-emical agents.. .will be Suibjected,
screenin...
advanced cancer varients".
o
T

.

t

5.

CT7'

(Cl

Subroiect Number 35:-e-contains fulle.tr ibution of $35,000 to the G

tils
-

r

Building(Fund.
The Agenv was :.
research proEra:s. manv of hwereinvolvecin: drue
being cod:-.cted hwere i1dequatetC.
in

----

order

to xaciiitzat

azilries.
theonce-i:research prozrr-;
it was decided to expedite the-ilnprogra ::ce :-ribut:inz to it throu:a'ch"-'c::wasalso bcinc used to fund soece of the research prrjezts.

105
Suj.ECT:

RequcstLcted

for Guidance on Handling Recently.-IEULTRA Material

it was
The contribti-n could be controversial in tothat
be a private
made throu -h a mechanism making it appear
0 &?rivate donations qualified for, andtZ
donation.
- received, an equal amount of Federal matchingtter from the Office of General Counsel datedA
funds.
21 Febuary 215 attesting to the legality of this funding
the Eil.

is in

The Legislative Counsel hap been C(N 'AU9)-76.
made aware c: the existence of these additional NKULTRA
documents which are still under review and saniti:ation.
to
The MARKS case is in litigationand we are committed
a-:rksof the existence of these files shortly,
advise Mr.
and to deliver the releasable material tc his attorneys
A Aetter from the Information and Privacy
by 31 July.
Staff to ::r. Ma k-:s' attorneys informing them of the.
existence -: this material is in the cocrcination process
and is scheiylei to be mailed on 24 June.
There are now two actions that should(. T'.150)
be taken:

Mr.

a.
.
-existince.of

inforr;Itissanitized material toRelease aorropriately
tt orneys as required by FOIA litigation.

;::r-S'

nform the Senate Select Committee of theto
the recently lochted records prior

Mr. Marks' attorneys.

reco=mended that you approve of both of these actions.

If additional details on the contents(U/AIUC)S.
of this material are desired; the 015 officers most familiar
witl it are prepared to brief you at your conkenience.

David S. Brandwcin
Director.

Office of Technical

ServiceThe Didctor of Central Intelligence

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
During the course of 1975 when the Senate Committee, chaired
by Senator Church, was investigating intelligence activities, theCIA was asked to produce documentation on a program of experimentation
with the effect of drugs. Under this project conducted from 1953
to 1964 and known as "MK-ULTRA," tests were conducted on American
citizens in some.cates without their knowledge. The CIA, after
searching for such documentation, reported that most of the documentson this matter have been destroyed. I find it my duty to report
to you now that our continuing search for drug related, as well asother documents, has uncovered certain papers which bear on thismatter. Let me hasten to add that I am persuaded that there was noprevious attempt to conceal this material in the original 1975
exploration-r The material recently discovered was in the retired
archives filed under financial accounts and only uncovered by using
extraordinary and extensive search efforts. In this connection,
incidentally, I have personally commended the employee whose diligenceproduced this find.
Because the new material now on hand is primarily of a financial
nature, it does not present a complete picture of the field of drug
experimentation activity but it does provide more detail than waspreviously available to us. For example, the following types ofactivities were undertaken:
a. Possible additional cases of drugs being tested on
American citizens, without their knowledge.
b. Research was undertaken on surreptitious methods ofadministering drugs.
c. Some of. the persons chosen for experimentation were
drug addicts or alcoholics.
d. Research into the development of a knockout or "K"drug was performed in conjunction with being done todevelop pain killers for advanced cancer patients, and tests
on such patients were carried out.

2e. There is a possibility of an improper payment to a
private institution.
The drug related activities described in this newly located material
began almost 25 years ago. I assure you they were discontinued over
10 years ago and do not take place today.
In keeping with the President's commitment to disclose any errorsof the Intelligence Community which are uncovered, I-would like tovolunteer to testify before your Committee on the full details of thisunfortunate series of events. I-am in the process of reading thefairly voluminous material involved and do want to be certain that
I have a complete picture when I talk with the Committee. I will bein touch with you next week to discuss when hearings might bescheduled at the earliest opportunity.
I regret having to bring this issue to your attention, but I knowthat it is essential to your oversight procedures that you be kept fully
informed in a timely manner.
Your

STANSFIELD TURNER

109
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENTS REFERRING TO SUBPROJECTS
date

1 May 1953

MEMORADIFMRTE RECORD
Project MULTRA,SUBJECT:

1.

Subproject 2

Subproject 2 is being set up to provide a secure andin regadin r

efficient means to exploit
to the MKOLTRAprogrem.
4::;

---

W

2.
g
a practicing
psychiatristinand a faculty member of theHis ast-- -4---tpositions have ineluded Chief Neuropsychiatrist a
Chief o the Psychiatric Section at
and OSS experience during World War II.
He has been ofvalue in the general MRULTRAfield as an overall advisor andconsultant, he has been of value in contacting individuals in thearea and in setting up projects there, and he hasdone work himself which has contributed to the MKLTRtA field. His
professional activities and known connections with the--3..

Subproject 2 would include:a.
Miscellaneous research and testing services in thegeneral field of MKULTRA.
b. Services as a contact and cut-out for projects in the
MKULTRAfield, primarily those located in t
area.
c. Monitoring of selected projects in the MKTRA field,
when located in the central
area.
d. .Services as a general consultant and advisor in
MKULTRAfield.

the4. The total cost of this project is not to exceed $4,65o.cofor a period of one year.
5.

-

-

..

is cleared through TOP SECRET on a contact

basis.

Chemical Division/TSS
_date

"

96-408 0 - 77 - 8*

APPROVzD:.

3

APPROVEDl:,"Chief, C eia.Dvs~

PROGAM APPROVED
AND MCcaThNmED:APPROVED FM~
CN3LmATION OF FUNDS:-

Date
Attacoent:

Origi-a2

Onip.:

Reeih. Director

5

111

PROPOSAL.

Objective:

To study the possible synergistic action of drugs

which ay be appropriate for use in abolishing consciousness.

Situation:

There is reason to believe that two or more drugs,

used in combination, are more effective than single drugs.

a-mbined effect of some drugs, such as combinations ofThebarbiturates,. areeknown.
of synergism is not known.

With other combinations, -the degree
If considerable synergism is found

to exist, two possibilities must be considered:(1) that a

particularly useful combination may be found, and (2) that a
particular combination may be hazardous because of its effecton respiration or some other vital function.

To minimize

hazards,. animal experiments should precede human experiments.

Pronosal:

Allocation of $1000 for animal experiments, to be

drawn on as needed.
at-That experiments be conducted informallywithout a specific grant, and with appropriate cover.

PROPOSAL
Objective:

To study methods for the administration of drugs

vithout the knowledge of the patient. Preparation of a manual.

Method:A survey of methods which have been used by criminals

for surreptitious administration of drugs.

Analysis of thepsychodynamics of situations of this nature.

Proposa:That $1000 be allocated for this purpose, funds tobe requested as needed.

&

113
3.2 Lugo"tJ,55-J.UN -In'

date

FOR:

MID21mIID

S

RECEI

s Project IEOLIRA, Subroject M

SUBJC

1. Subproject 2* is being initiated tosecure and aficient mean of exploi
with regard to the NKUIMs program.

a-practicing psychiatrist in
mber ofHe has been of value in theserving as an advisor ands pIScunultant, contacting individuals in thearea, and carrying, out his own research program.
ia2.

p and a faculty

3. Subproject 2i would include the followings
W(a) Miacallaneom research and testing eelicea
in the general field af.)EOLA.
(b)in

Services as a contact and cutout for projects
located infiethose(a)Monitoring of selected projects in the

EDI2 field when located in the central(d) Services as a general consultant and advisor
in the EUILTR field.
(a) He would act as medical advisor and oonsultant
etablishas gg
Uvil be reimbursed for his services
C.4 w
and expenses upon receipt of an invoice at irregularintervals. When travel expenses are incurred throughuse of a camon carrier, they will be dougmated andreimbursed in the usual manner; that is, consistant withstandard Government allowances.

-

G~;e

~'~-j
-

III.

U~I I.

-ar.'
-

-

C-

114
2

3

Octoo

MEMORANDUM FOR TEB RECORD
Project MLTRA, Subproject 16

SUBJECT:

1.- Subproject 16 is a continuation of Subproject 3, which
involved the establishment and maintenance of facilities for therealistic testing ff certain research and development items ofinterest to CD/TSS and APD/TSS. The facilities were set up under
Subproject 3, and Subproject 16 is intended to provide for thecontinued maintenance of the facilities.
2. Subproject 3 was originally intended to provide funds for the
maintenance of the facilities for one year; but it turns out that thecosts of alterations, equipment, and initial supplies were underestimated in Subproject 3; hence the necessity to establish Subproject
16 at this time.

3. Subproject 16 vill be cdnducted bya
21O
Certain support activities will be provided by CD/TSS
and APD/TSS.

4.

The estimated cost for a period of one year is $7,740.00.

