[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ETHICAL MEDICAL RESEARCH

                                 ______


                       HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR.

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, August 8, 1994

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the search for the 
sensational is far too frequent in our media, it is essential that 
there be other voices who inject reason and a concern for the truth 
into public discourse.
  Recently, Eugene Trani, president of Virginia Commonwealth 
University, appeared before the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation 
Experiments to address the issue of sensationalism and discuss 
appropriate and ethical medical research. His remarks are very 
constructive and I ask that they appear in the Record in their 
entirety.

   Remarks of Dr. Eugene P. Trani, President, Virginia Commonwealth 
                               University


presentation to the advisory committee on human radiation experiments, 
                 public comment section, july 25, 1994

       Madam Chairperson, ladies and gentleman of the committee, 
     on behalf of Virginia Commonwealth University, I thank you 
     for this opportunity to speak with you today.
       Under the auspices of the United States Department of 
     Energy, the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments 
     has been given a charge of historic and moral significance: 
     to learn of the material and ethical scope of radiation 
     experiments conducted during the Cold War.
       We in the academic community must share in your task. 
     Supported by the Atomic Energy Commission and the military, 
     some of this work was conducted on our campuses. That 
     responsibility, however, carries the equally important 
     obligation for all of us to apply the most rigorous standards 
     of intellectual honesty. Otherwise, the risk is too great 
     that your work will be sensationalized out of all proportion 
     to its true intent.
       It is that risk that I would like to talk briefly about 
     today.
       At Virginia Commonwealth University, we have been learning 
     all we can about radiation studies that took place from 1949 
     to 1959 in our Medical College of Virginia's burn unit--the 
     first civilian burn unit in the country. Our involvement, 
     however, has come not as a result of being named in the DOE 
     investigation but because of a newspaper article. An essay 
     titled ``Burning Secrets: In a Virginia Hospital, A Cold War 
     Time of Strange Experiments'' published by Cliff Honicker, 
     director of the American Environmental Health Studies 
     Project of the Commission on Religion in Appalachia, in 
     the June 19 edition of The Washington Post opens with the 
     following: ``Between 1949 and at least 1957, the Medical 
     College of Virginia (MCV) ran a secret metabolic lab whose 
     primary goal was preparation for massive nuclear 
     casualties. Imbued with Cold War zeal and scientific 
     arrogance, doctors conducted a series of potentially 
     dangerous experiments on hundreds of unaware human 
     subjects, most of them poor and African American.''
       The studies conducted at MCV were neither secret nor 
     dangerous; nor did they take advantage of vulnerable 
     populations. As examples, a radioactive isotope incorporated 
     in one of the studies--chromium-51--is still part of a 
     standard diagnostic test used around the world. In the course 
     of the project, 27 articles were published in nationally 
     recognized scientific journals; it also received coverage in 
     local newspapers. And, in part of the project, African-
     American and women volunteers were purposely selected so that 
     the research team could study the factors of skin 
     pigmentation and gender in burns.
       In all, what resulted from this work were the discoveries 
     that would lead to the protocols used today to treat burn 
     victims.
       As bad science and bad history, Honicker's article 
     contributed nothing to the committee's charge to help the 
     real victims of Cold-War radiation studies. It possibly, 
     however, created new victims: our academic community, former 
     patients alarmed by these allegations, and certainly the 
     families of the MCV faculty who worked on these studies.
       Here is a way to separate sadistic from humanistic 
     experimentation.
       It is true that nationalism--as well as national purpose--
     fueled the Cold War. It does not necessarily follow, however, 
     that the science and the scientists that benefitted from 
     federal support during this period were inherently unethical.
       Having been partners in these radiation studies, the 
     government and the academic community now should work 
     together to ensure that this story is told thoroughly and 
     accurately--and that, in the process, the real victims are 
     helped. Objectivity and a genuine desire for insight must 
     drive our efforts.
       We are looking to you, the members of the Advisory 
     Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, to set that vitally 
     important tone.
       Thank you.

                          ____________________