Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-11

UNKNOWN: Dr Goosen, is it Mr or Doctor sorry it is Doctor is it?

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: It doesn't matter Sir, Daan Goosen.  You are welcome.

UNKNOWN: Let me just get this clear. At this stage there was no front company, you were part of a university academic department and you were being asked by the military to produce various poisons, be it in the guise of snake venom or endotoxins.  Now earlier in your introductory remarks you talked about scientists and responsibility of scientists and how scientist's work is evaluated, now when it came to this sort of work, two questions
1. Did this go through any of your ethical committees at university?
2. You mentioned Dr Odendal that he was involved in straight scientific work if you like, was he aware as to where these toxins were going to?

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, yes.  I would like to address you, there are a few aspects which you've touched there.   The ethical side and what do you think and what are you aware of etc, etc.
 At that stage we were working in the following manner that Dr James Davies, who was seconded to us, he was sort-of then and we knew he had then contact with Dr Basson, he was doing the on-hand work.  All the work done was done according to the guidelines of the ethical committees.  All the work done was done according to the scientific rules and regulations which apply internationally.  As I have said it was very easy.  Dr Odendal produced the toxins as part of a project he had in producing models for shock, for work to treat, trauma patients.  So that was there.  The protocols were in place.  The effects of these models were the results which could have been used applied in as a chemical weapon, or a biological weapon in this case. 
 So Chairman, and you must be very clear on this thing, the non-proliferation issue and how do you control that, that is not very easy.  That is not very easy.  What is proliferation and what is non-proliferation?  In this instance is a clear example of what is the case.  During normal good, proper, positive medical science these products are produced.  They are standardised.  You know exactly what is the dosage, what is the ...(indistinct).  You know exactly how to produce it, because the scientists publish this internationally.  This is my model for working on models to treat a human patient in shock.  You understand what I am saying.
 So there is no difference.  In a lot of these instances, and I can come to others for you later, whenever you want to, there are differences in scale.  There are places of control. There are mechanisms how you control and how you non-proliferate.  There are very few people who are really in a position to do these controls and these measurements.  I would be one of them.  Why?  Because I was involved in this.  I was intimately involved in this in the scientific side.  I know exactly about a lot of things.  But what is more important I don't know what I don't know of many other things, and that you must also realise when you control these things.
 So the ethical side of it - this is to answer you, how could we cover this ethically?  It was covered already.  So we had snakes, we were busy working with snakes, the treatment of snake bites.  In the process we had snake venom, pure snake venom.  It was approved, everything.  Now in fact I took some of that snake venom to give to Dr Basson at six o'clock in the morning.  That was the secret thing.  To have him there early in the morning and James Davies and myself not to see everyone taking some of the venom.  And we had a snake and we had a story and say okay we've milked the snake, it's finished.  We had the snakes, we implant a marked venom - marked cells, radio-marked cells etc, so we had everything, but the secret was to have him there at six o'clock in the morning that nobody sees him picking this up.  
 In fact the morning he picked it up I dropped the vial with the snake venom and it broke, and it was on the floor and we had to draw it up with the syringe from the floor and put it back again.  That was the way it worked.
 The ethics of this, I don't know if you want me to ...(intervention)

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: I think we may return to some of these points later but I would like to try and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just as a layperson understand what is being said.  Do I understand you to be saying the production of snake venoms which would be used scientifically in order to - or to research around ways of defending people who are bitten by snakes, that went through the ethical committees because it was good scientific undertaking?

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: That's correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: But the one thing that wouldn't go through the ethical committees would be where you are told at that level, at that six o'clock level ...(intervention)

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That you know we must also produce murder weapons ...(intervention)

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: Yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: ...to assassinate political enemies of the State.

ADRIAAN JACOBUS GOOSEN: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you.  Could you tell us when you were formally approached to establish RRL and how that came about?