C cvChemical Division, TSS
PROGRAM APPROVED
AND RECOMNDED:

APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION
OF FUNDS:

RDe:dch-irec t or
Date:
Original Only,

Date:

/~

c-

s

'p

115

r

opezied-

- ac

urel

t

avesaio'hi

ular

chech

n

o

adened anc

n

thea

- -:i

f:.SafetYaak-ng n thW

joint crount b
orsideathceaV fritlibuttv-

difficultIcaoea .

ou could reco.r;

theokysuiesacchcc e to-reeeat from - san-ofr bayafd
zthaMnacs
t ardtoplaathneylen8cdea'th-aruaouerIcommunctedt.,
excolnI ahigud inetnoeitggl gotda
mttaseevths a beiered
to provide
wXinth-fulds
Il an eal
dif
futie
co o
sn
oiia

also founditad
taso pletad fr
hiabrilt
tati
alad
iith
e
and beinrcedr:tatel
is opeelno kinde ac-c statio y .;yoir fand plesedtCasherfo' r hd
c
edhs

ie

dea,

rteon hae Aemetan
thastoi reeianenosaniendre -ou ilfedme-ahceighJ
thyou
thbiasis inetl to-aai.ie
4

de .oalAnd nov thathe
accotmo is -ang
yo70-U have funs depositedvria 'Casher'chscizcrcoedaelaqane-vrote a rerence Tcn
for nt(9i
ofc
t
ne
I s
ote
a
suggevs you
cas B1a ugGesto....sr 'say

6i odered coka'&reon enbave asrdedstationerybe6
I osied .his migt acliltate paymnt_ otoil,t,b

A n.-',Wat vith, susicious- banks; landla'da,tlt-coanes., etc , you is 11U understandtIthst crenLg the Jsn-1;.tArde pfimsonlity in th fo' ofjr2
is taking altl
doing:

Seyou

nday, the 8th

mi
.---

116
LMORANDIS1 FOR TMRm

SULicT:

ECORD

Project ICULilRA, SubproJect 23

The scope of this project is inteleV/to encompass all1.
those activities now engaged in by thein its own facilities under the direction of CD/TISS. CO
At the present time the varicus projects at this facility (are being concluded and it is deemed desirable
and-&VVfrom the standpoint of security and efficiency to replace these projects with a single project more general in its appoa
icates the
The attached pioosal from Dr.
2.
extent of the. investigations that his facilities will aollo him tocarry out on the .aterials developed in the three projects referred
to in paragraph 1, as vell as certain other materials of interest to
also serves as a general consultant to thisDr. ?.
Cd/TS
rovides cover and cut-out facilities to the AGenoy.
divsion3.

The total cost of this project for a period of one year will

not exceed : 2,70O.0(.

-a been granted a Top Secret Clearance byDr.
!.
the Agency and is fully capable of protectinZ the security of theGoerment'3 interest in such matters as this.

lca

iisin, TS3

APPROVED:

FPC='! U'DOED

A:1.:'I-:J

We, h:al

APPROVED ?M2 0L

O-FC-S-3

Diin P .C

dS117
The present ± vdstigation is concerned with chemLcal agent. which
are effective in modifying the behavior and function of the central nervous ystem.
1 - It is proposed to study a variety of knoun drugs in this pharmacological classthat are in present day use and to synthesize n chemical agents or to modify
existing ones as occasicn may demand.
2 - The various chemical agents investigated or synthesized vill be tested on
Their pharmacologicalanimals to determine their acute and chronic toicity.
effects ill be studied by a variety of assay technics, such as blood pressure
deterdnations, bronchial dilatation recordings, endocrine effects, etc. Caplate aninsl facilities vill be maintained for this purpose and pathologic
study ill be carried out an the affected organs when the animals are sacrificed.
3 - Preliminary clinical investigation vill be carried out an the more promisingchecal agents, and appropriate laboratory procedures ill be performed, suchas blood counts, urinalysis, etc. to determine the effectiveness and the side
reactions of the drugs under investigation.
4 - Adequate reports will be submitted of the findings at quarterly interval.
5 - Proposed budget:
Personnel
Synthetic ox panic chemdst
Research medical associate
Pharmacological assistant
Cemical assistant
Histology technician
CLinical technician
Cheical consultant$7,500.00
6,500.00,500.00
4,000.00
2,400.00
3,600.00$30,700.00

Total salaries for peronal
Other Epemditures
Animals, animal maintenance & facilities
Cheical & laboratory supplies , expendable
Miscellaneous permanent equipment
Travel, medical meetings, etc.
Total other expenditures
TOTAL

4,000.00
4,000.00
2,000.002.000.00
12,000.00$ 42,700.00

8 October 195T

MEMORANDM FOR TE RECORDSUBJECT:

Increase in the Scope of Subproject 23, Project MKULTRA

1. Due to e/considerable increase in the scope of the work undert the direction of TSS/CD under Subproject 23,ataken byProject MKTRA, the $42,700.00 sum originally obligated for this work
is insufficient to cover the year's costs. It is therefore proposed to
add $15,000.00 to that already obligated under this Subproject.
2. The total coat of this Subproject for the period 28 January 1954
to 28 January 1955 will thus amount to $57,700.00.
3. The increase in scope responsible for this proposal consists ofthe development and partial financing of two new sources of biologically
active compounds of interest in the progrsm TSS/CD is carrying out.

Chemical Division, TSSAPPROVED FOR OIGATION
0 FONDS:

Research Director

APPROVED:

Chief, Chamical Division, TSS

Date:
original Only.

3-J

LA4

~

-

7~'

119

25 AuguSt 1955

MERANDUM FOR:THE RECORDSUBJECT:

Authorization for Payment of Certain Expenses Under
Project MKULRA, Subproject 23-

1. In order to carry on the work of the above Subproject, it
was necessary to test the effects of certain chemical substancesvhen administered to human beings. Certain of the anticipatedeffects involved mental functions which precluded the use of mental
defectives for this particular study.
.

a

-*

2. In view of these circumstances the project engineer. withverbal approval from his chief, authorized the contractor to pay thehospitals expenses of certain persons suffering from incurable cancer
for the privilege of studying the effects of these chemicals during
their terminal illnesses. The total funds expended in this fashion
amounted to $658.05 and full value was received.
3. It is requested that the Chief, TSS indicate his knowledge
and approval of this particular expenditure for audit purposes.

TSS/Chemical Division
APPRCVED:APPROVED:.ie f,
Distribution:
Orig.

- TSS/CDfS

4hief, TSS'Chemical Division

120
21 December 1954

M4MRADUM FOR:

Director of Central Intelligence

SUBJECT

Project INULTRA,

Subproject 35

1. While the Director's statutory authority to expend funds
for confidential purposes is not limited by law, we believe thatof thea gift of Government funds as such would exceed the intent
madeCongress in granting that power. Hoever, where a gift is
for the express purpose of producing something of value to thisis a reasonAgency which cannot ctherwise be obtained and there
able expectation that the value may be received, the gift may ineffect be an expenditure for proper official purposes.
In Subproject 35, it is stated that.the donation in
2.
question would achieve certain ends desired by TSS. There seems
to be no question that those ends would be advantageous, so themain questions appear to be whether they could not be attainedby more direct, normal methods, and, if not, whether the returnis necessary and reasonable in relation to the donation.

3. We are in no position to review the requirements of TSS
or to appraise the advantages that would result from this project.
We do not comment, therefore, on the value received if'the
project results in the benefits foreseen. We feel we should
corment on factors affecting the probability of achieving thoseor no control. Once
In a legal sense, there is littleends.
the funds are donated, the individual, his foundation, or theus thehospital could conceivably refuse to work for us or allow
use of the facilities.
4. Practically, the control seems to be established as wellas circumstances permit. Certainly, as long as the individual is
alive and in his present position, we have every reason to expect
his complete cooperation in the future as in the past, unless
Even in thethrough scoe act or fault of our own he is alienated.
event of his death or incapacity, there appears to be a reasonable
DCopy#d1d to:of1copby authority If: !87475*~ao:.~ns1977
.a 7;

La134

A
-

Copy #1

ofil copy

121
cherce contir..
the ro,:ect.
if these probabilities appear
zurficient to chtain an adequate return for the expenditure, there
can be no legal objection to this aspect of the project.

5. It should be noted that there are two Circumstances which
require consideration in a final determination. As stated in
Section V, our contribution, by appearing to be from a private
source, would increase the matching Government contribution by asimilar amount which would not be the case if it were known that
this was in fact a Government contributicn also. Secondly, it is
the stated policy of the hospital tb charge the Government end
commercial organizations 80 per cent overhead on research contracts,
whereas nonprofit foxundations pay only direct costs but no overhead.
Because of the ostensible source, our projects will not be charged
overhead. This could be construed -as mbrally wrongful to thehospital,- .as normally we would pay the 80 Per cent overheadcharge for projects performed directly for us, but I believe
this can be offset, at least to the amount of our donation, andperhaps by the further a:ount by which the other Government contributions are increased by our dcnation. In any case, if the
project is a proper one and must be performed in this manner,
security dictates these circu'stances and they, therefore, do
not present a legal obstacle as such.

6. We raised the question whether funds for the hospitalconstruction could not be obtained from other normal charitablesources. It appeared that there was a sting possibtility thatthe individual concerned could raise adequate funds from private
resources, but it was the position of TSS that if this were thecase we would not obtain the-commitment from the individual andthe degree of control which this project is desiGned to achieve.

IAWHRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel-!:'ar~oed
to:thsrit of : 187475
7!- 2q77

Dorngraded to:by authority -: 27-173
Iatc: JUIDo
1177
22 IITDE:Z; CL E713:7
Copy # 1 of 1 copy

122

8 April 1955

U!VJMMIIIM FOR~:

Chief, DD)/P/T-zc3

SUBJECTAiendmmenTto Sub~r-T ject 35 of Frcject ZZT 2TRA

We have noted ycur menorandiun of 6 April 1955 to the
Directorreneti-

an increase of YIT50,OCQ for the TZS

MID budget for this Froject.

l'Thie, request does not affectin any .- ray the comments in my mrecrzndauo of 21 Dacember 1954.

Docnaradad to:b,.authority of: 187475
c'z:J1=0 1977
:I2 I!TDET; CL B3Y187475

Coy#1ofIcp

N

123

5 May 1955

A "-ticn of the 1Rosech and D9-7elo-,--nt P cgrmn of
TSS/ChanicaJ. Di-Aion~r 13 dsvoted tothe diacovery of thefollrwuing =atearl"s and mnethods:
1. Sub ctances which will promote illogicei. thinking
and inpuJluivenes3 to the point wliare the rcxipient would bediscredited in public.
Substances which increase the efficiency of Tetation and perception.

-2.

3. natarials vihich will prevGent or cournteract tho
intcccting offact ,of alcohol.

4. Miterials which will renote the intoxicatiz-Z offee of alcohol.
5. Yaterials ich will proiuce the stgns and ytnof recognized diaoas in a reversible uW so that thay x=.V
be used for imallngering, ae.
6. Mter-4als which will render the indaotion of hypnosis
eaasr or otherwise nnYce its u.,efii1.ness.
7. Sabstancoe which will enhance tho ability of i-&-i.iduals to withztahd priva.tionx, torturea and coercion duringb--ain-qiaahingu.
intarrc~ati=n and socal
8. Materials and phyzical methods which will produce
amnesia for event3 precedirg and daring their use.
9.

Physical mnethods of proeucing cho&': and ecsAision

over c =-ended periodze of ti--s iod capable of sur.Ptit-JoUa
use,

10. Substances which prod-ace physical dinablement suchas paralysis of the legs,. acute anemia, ae.

e:tUl* SUbstances 'Uhich will problacecubsequent let-down.

ureu' euphoria with no

12. Substan'ces which alter proOnallity structure in sucha way that the toander~cy of the recipiCst to become depecndentuecm another person is enhanced..
13- A matori2J. w"Mch w-4ll cau.3e rantaj~ confusion of such
typsz that the i c~iv-dual iz.rits
influc viii fin idiffiC lt to maintain. a fanbricationcne
ueationing.
14. Substances which will 1--4ar tho aenbiticu andgeneral 1w0-kng efficonoy of men whan adminintered inundetactable awmuto.
15. Sutances which loreote weaess or distortion
ofth CYezh Or herig 'culties, pro,)era-bly without
rper=a-Snt cf'iCct3.
16. A kmcciccut P4ill which can surreptitiously beadministered in cL-'C ' food, ciga~rettes, as an aercsol,
etc., which will be s,-3e to use, provide a nx-ini of=cn,d be suitablz fcr u-se by agent types on an
ad boo basis.
17. A Matzrial which can be Surroptiticusly
tered by the alove routes end which
in very sa-ll adminisa---,=towill zake it jz-,,ooible for a man to perform any phy7sicalactivity w~hatever.
1he davelopmsnt of naterils of this ty6 foi- z hst?.ndcrd prnctica of such ethical dn4 hou:=s as
14MIt is a rc latit-oI7 roatine procedure to devaIDD a e-rug
to the Point Of hun-= t--ztin-g. O.cnrltha
d.Ug hcunes deopend
up~on the czrvicos of private phycicians for the final ci~atasti.-g. 'L-3 physicians arc willing- to assuno the re-oriiity.
Of such tests in.crdcr to edvem-ce the science of medicine. it
is dific*lt and sometirnss irmpossible fOr TW3/CD to offor auch
an inidu-c=,:nt with rospect to Its products. In practice, it hMs
bzen possible to usa outzide occeed contracto~rs for the precBmino-yrhco o this uscrk
11owavor, that part whX.fh involves human
tooting at effotive dose levels presents esc'urity problems whichcannot bac handlsd by the ordinr-sy ccntractor.

125

oj2S~ffara a unique opporThe propozed facility
barUXO -sdi~ cZ '-ach clinical1 tosting, in r&d±for thaeaar
tit'ytion to the marzq z:±mntagos cutlined in tho project proposal.
The scurity p-.cb3.cna3 manticned above Pra slimimatad b7 the factthat ths rozenaibi-~t- for the tostin.7 will rest cczmoiotolyI
I--Ia
Wpon the rpbFoicim and the hospital.
topor~zx.,I ill T.1c :M/
cliozelr to -mseow gua-that a'l- tosts aoresc; 2zvi33 the -!ork!:
conduct-ad according to the recogni4zed practices cind c:.dy azieqiate eafoguzrd3.

.No.

96-408 0 - 77 - 9

126
10 May 1955
SUBPROJECT 35 OF PROJECT MKULTRA

1. Subproject 35 as approved by the DGI on 15 January 1955 contemplated a
to financial contribution of $125, 000 to the :000participate in the construction of a new.repearch wing to cost $3, 0
exclusive of furnishings and equipment. Agency funds will be transmitted
acut-out which through thee s~p=ace inthe new researca wing being madewill result in oe-sixth oc
available for Agency-sponsored research involving covert biological andchemical techniques of warfare.

-

am with CIA
2. At that time (15 January 1955)
encouragement indicated a willingness to contribute $500, 000 to the construction fund. The building fund was to have been raised as follows:$1,000,000 - Contributed byof which
250, 000 - Donation from$125, 000 to be supplied by CIA
equal
2Z1
1,250,000 - Matching funds under Public Law
to the amount of the two above contributions:-B
500,000-

1$3, 000, 000 - TOTAL
will not be
Since it now appears that the expected contribution by
3.
forthcoming, permission is requested to increase the Agency's contribution
by $250, 000 which will result in a financial situation as follows:- 1$1, 000, 000 - Contributed byincluding .
500,000 - Donation from$375,000 supplied by CIA
1,500,000 - Matching funds under Public Law 221 equal
to the amount of the two above contributions$3, 000, 000 - TOTAL-

4. The Agency's contribution would thus total $375,000.
This investment,
together with the equal sum resulting from matched funds, is fully justifiedC.
in the opinion of TSS for reasons which will be explained by
Chief, TSS, and Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, Chief, TSS/Chemical Division.
The scope of subproject 35 has not changed since the Director originallyapproved a request by TSS for permission to spend $125, 000 of available

B1

rocedures establishedrads for tihs purpose through the controls and%!.':LTRA. At the time subproject 35 was set up within the scope ofcover arrangements
tC- :.,S M, D pro:;ram, security considerations andwerc c.ircesily.reviewed, and the Office of General Counsel assisted in legal
With the exception of funding arrangements, no changes in:irogram have since been made.
f-steteri:mations.

previously approved sum o $125, 000 are available.Funds to coverbudget for FY 55 and have b en set aside. The TSS
wt -in the TSS
r the supplemental sum of,ud ct, however, lacks funds with which to coudget be increased by this
$250, 000, and it is requested that the TSS
amount. Supplementary funds available for subproject 35 can definitely beobligated by the end of FY 55.

L :Llhouty of: 167-175.: !:o1977
i.

12 ..

I:-:

CL By 1874175

-2-

128

AMENDMENT TO SUBPROJECT 35,

PROJECT MKULTRAFor the Purpose of Establishing a Cover Organization for Highly Sensitive
WarfareProjects in the Field of Biological, Chemical and RadiologicalI.

Background of Subproject 35.

In January 1955 approval was given by the DCI to Subproject 35 of Project
The documents which lead to this approval (including comments
MAKULTRA.
of the OGC) are attached herewith as Tabs 2, A and 3.
which
Project MKULTRA is the framework of procedures and controls underresearch projects in certain highly sensitive fields are carried out by TSS.
A description of the background of Project MKULTRA may be found on
page 1 of Tab A.
Subproject 35 establishes cover 'under which the Chemical Division of
DD/P/TSS would conduct certain sensitive projects in the fields of biologicaland chemical warfare and consists of a proposed arrangement whereby the
Agency covertly contributes funds to assist th
in the construction of a new research wing. Contribution of these- B
funds is to be made through thewould remain 4 s cut-out so that theunwitting of Agency participation in the building program. Projects wouldof thelater be carried out by the Chemical Division using the facilities
new research wing, and Agency employees would be able to participate
awarein the work without the University or the Hospital authorities beingof Agency interest. Subproject 35 contemplated the contribution of Agency
funds to assist in the construction of facilities. Future research work
as cut-out and would be would be carried out through the.
separately funded under existing procedures and controls.
and the background of On the1

h are described on page 2 of Tab A.
same page there will be found a further description of theII.

Building Fund.

The University will require $3, 000, 000 for the six-story addition to thearehospital exclusive of the cost of land, heating and power supply whichbeing provided by the University. Under Public Law 221, Subappropriation

177
01.'riys:B

663, dated 26 August 1954, funds are available to match funds raised forthis purpose by the University.
When Subproject 35 was first prepared, it was hoped and expected that thefunds required would be provided as follows: The University has allocated$1, 000, 000 to this project and will assume upkeep and staffing obligations.
agreed that if the Agency would provide S- Bwith a grant of $125, 000, the Fund would match this amount andmake a total donation of $250, 000 to the University Building Fund. At thattime, discussions with Ago 0indicated thatwould contribute $500, 000
to the building project on the basis that radi ogical research would be
conducted in the new wing and that the constr
ion of the new facilities
was of interest to that Agency. In summary, th financial situation was
to have been as follows:$1, 000, 000 250, 000 - Donation from(of which $125, 000 was supplied by CIA)1, 250, 000 - Matched Funds under Public Law 221
500,000 -$3, 000, 000 - TOTAL

3

Q

It was recogpized that the Federal contribution
1,250, 000 under Public
Law 221 would be seemingly inflated by reasof the inclusion of the CIA
contribution in that of
It was felt that the value tothe Agency was such that this inflation of the Federal contribution was morethan justified by the importance of the over-all project and that furthermore,
the inclusion of the CIA contribution in that of _____
was thebest means of maintaining security.

III

/3

The original informal commitment ont
pafw
was first obtained
through verbal discussions withwl'ch were fcllowed
up by an exchange of corresponden e between the DCI and 40
1
Unfortunately at that time
was fully occupied with the controversy concerning theand continued contact withsubordinates resulted in a ecision that
could not or
wvould not contribute to the Building und, but would be w. ing to support
an annual research program amount
to $50, 000 to $75, 0
It is notCopy # I of I copy

C.

C

130

o
or known whether this change in policy was suggested tp
whether it originated with him. Be that as it may, when the change inpolicy became apparent, it was evident that additional funds would be required to complete the hospital construction.
IV.

C_

Suggcsted Funding.

It is now suggested that the $3, 000, 000 required for the hospital wing be
provided as follows:$1,000,000-

500, 000 -Dnonfrol'including$375, 000 supplied by CIA)
1,500,000 - Matched Funds from Public Law 221$3, 000, 000 - TOTAL-

ould thus consist of the original
The donation from$125, 000 to be. supplied by CIA plus the sum of $125, 000 to be provided by
the Fund and a supplemental CIA contribution of $250, 000. Originally
Subproject 35 requested permission to make a contribution of $125, 000 to
the building fund and approval was given. This approval is enclosed
herewith as Tab 2. The purpose of this amendment to Subproject 35 is torequest permission to contribute an additional $250, 000 to the building
3
it should be noted that construction fund throughthe total Government contribution to the hospital fund still remains
unchanged at $1, 875, 000. The increase in the size of the contribution
by the Fund is not out of keeping with other operations of 6
and will - 13
not arouse undue comment because of its magnitude. The originally approved
contribution has not as yet been transmitted toand neither the-4
until-original contribution nor the supplement would be paid to 'dfunds adequate to complete the project are made available. This condition
was specified by the DCI in approving the original contribution.
V.

Source of CIA Funds.

Funds to cover the initially approved sum of $125, 000 are available and havebeen segregated for this purpose within the TSS FY 1955 Budget for Researchand Development. Insufficient funds remain in the TSS budget to cover the
supplementary sum of $230, 000, and it is therefore requested that the TSS. budget be increased by this amount and that the increase be made available
to Subproject 35 of Project MKULTRA.

Copy # 1 of 1 copy

-3-

131.

VI.

Comments by the Office of General Counsel.

Tab 3 is a memorandum from the General Counsel to the DCI dated 21
December 1954, commenting on Subproject 35, and stating in part that
there are no fundamental legal objections if the probable benefits are conThe amendment to the Subprojectsidered a fair return for this expenditure.
contemplates only an increase in funds and in no way changes any otheraspect of the project. The project has been referred back to the OGC eventhough no change in its structure is contemplated, and Tab 4 contains hiscomments.
VII.

Justification.

The advantages and benefits accruing to the Agency outlined in Tab A are
felt by TSS to provide adequata and complete justification for the expenditureof the additional sum herein requested which brings the total CIA contribution to $375, 000. The most important of these advantages and benefits
may be summarized as follows: (Fuller explanations may be found in Tab A).
a. One-sixth of the total space in the new hospital wing will beavailable to the Chemical Division of TSS, thereby providing laboratory and office space, technical assistants; equipment and experimental animals.
b. Agency sponsorship of sensitive research projects will becompletely deniable.
c. Full professional cover will be.provided for up to three biochemical employees of the Chemical Division.
d. Human patients and volunteers for experimental use will beavailable under controlled clinical conditions within the fullsupervision of.
Subproject 35.was originally conceived in October and November of 1954,
and the dnsuing six months have indicated that inc reasing emphasis andimportance are being placed on the Chemical Division's work in this field.
The facilities of the hospital and the ability to conduct controlled experiments under safe clinical conditions using materials with which any Agency
connection must be completely deniable will augment and complement otherprograms recently taken over by TSS, such as
4
18747115

rc,.-

I'll

of'7

1775copy

7

77

4 1

of I COPY

132

It was originally thought that at least 18 months wouLd elapse after thebuilding funds had been raised before the facilities would be finished andcould be occupied by TSS, This lengthy delay has now been overcome.
IMVJWhas raised the $500, 000 which his Fund will ostensibly contribute,he will then be allowed to use existing space in the present hospital inorder that he may build up the organization which will later occupy the newof thiswing. This means that TSS will be able to begin to take advantage
cover situation within a matter of months instead of waiting for a year anda half.
VIII.

Security.

Security matters. and details are being co-ordinated with the TSS Liaisonand Security Officer. Security of transmittal of the funds and cover arrangements are described in Tab A and remain unchanged.
IX.

4 E

Agreement withasis described in Tab A, and the extent
The agreement withof his co-operation and the control over his actions remain unchanged.
X.

Resultant Financial Saving.

The total contribution of $375, 000 by CIA will, result in an additional
It is felt that$375, 000 in matching funds provided under Public Law 221.
the expenditure of these total funds is justified by the importance of the
programs which will be pursued at the new facility. Even though the CIA
contribution is increased under this amended project, the total of Federal
The use of this facility will allow work tofunds remains unchanged.
proceed under conditions of cover and security which would be impossible
to obtain elsewhere without an expenditure of equivalent or greater funds.
In addition, by funding individual projects for this facility through the
charge will be incurred for overhead expense. If.noopenly sponsored by the iareI
1'ml'111
research projects
U1. S. Government, it is customary to pay an overhead rate equivalent- 5
to 80% of salaries. However; if a non-profit fund, such assponsors research, the funds granted for the work are customarily
overhead.
used only to pay for salaries, equipment and supplies, but not
The Agency thus buys considerably more research.throughhan would be the case if no cut-out were used.
40

13-

9

Copy # 1 of I copy

133

Subon*~tA
Ll-rezlh l-te fle
project 35, with 0-=c*znt
ov, the- 1-:!"
aspects. * T.hle- there is no le::al cont.rol -ithrnre ccrt2tin incidenta1 conzidera.ticnz,
Lcb
tihere is rno ~ 'nft1leg'al obji-cnf
ProbabL b -ne2it-, -- re cozi-"rd a far____

for thia expenditure.

___________(DATE)
I~FORM NO.

10.101 JAN 1952

4

134
Tab A

SUBPROJECT 35 - PROJECT MKULTRAFor the purpose of establishing a cover organization for highly
sensitive projects in the field of covert Biological, Chemical
and Radiological Warfare

I.

Background of Project MKULTRA.

In 1953 the DCI approved Project MKULTRA which established procedures
and controls under which research projects in certain highly sensitive
fields could be carried out by TSS without the necessity of signing theusual contracts. The approved procedures apply
over-all Research and Development budget, and no additional funds
are required. Controls established in the Project Review Committee
approval of the Research and Development program (other than thesigning of a contract) remain unchanged, and special provisions foraudit are included. All files are retained by TSS.
Thesd procedures and cbntrols were approved since it is highly undesirable from a policy and security point of view that contracts besigned indicating Agency or Government interest in this field of endeavor. In a great many instances the work must be conducted by individuals who are not and should not be aware of Agency interest. In
other cases the individuals involved are unwilling to have their names
on a contract which remains out of their control in our files. Experiencehas shown that qualified, competent individuals in the field of physiological, psychiatric and other biological sciences are very reluctant
to enter into.signed agreements of any sort which would connect them.with this activity since such connection might seriously jeopardize
their professional reputations.
When Project:MKULTRA was approved, it was not contemplated that
it would be used for the establishment of cover. Over forty individual
research and development projects have been established under thisframework and have been carried out extremely successfully, bothfrom technical and administrative points of view. The experience
gained in handling these projects has emphasized that establishment
of better cover both for the projects and for associated Agency scientists
is of utmost importance. Subproject 35 would establish such cover.

Dornareded to: Abab z-. 1:
ty- or C?75

*

10-77

x.t~ortty Of: 107475
jv~ 1977!i2'T;ME BY 18S7475

135

Background of the

II.

IJ

was incorporated in
It has a Board of Directors of six
who acts as Executive
members, one of whom iit has solicited funds from various Director of the Fund.
individuals to finance a program of basic research in the chemotherapyof cancer, asthma, hypertension, psychosomatic. disorders and otherha-co-operated.with. the__..
chrbnic diseases. Since 1951 Q
Chemical Division of TSS and acted smoothly and efficiently, both as
a cut-out for dealing with contractors in the fields of covert chemicaland biological warfare, and as a prime contractor for certain areas of
biological research. Projects presently being handled for the Agency
by the Fund are administered under the controls and procedures
previously approved for MKULTRA.

Th

C

III.

Background of

is internationally known as a
- C
in the field of41gliPresearch and is
nas eenassociated in
In thbepast'3
a research capacity with both theserved as av
it
Du-ing the war ll
1MARISgin the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in the Navy. Since then he-has
maintained a consulting relationship to the Navy medical research prois TOP SECRET cleared and witting of Agency - C.
:gram.
sponsorship of-the programs carried out by the Fund as are two othermembers of the Fund's Board of Directors.

c

Fund.

IV.

-

eactively engaged in aT campaign to raise funds
or toe purpose of erecting a new clinical research wing on the existing
The research wing will cmsist of a building six stories high, 320 feet long and 50 feet wide. Two-thirdsof the space wvill be research laboratories and offices while 100
particiresearch beds will occupy the remainder.
pation in the fund-raising campaign outlined below will result in his
having control of one-sixth of the total space in addition to the baseto:-..r!diS.:J::-:).

of: 187C75op
1S77.

Copy #of 2 copies

I?
r

136

ment and general out-patient facilities. In this effort,
has secured the enthusiastic support of tlbe medical faculty an theofficers of the University who have carried the preliminary arrangements
forward to the maximum extent of their resources.
V.

Financial Situation.

The University will require about $3, 000, 000 for thestory addition.
This sum is exclusive of the cost of land and the heating and power supply
which are already available -t the site7 At the present ti me under Public
Law 2Z1, funds are available to match funds raised by the University.
The University has allocated $1, 000, 000 to this project and will assume
upkeep and staffing obligations.
has-agreed that if CIA willa grant of $125, 000,
will provide
match this amount ann mae
oltal donation of $250, 000 to the University
Building Fund. This Agency's contribution will be made under the condition that it will be refunded if construction does not take.place.
TSS has discussed this situation with______M
and has encouraged.
to donate
500,000 to the building project on the basis that 1 !
will be conducted in the new wing,
though aware of ourinterest in the building, is unwitting of our specific fields of researchy.
-and individual projects. In summary, the financial situation would be as
follows:

-

-

C

.

C

13
1

.

$1,000,000 250,000 - Donation from($125, 000 supplied by CIA)
1,250,000 - Matched funds.from Public Law ZZ
500,000-

mam

erne

-3

.

$3, 000, 000 - TOTAL
Although it is recognized that the Federal contribution of $1, 250, 000 under
P. L. 221 is seemingl inflated by reason of the inclusion of the CIA contribution in that. ofactually the value.to the CIA is$250, 000 and not just $125, 000, the amount of CIA's contribution; furthermore the inclusion of the CIA co ntribution in that of
4Nis
the best method of maintaining security..
-lrozn['nded to.

t' athority of': 187475(:,0: Juns 1977-- J--e-.

Copy #of 2 copies

/S

137

VI.

Difficulties Faced by TSS.

reIt has been generally recognized for some time that the external
search activities of the Chemical Division of TSS in the field of covert
biological, chemical and radiological warfare are sorely in need ofproper cover. Although Project MKULTRA provides excellent administrative and financial cover for projects, it does not afford cover for
scientific or technical personnel. MKULTRA has been used for
as a cut-out and for working
dealing throughdirectly with individuals or-private companies. The use ofin the future will be increasingly limited-due to
(a)'

(b)

(c)

The increasing number of people who, albeit
properly cleared, are aware of the Agency
8connection withthat the Agency M
The feeling by
employees contacting him (Drs. Gottlieb,etc.) have no cover of any sort and consequently expose him to unnecessary andhighly undesirable personal risk; andCC

The widespread intra-Agency awareness ofthe nature of the relationship between theFund and the Agency.

Another serious problem faced by TSS/CD as a result of lack of suitable cover is the difficulty in planning careers for technical andscientific personnel in the biological field. A long-range careerconcept of activities in this field inevitably includes proper cover for
the individual concerned. The availability of research facilities
ill offer an excellent opportunity OI
at
is willing - C
to solve many of the above problems, andUpand able to make any reasonable arrangements to suit our needs.
. - C
to three Chemical Division employees can be integrated into
program for work in the new hospital wing on the
Agency's research projects. Although career planning was not aconsideration when planning the procedures and controls establishedby Project MKULTRA, nevertheless this particular subproject, in
addition to its primary objective, will be of very great secondary help
7 n uthority of: 187475
ILTD^T; CL B1 18747.

-.
-4-

Copy 9of 2 copies

138

in simplifying and eliminating many of the very awkward and dangerous
conditions facing certain Chemical Division employees.
and Benefits Accruing to TSS.

VII. 'Advantages

The contemplated arrangements will.jesult in many advantages andbenefits, including the following:(a)One-sixth of the total space in the new researchand - C
is to be available toin turn, will be available to the Chemical
Division of TSS. This will provide laboratory
and office space, technical assistants, equipment and experimental animals for use of Chemical
Division personnel in connection with specificfuture projects.

.wing

(b)

The cost of Chemical Division projects which are
to be carried out under this cover will be coveredby funds made available through Project MKULTRA,
and projects will be subject to the proceduresThe
and, controls established for.MKULTRA.
funds will be passed throughs has been done in the past. %iIll
in turn will either pay expenses directly ortransfer the money to the University for thispurpose. Each project will be individuallyfunded based on its particular budget, and there
will be no other continuing or recurring charges
for items such as space, facilities, etc.

(c)

The Agency's sponsorship of sensitive research
projects would be completely deniable since noconnection would exist between the University
and the Agency.

(d)Excellent professional cover would be provided
for up to three bio-chemical employees of the
Chemical Division of TSS. This would allow open
attendance at scientific meetings.. the advancementof personal. standing in the scientific world, andas such, would constitute a major efficiency andrdod toDrcL*
t- :rthrity
cf: 137175
C :: Je
1977
Copy #_/
C-5

of 2 copies

139
morale booster.
(e)

Human patients and volunteers for experimental
use will be available under excellent clinicalconditions with the full supervision of(f)

There would be available the equivalent of a
hospital safehouse.

(g)

It is expected that the output of useful resultsof the Chemical Division in the bio-chemical
field will be greatly improved through the more
efficient use of technical personnel who would
be able to spend more of their time on actuallaboratory work.

-

(h)

VIII.

(i)

Excellent facilities would be provided forrecruiting new scientific personnel sincemembers of the Chemical Division working under
this cover will be in daily contact with membersof the Graduate School of the University.

(J)

The regular University library and reprint
seryice will be available as a source of.
technical information.

Funding.

if
It is proposed that $125, 000 be granted toapproval is granted, TSS will arrange for payment to be made under
the procedures and controls of MKULTRA. These funds would comeout of the presently approved TSS Research and Development budget
for FY 1955 and no new funds are involved. The funds would be
In turntransferred as a grant towill match these funds with an equal amount and donate a total -of $250, 000 to the University as outlined in paragraph V. The sum of$125, 000 would be entirely in the nature of a grant and would in due

uIn

b"

fl' rrdod to::.iaor ty 0-: 187475
1977-6

Copy #

C27Li.
L BY 137-175
--

6-

/

of 2 copies

140

course be merged with the entire $3, 000, 000 raised for the construction of the wing. The Agency would retain no residual interest in thebuilding or title to any equipment or facilities purchased with thismoney.
This single grant will constitute the Agency'.s entire participation in
the new hospital wing, and there will be no recurring obligations in
the form of annual support of the hospital or additional grants. Trans8,
will be mademission of Agency funds tothrough previously established cover.channels set up by thea
for similar transmittals in the past. The donation on 4M books will be shown as having been received from-43

In the future when TSS sponsors sensitive research projects which areeach project
to be carried out inas it haswill be individually financed throughbeen in the past in accordance with previously established procedures
and controls using allotted portions of the annual Research and Development budget. The University will be totally unwittingof Agency
sponsorship, and the projects to every outward appearance will besponsored byM.
Cwill continue indeath,In the event ofbeing and any activities under this project will be continued throughwill be unaffected by his death.
fl~andIX.

Ca

Memorandum of Agreement.

A memorandum of agreement will be signed withoutlining to the greatest extent possible the arrangements under which
the hospital space under his control will be made available to Chemical
Division personnel and the manner in which cover will be provided andother benefits obtained. No contract will be signed sincewould be unable to reflect any of the Agency's contractual terms in his
makes thearrangements with the University when
donation in question. The memorandum of agreement will be retainedin TSS.

X.

-

Security.

All security matters and details are being cojordinated with the TSS/
Liaison and Security Office..
fl ::iid toa:
Z4:7
tof: 137475
J,:zo 1077
Copy Nf A of Z copies

C

-

C

141

Resultant Financial Saving.

XI.

The $125, 000 to be contributed by CIA plus the $125, 000 in matching funds
provided under P. L. 221 to the Building Fund will be more than offset
in a few years by the savings which will result from use of this non-profit
or other educafund. If a research project at
tional non-profit institution is sponsored by the 1J. S. Government, it
is customary for the Government to pay for salaries, equipment,.
supplies, .etc. and for overhead as well. In the case of .
the overhead amossnts to 80% of salaries. However, if a nonat
sponsors research a
profit foundation such as
non-profit institution, the funds granted for the work are customarily
used to pay for salaries, equipment and supplies but not for overhead.
The Government dollar thus buys considerably more research throughthan would be the case if no cut-out were used.
XII.

Legal Matters.

of the OfficeThis matter has been discussed withof General Counsel, and he is fully aware of all details surrounding thisgrant.

rofd to:Ofthrt..
187475JUZs 19~77

Copy #

copy A

96-408

0 - 77 - 10of 2 copies

142
9 AprilIVwr
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE RECORDSUBJECT

Trip Report, Visit to .
7 April 1963

1. The purpose of this triP was to make arrangements for
pro jec.
iad
been given ample previous
closing out thenotice that such was likely to be the iaent of the visit. anI he propared himself accordingly.
that it would not be
inp
Z. It was explained topossible to carry over funds beyond the end of the current fiscal
year. Therefore all work would have to be completed and all payments made prior to 30 June. This deadline appeared acceptable tohim, and it was agreed that I would make my final visit there to
did not
receive reports and attend to final details on 16 Juno. Q
have a current financial report, but he estimated that funds currently
on hand would be about sufficient for remaining expenditures. Be
agreed to send the Society within the next 10 days a more exact statement of current balance and estimated remaining expenditures. I
tried to impress on him strongly that transfer of additional funds and/or return of unexpeaded funds must be completed well bfore the endof the fiscal year.
3. Of the 30 cases called for in the original doeign 13 havebeen completed (but only 4 have been transcribed from the tapes). In
addition there are 8 cases in proLreos (of which two are already ininterview and 6 are worked up to the point of having the lists of questions
prepared). It was agreed that to meet the deadline we would have tolimit the design to these 26 cases.
is so Involved in the administrative
4. It is apparent that'problems of the project that he is not paying any attention to the results.
Since to date only 4 cases have been transcribed there is no way of telling
what is coming out of it. I assume there were no dramatic reactions, because the interviewers would have let him know about them had they emerzed.
It is possiblo, however, that our own analysis cf the data may dredge up
something of value, although I am dubious on this point.
gave me his usual long involved talk on the difficulties
5.
he had encountered which account for the delays. He also talked at some143
length about his -- "pcrimear.*are mildly h.aur-raiamng. Fial-th bypnoul.. gos_ aspecta of wactb
ho made quite a pitchL for contining
Comec duch project as this ncott year,
withL roalisac. aputum~ deadlines."

I told him we would diacues posiilitic
i~ter the present project wascompicted and we badl . cha~lco to closely examine the take.

Distribution:

144

July 18, 1958

Dear Mr. 11

oi-N

The experiment designed lo test the effectiveness ofcertain medication in causing individuals to release guarded information has been completed in accordance with the original experimental design, with the exception that 25 instead of 30 cases
were used. This matter was discussed in more detail in my letteroT July 15. Abstracts on all 25 cases, transcriptions of the interviews, Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Tests given at the hospital and previously given at this clinic, post-experimental .
rankings and evaluation sheets, and a schedule covering the drug
administration have all been submitted to you under separate
cover.
Enclosed is a financial statement which reprk sents the
final accounting of the funds allocated by you for use in thisproject. If, for your purpose, you require a more detailed summary of what specific professional services were performed ormore detail with reference to travel expenses or any other item,
kindly let me know.

You will note, in this connecion, that Dr.Wvas
This
compensated in an amount exceeding thatpa. to Dr.
ngchesient much tie
was occasioned by the fact that Dr."andthe files and records at thee stable for our purPrison selecting cases that m gOpose. It was from the cases selected by him that the subjects
chosen.
finally
wereused in the experiment
I have been instructed to write a check to the Society
for the balance in the account as o3 today. I would like toMr.

Page Twodelay this matter for a few days. Several checks have been written during recent days, and I would like to be sure they cleared
You will.before closing out the account.
the bank i
receive a check in the amount of $1356.26 early next week.
If there is any additional information required, I will
be happy to cooperate.

Enc.

146
ty

Ca:

est:.-4-ty oC-: .18747S
:
1977

/Y

FJLEldUWU PhiN

Z : CLEY 187475
1."CArI1

13-.'he rescarch Project will be carried cut at, hewhich inlocatedcat

The

Rn

(
4

-

icated,ospi

has one thousand, one hundred and thirty-five (1,135) bods.

.

At the present tine thoro ere one hundred and forty-two (142) napsychotics classiied es cri-0.nal-seael psychopaths.

ThOro are four

full-tire psychiatristo and varying nuabcro of endical interns; twopsycholo-iztrl four soc.al workers; nurses and attendants.
intendent of the Hecepital isof the resesrch t.a-.

za:

The super-

wittinrenberC-of- The in-titution cos urder the directie-- tIrmecutive Secretary of the Stata "Icpartennt of fental Health andany re 'earch project is nornrally approved by the Co-ordi.nator ofof the State Denrtent of
this e-proval.

or-fl.1:in

sronrchwill secureaental Health.

dco space evilazle erA it ispossile for the rusoarcl teaa to sleep at the Hospital while eerryisz
out their investigation.

The subjccts will be selected from the on(162)

hund-d and forty-two

crinisal-cortal psychopaths on idiom there is an edaquate previous

investi, ation including police roports, physical, nsycdantric
prycholcic eacdrntions -nd accial hin-eorca.
Do-znwded to:t"

f'.tcrityofa:

187475Ct': J1:ie 1877
J.

15/.

I; CL I:

107475The a,

adrange of the

-

C
C.

147
rubjects varies from t::.0-ty' 'as saOvety years and theraotion oi intallizcnce levels and social tnck70onde.

Th

following ran are sugzostod for the research toam:C,

experience in er

a pzychologist who has had etonsive
dning criiaJ,F}as iriten extonsively

on psychopathic sexual deviations; is an authority on poly-

Croph and intorro:ation rethods.

-

*flf

-C

for ren thirty years, a psychiatrist to has

spent his life in the trrotrnt of the criminal inrano ='dr=intins the crLy institution

for the cr-

and treatant for the cririnal-sxaal psychopath.
a prycliatrist who has a large private
practico.

At the pocent timra he is exclusiva3y devoting

his tine to psychcanlycis.
exirdnircrinzCals.

Ho has had extensive axnericnco

As a Navy psychiatrist to has had

extensive cxerience inWIC

in the field of eastern cultures, Oriental
psychiatry, brairwashing, etc.

He hao also done drug inter-rogation with crimntls and has engagod in narconalysis
and h.,pnoanlyis.
d to: flNI-2t7.1Lhrity C: 137475
date: JOn: 1977-

:2

CL fY 1S7475

C-S?475--*.

ytrit ::o is en tho-C

utfIf ofend rnitoains a private practice in the field
has had wide experience in -or psychi try.

wOnvty-r~t rT--.lja3
jo~zi
bor.n-a
back
CL4
goiQg
dolug doaL-Z
thcrirlialas

C

venJL-Lp
Years,

including dr-g interc;,ation.

c Tfaphys3ician for the post twenty-five

- C
-'3

yors, has been
had cxtcnsive expOr-eal)iZ wiTh all sorts of crizinls

once

in

rca interrogation.

-Cd ha s onaged

LOcidos his city position, he also

raintains a private practico in the field of general.
ledicine.
-has O co-sted cmn of tbo perchiatrists

his staff abo is interested .xd has used drags

from

-

1in the treat-

rent of patients and has also used hypnozio nith mretal
patients.

The roesrch aseiotants have not been celected

as yet but rijht well include payoloeliste
attachud to
be

ocry

Three tearnow

or raies*

Ze cecrutary ill

prG:;ont secrntery 'to will do all theeaces-

tene: rephic work in ad .ition to her presnt duties.

of two csnior proonaitonal zata each will becolected.

will una stra iht
workin: with the selected grcup of ptiea
ad h!.pnoin and a
Ltorro;ation, h.:mnolu tx.d hypror3i :nanOn, teen

-

-C

H

f

149

tetrhr;eocrnnabbol
roup onctata Cerivatibv.

AnoLher tez.n working on anothercbjcctr wUill uze str4-ht interrogation, IZD uitlh interrogation

and a trtrz.Cdrocenlnabinol acctato derivative and intorrogation.
the third tean with anther Croup ofcU

use straif

Later.-

t interro-cation and a cotirnation of LSJ and a tctrhydrocnmabinol acetate
derivative.
A reing of all the roers of the research prooect will be briefed
on the druZs to be u:ied and all of t'ipharnacoloeicfl and rndical =oW-

ledge gained so far in the use of theco drugs.
Ina:Loctirc Lroups of abects for experintation, the ffllowing
objectives will be sought:
1)

Cubjects will be selected .fio have denied allegationsof vYrious 1-inda that can bo chocked or strongly ren:don the basis of previously established records.

2)

As far as possible, the actual 'research ran rd-dnistering
drus wrill not be awaro of the drug he is ad-dnistering
cnd pinocobs will be intermrsed with drug adiistration.

3)

Procautions will be taken to neutralizo age, intelliguces physical condition, social bckground and anyother controllable factor in ecelecting 5roups.

Ad-

idnietration of drugs will be done both openly andeurreptitiously.
4)

ocund recording will be

iasdoof the interroation-nd wrt %ton reports will beLobtded in othter care:.
*.

r..)* it*?tt.
fl 7of:.:1

1 7 i75

IJ.C1077

r-;U

i:-0z~ CLrcce

In jof interro_-,tion with dru;: anti otbor tciniquiea -. i:flbo c-hecitedaaln~bct-~i rccords r-nd qiw~ita.tivo andcramlt~tti-m rcnorba vwIll 1, cvalua~ed.

Accurate aad

J-I~=roportz S.ill bo kcpt -- iur.-ms will be =1)-.
mgtted on tho bazij of ;Ltorin pro~reso and corp2leta

C'-tin' rmthods of151

DRAPT/a"o30 January 1961

V2240RANDUM.! FOR THE RECORDSUBJECT:
1.

Project MKULTRA, Subproject2

Subproject 42 is to be continued for the same purposes as

when originallyestablished: to support

covertand realistic field trials of certain research and development items
of interest to TSD, and to maintain the physical facilities required forthese trials.
2.

In the past year a number of covert and realistic field,trials have been successfully carried out.

The

seults of theseexperiments have provided factual data essential to establishingprotocols for a number of contemplated operations.

A continuationof covert and realistic field trials are necessitated by the productionof new materials in TSD programs, particularly in areas requiring
detailed knowledge of the effectiveness pnd efficiency of deliverjI
systems. Additional trials are also necessitated by the need forbetter controlled "field-type" experiments.

3.

The estimated cost of the ,project is $5,000.00 for a periodof six months.
.

Charges should be made against Allotment 1125-1390-3902.

Accounting for funds and equipment under this subproject has

been established on a detailed basis with the auditor and will continue
as in the past.

152

5.

is

approved for TOP SECRET by the Agency andoperates under cover for purposes of this subproject.

TSD/Research Branch
APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION OF FUNDS:

Date:

Distribution:
Original only.

153

EMORANDUMFOR THE RECORDSUBJECT:

Project MKULTRA, Subproject 42

1. Subproject 42 is beincontinued support of thee tab *shed to provide for theacilities, and as such,is a continuation of Suboroect 16
Under Subproject 42, it
is intended that thejacilities be moved from

.6'

to

These facilities,

in the new location, will continue to provide a means for therealistic testing of certain R and D items of interest to
CD/TSS and APD/TSS.
2. Subproject 42 will be conducted by Mr.
a seaman. Certain support activities will be prcvided by

CD/ISS and APD/TSS.
3. The estimated cost for a period of one year is$8,300,00, starting 1 March 1955.

1:2EY G(ArL=-B

Chief
TSS/Chemical Division

APROVED FCR OBLIGATICNOF FUNDS:APPROVED FOR ADDITIONAL
OBLnsaTWSor
OF UD (ft28.

3

I
KtesearCf

Date:
Original Only.,

Ulrector

esearh D

4

Date:

ect

MRANDUM FOR::SUBJECT
1.

THE RECORD
Project-MKULTRA,

Stlbproject 45.

The scope of this project is intended to encompass

all those activities nov engaged in by thea in its own facilities under the
direction of TSS, Chemical Division. These activities willtake the form of three lines of biochemical investigation;
namely, the curare-like effect of certain thiols, the preparation of hydrogenated quinolines and indole alkaloids, and thecontinued study of diphenolic compounds. In addition to theabove investigations, the present biological testing and assaying techniquesi will be elaborated and broadened to include
cardiovascular and anticarcinogenic effects of compounds resulting from the above programs.
dicates
2. The attached proposal fromthe extent of the investigations that his facilities will allow
him to carry out on the materials deieloped in the three linesof research referred to in paragraph 1 as well as certain otheralso serves
materials of interest to TSS/CD.
as a general consfdtant to this Division and provides cover andcut-out facilities to the Agency.
3. The total cost of this project for a period of one year
will not exceed $100,000.00. At the present time, the sum of$40,000.00 is being committed, the balance of the total to-becom 5 ted at a later date.
as been granted a TOP SECRET clearance
4.
.
by the Agency, and is fully capable of protecting the securityof the Government's interest in this matter.

.

TSS, Chemical Division
APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION
OF FUNDS:APPROVED:

Sawibf TS/CemialDiviso
APPROVED FOR AIDITIONAL APIROPRIATIC
Attachments:
ProposalOriginal Only. 4

Research Director
Nate:

(

-

i

155

Manuman
re'

rsCOR

-s

UMFORt. THE RECafLD

1MMA

Projwitt-KILRA, Subproject 45

SUBJECT:

1. The scope of this project is intended to encompass all those-4
Munder the direction of TSS/CD. These activities tae the formof three lines of biochemical investigation, namely, the Curare-like
effect of certain thiols, the preparation of bydrogenated quinolines
and indole alkaloids and a program of investigation of toxic cerebral
states. -.This last investigation will include. bio-assay and chemicalanalysis of various body fluids of animals in which cerebral toxemias
have been produced. It is the aim of this program to endeavor tounderstand the mechanism of such states as toxic delirium, tiremic
coma, and cerebral toxicity from'po soning. In order to continue theand to make available aestablished "cover" activities of tand-&Pool of subjects for testing purposes, theeffects of compounds resulting from the above program willpool ofbe evaluated.
2
iadicates the. The attached proposal fromextent of the investigations that his facilities will allow him tocarry out on the materials developed in the three lines of researchreferred to in paragraph one, a well as certain other materials of
so serves as a general consultant
interest to TSS/CD.
to this Division and provides cover and cut-out facilities to the

Agency.

3. The total cost of this project for a period of one year will
not exceed $100,000. Charges should be made against Allotment
6-2502-10-001.
.

4.

has been requested to subinit a summary account-annual audit report be made available foring or a copy of th
the sponsor's inspection. Also, it has been requested that any unexpended funds shall be returned to the Agency.
Title to any permanent equipment purchased by funds granted
hall be retained by thelieu of higher overhead rates.
* other than its activities as a cut-out

Deog

b

to:
187479. ority of475

E2 I!

~

CL BY 167475

-17 - - - - ---2-

6. It was mutually agreed that documentation and accounting for
travel expenses which are normally reimbursable by the
4W shall conform wiGtKe acpted practices of th(4)Y

eed to comply with the requirements of. .
the Memorandum of Agreement.

c
CAPfROVEDAPPROM FOR OBLIGATION
OF FUINDS:

Research Director
Date

___

Attachment:
Proposal
Distribution:
Original Only

Do- .d to:
EC
t:Jun

L S7 187475
72 .r;CL By 287475___

Chief , T 8/Chemical Division

157
1960

The researci to be undertaken durtng the twelve month wt1l be devoted
pertod for shtch ftnanctal support to requested
mechantam
to the conttnued analysts of the neural and endoortne
The screentngof stress and the. hemtcal agents that tnfluence tt.
of phases ofprocedures are based largely upon a further analysts
stress and the tnfluences of thts phystologto behavtor complex
accompanyupon both body and sktn temperatures as detatled tn the
Eng report.

at the

The chemtcal synthests of new compounds trtll be constr.ued
under the superttston ofand at theunder the supervtston

4

These chemtoal agents wtll be screened forreacttonthetr capactty to provoke stress or t.o suppress the stresso .--wtill tnclude pharma. tn Lts acute or chronto phases. Antmal testtng
cologto screentng and proper toxtctty studtes..ofthese compounds as

heretofore.
aChemtcal agents that have been. found acttve and wtthtn
onsuttable toxtotty range wtll be subjected to cltntcal screentng
carrted out on
approprtate pattents, the tntttal screentng betng
to chemtcal
devotedadvanced cancer pattents. The amount of money
Chemtcal compounds
synthests, however, has bean firther reduced.
synthesteed tn t?
those
asavatlable from btologto sources as wellthat are acttve tn
project wll be screened, parttoularly thoseetther ratstng or lowertng body temperature.
As heretofore any agents whtch prove to be of tnterest
th nn transvlantn-..
.. n*,<'-..

96-408 0 - 77 - 11

158'

GantmaZ tumors ndnana nce

patiienta.Th6S- ' :areo/

project zutll be od-nstdPred-a by-.product of thte major objeottve,- 7
whtch wtll be dtrected to the problem of stress.

ANNGNOTICESEIMTECEIGENCE
I.iTRD NVOLVED159.
MEMORANDUM FOR: THtfEconn
SUBJECT

1.

Continuation of M.ULTRA. Subproject.

No. tisThe scope of this subpro'ect includes all those activities

now engaged in byy
under the direction of TSSftD-with the exception of thosecutoutfunctions specifically mentioned in connection with other MKULTRA
subprojecf

In general, the research effort under this subprojectwill continue along the lines.laid down in previous years.

These

involve the synthesis and pharmacological and clinical evaluationof compounds of those chemical families known to have hpplicationin the psychichemical and "K" fields.

During the past year importantcompounds
progress-has been made in the area related to stressor
and the relationship of these materials to the physiological pathways
through which both stress and the reaction to it are mediated inhuman beings. (As is indicated in the attached proposal, the workof the past year has progressed to the point where more definitive
experiments on the stress reaction can be carried out.

Primarily

this was brought about by the characterization of several new.uand the applicamaterials which produce stress reaction in humans

0tion of some new clinical methods of measuring the extent ofP odisturbance produced.

theDuring the next year proportionally moreof neweffort will be expended on the problem of the development

-

160

is desirable in this direction and because a new approach to the
problem has been worked out.

a.

also serves as a general consultant to

the Agency, provides services of a sensitive nature on an ad hoc
basis, and serves as a cut-out in procurement problems.
3.

The total cost of this project for a period of one year

will not exceed $71, 500. 00.

Charges should be made against

Allotment 0525-1009-4902.
has been requested to submit a summary

4.

accounting or a copy of the Fund's annual audit report for thesponsor's insection.

Also, it has been requested that any unexpended

funds shall be returned to the Agency.
5.

Title to any permanent equipment purchased by funds
shall be retained b

granted, in lieu of higher overhead rates.
6.

It was mutually agreed that documentation and accounting

for travel expenses which are normally reimbursable byIP.
-

Fund.

tosraded ts: CCORNIUML
autority off: 187475
ca
datc: June 1977
E2 I""DT: CL BY 187475

Mshall conform with the accepted practices of the161
MMORANDM FOR:TE

SUBJECT

Subpxoect ro. 45
Continuation of MKOLTRA,

1.

MOD

The scope of this subproject includes all those activities

nov/ngaged in by~

under the direction of TSD/EB vith zbh exception of-those cutoutfunctions specifically mentioned in connection with othersubprojects.

IMLTRAIn general, the research effort under this subprojectwill continue along the lines laid down in previous years.

These

involve the synthesis and pharmacological and clinical evaluation ofcompounds of those chemical families known to have application in thepsychochemical and "K"fields.

During the coming year it is planned

to concentrate more directly on the more practical aspects of the"knockout" problem.

Enough new potent substances have become available

lately to make such a change in-emphasis -vorthihila. In connection
with this change it
w

aMENM

should be noted that certain findings made inproject at U

vhich cannot 3e further exploited atthat facility vill be pursued atreason itin the future.

may be necessary to supplement the f

For thisandiglof this subprojectfrom time to time during the year due to increases of scope.
2.

also serves as a general consultant to the

Agency, provides services of a sensitive nature on an ad hoc basis,and serves as a cutout in-procurement problems.

.E2

I'?=;

CL BY 187475

162
3.

*In

total

ot

not exceed $40,000.00.

of this proJ.t

for a pefiofne ye-.1l

Charges should be made against Allotment

2125-1390-3902.
*

O.

bas been requested to submit a summary

accounting or a copy of the Fund's annual audit report for thesponsor's. inspection.

Also, it has been requested that any unexpended

funds shall be returned to the Agency.
5.

Title to any permanent equipment purchased by funds granted

6

M shall be retained byin lieu of higher overhead rates.
6.

It vas mutually agreed that documentation and accounting for

travel expenses which are normally reimbursable byshall conform with the accepted practices of the Fund.

Chief

TSD/Research Branch
APPROVED FOR OBLIGATION O FUNDS:

Research Director
De
Attachment:

Proposal and Budget

Distribution:

Original only

163

MEMORANDUM FOR

SUBJECTo Lt

THE RECORD

4:MKULTRA, Subproject 149

1.

This subproject is being established for the purposeof supporting realistic tests of certain development items anddelivery systems of interest. to TSD/BB.
2.

During the course of development it is sometimes

found that certain very necessary experiments or tests are notsuited to ordinary laboratory facilities.

At the same time,

it would be difficult if not imp&ssible to conduct such tests
as operatiqnal field tests.

This project is designed .to pro-vide a capability and facilities to fill this intermediate
requirement.
3.

The activities under this subproject will be con-ducted by Mr.
export business,,in

an individual in the import andMr.

eholds a TOP

SECRET Treasury Department cleafice and a SECRET Agency
He is completely witting of the aims and goals of

approval.

his activities.
. 4.

possesses unique facilities and personalMr.

abilities which makes him invaluable in this kind of testing
operation.

Mr.

because of Iis peculiar

lants..and-capabilities as well, as his excellent connections with all of
the local law enforceient agencies, will provide a unique andessential capability.
sident of theis no longer re-C.

Because Mr.
area,

it

is

necessary that asuitable replacement be provided in order that a capability
for continuance of our activities be maintained.
5.

The estimated cost of the project is $10,000.00 for

a period of one year.

Charges should be made against Allotment

Number 4125-1390-3902.

Reimbursement will be made for services

rendered.
6.

Accounting for funds advanced and any equipment under

this- subproject will be in accordance with account ng proce
ures established by7.

A memorandum of agreement along lines estab

shed byprevious audit recommendations in like situations will be
executed.

TSD/Biological BranchDistribution:
Original only

165
SUBJECT:
1.
2.

3.

Request for Support of Research on the Mechanism of Brain ConcussionofThis is a request for financial support for research on the mechanism
brain concussion for the period 1 Feb 1956 to 1 Feb 1957.
The resonance-cavitation theory upon which this research is to be based,
has been presented in the proposal, submitted to th
dated 27 March 1954.
program
The program as originally submAtted estimated the duration of theto be from three to five years requesting a total of $72,109 for the initialyear.

4. At the request of the,to $24,925, was then awarded to theto support this program from 1 Feb 1955

5. .amountingt
6.

a reduced budget was submitted.

Feb 1950.

as
The progress made to date under the above contract can be summarized
follows:
A. RESEARCH FACILITIESThe following research facilities have been established for theinvestigation of the very diverse aspects of the problems being
studied:Atotal of 250 square feet of laboratory and office spaceequipped with much of the diversified machinery and apparatus
necessary for research in this field.
b. Blast Range
located
A blast range has been established atThisry.
f the malaors
approximately
is closed to the public.
area is owned rby theMand
Three blast test-series have been run to date.
Arrangments have been made with thehmncadavers.

WARNINGELLIGENtCE;ES' AND METHODS IN1VOLVED

for use of their
A test area has been assigned for this

166

B.

PERSONNEL- -Both full-time technical personnel and part-time professional
research personnel have been acquired and indoctrinated relative
to their specific function.
C. TECHNICAL PROGRESS
Following is the technical progress made uxder the current
contract:a.

Specialized instrumentation and numerous testing techniques
have been developed to obtain-the desired dynamic data.

b.

Considerable data has now been obtained supporting theresonance-cavitation theory of brain concussion.

c.

Preliminary acceleration threshold data has been obtained
for a fluid-filled glass simulated skull.

d.

Data kas been obtained on the nature and the magnitude ofpressure fluctuations within a glass simulated skull subject
to either impact or sound waves propagated in air.

e.

Initial studies have been made on the simulated glass skull
attempting to establish the cavitation patterns for various
types of impact.

7.

The proposed method and program plan remain the same as stated in theoriginal proposal, except for the temporary- deletion of the immersion
blast study.

8.

The current level of activity on this ptoject can be indicated by themost recent billing to thefor the month of November, which amounted
to $4,034.61.

9.

In the interest of efficiency and economy it is requested that at least
this level of activity be maintained for the coming year.

WARNING Nfl
SELLIGENCE
AND METHODS INVOLVED

167

1.1

Trotter.

W. defies

brain concussion as,'an essentially

due to head injury which is of instantanioustransient state
onset, manifests widespread symptoms of purely paralytic
kind, does not as such comprise any evidence of structural
cerebral injury, and is always followed by amnesia for theactual moment of the accident."

10.2

The implication of the underlined portion of the above statement
is that if a technique were devised to induce brain concussion
without giving either advance warning or causing external physicaltrauma, the person upon recovery would be unable to recall what
had happened to him.
Under these conditions the same techniqueof producing the concussion could be re-used many times without
disclosure of its nature.

10.3First, considering the possibilities of direct impact to thehead or body, it should be..possible-from the findings of thisresearch program to determine the following:a. Optimum design of impacting devices.
b. Optimum points of impact on skull or bodyfor the specific effects desired..
c. Intensity of the blow for the effect desired.

10.4

In regard to the potential impacting devices, there are certain
design requsitesothat are apparent at this time:a. The impact should be delivered without
advance warning.
b.. The area of impact and force distribution
should be such that surface trauma does
not occur.
c. The intensity of the impacting force andits duration should be such as to obtain
the desired effect.
d. The device should be as small and as silent
as possible.

10.5

The specific impacting devices might take the form of any of
the following:a. A pancake type black-jack giving a high peak
impact force with a low unit surface pressure.
b. Concealed or camouflaged spring-loaded impacting
devices that trigger upon contact with the head.

(Original and sole copy

:agg)

168
-

.*.

-

.-

a.

A prcjecttleu sing a sall

type

mpetershot fllboanaseack fo

an,

ear

asr.

a proJectle.

d. An explosive pad detonated in contact with thehead or the body.
10.6

Let us now consider the possibilities of exciting the resonance
There is coaisiderable evidence
cavitation directly without impact.
that resonance cavitation can be induced directljr in the following
ways:
a. A blast wave propagated in air. (Blast Concussion)b. Physical excitation with a mechanical driveror horn, tuned to the resonant frequency ofthe head.

10.7

A single blast pressure wave propagated in air must have considerable
intensity in order to produce brain concussion, however, there isconsiderable evidence (Carver & Dinsley) that modification of thepressure wave can produce profound effects.

10.8

Excitation of the resonance cavitation by using a tuned driverat this time appears to be well within the relm of possibility.
The neurotic-like manifestations normally associated with blast
concussion could possibly be induced by this method. Use ofthis methodtiowever, would require actual physical contact withthe drivers.

10.9

Excitation of the resonance cavitation by tuned sound waves also
appears to be a reasonable possibility. Concentration of the soundfield at some remote point could be effected with accoustical lenses
and reflectors. The blast duration would be in the order of atenth of a second. Masking of a noise of this duration should not
be too dificult.

11.0

It would possibly.be advantageous to establish the effectivnessof both of the above methods as a tool in brain-wash therapy.
A full knowledge of the method and the rpsulting sequela should beof aid to any person forced to submit to such treatment.

12.0

Possibly the most significant potential aspect of this study would
be in the development of practical means of giving a person immunity,
One technique that appears
even though temporary, to brain concussion.
to have potentialities involves the introduction of a small quantity
This gas bubbleof gas, approximately 1 cc, into the spinal cord.
would then normally migrate to the ventricles located at the centrunof the brain. The ability of this bubble to expand under dynamic
loading would be most effective in preventing resonance cavitationfrom occuring.

(Original and sole copy:agg)

%6-4C8 13.,(

MATERIAL FOR THE RECORDMKSEARCH. OFTEN/CHICKWITMKSEARCH was the name given to the continuation of the MKULTRA program. Funding commenced in FY 1966, and ended in FY 1972. Its purpose was todevelop, test, and evaluate capabilities in the covert use of biological, chemical,
and radioactive material systems and techniques for producing predictable humanbehavioral and/or physiological changes in support of highly sensitive operational
requirements.
OFTEN/CHICKWIT
In 1967 the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the Edgewood
Arsenal Research Laboratories undertook a program for doing research on theidentification and characterization of drugs that could influence human behavior.
Edgewood had the facilities for the full range of laboratory and clinical testing.
A phased program was envisioned that would consist of acquisition of drugs andchemical compounds believed to have effects on the behavior of humans, andtesting and evaluating these materials through laboratory procedures and toxicological studies. Compounds believed promising as a result of tests on animals
were then to be evaluated clinically with human subjects at Edgewood. Substancesof potential use would then be analyzed structurally as a basis for identifying andsynthesizing possible new derivatives of greater utility.
The program was divided into two projects. Project OFTEN was to deal withtesting the toxicological, transmisivity and behavioral effects of drugs in animals
and, ultimately, humans. Project CHICKWIT was concerned-with acquiring information on new drug developments in Europe and the Orient, and with acquiring
samples.
There is a discrepancy between the testimony of DOD and CIA regarding thetesting at Edgewood Arsenal in June 1973. While there is agreement that humantesting occurred at that place and time, there is disagreement as to who was
responsible for financing and sponsorship. (See hearings before the Subcommittee
on Health and Scientific Research of the Senate Human Resources Committee,
September 21, 1977.)(169)

THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL. INTELLIGENCEWASHINGTON, D. C. 20505

Office of Legislative Counsel

23 December

1977

Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
During Admiral Turner's 3 August 1977 testimony
before your Committee and the Senate Human Resources
Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, you asked
whether any Agency employees had been terminated because of
their participation in MKULTRA Subproject 3. Admiral
Turner indicated he did not believe any employee had
been terminated, but would have Agency records searchedon this question. Our records have been searched and theresults confirm the Director's testimony that no suchactions were taken.
SincerelGeCaregislatve Counsel

171

QKHILLTOP DEFINITIONQKHILLTOP was a cryptonym assigned in 1954 to a project to study Chinese
Communist brainwashing techniques and' to develop interrogation techniques.
Most of the early studies are believed to have been conducted by the Cornell
University Medical School Huipan Ecology Study Programs. The effort wasabsorbed into the MKULTRA program and the QKHILLTOP cryptonym became
obsolete. The Society for the investigation of Human Ecology, later the Human
Ecology Fund, was an outgrowth of the QKHILLTOP.