Church Committee Reports at American Buddha Online Library

Site Map

CHURCH COMMITTEE REPORTS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1975
U.S. SENATE,
SELECT COMMITTEE To STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,
Wa8hington, D.O.
The committee met pursuant to notice at 10 :05 a.m. in room 318,
Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Church, Tower, Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of
Colorado, Baker, Mathias and Schweiker.
Also present: William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. O.
Schwarz, Jr., chief counsel; and Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the
minority.
The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order.
This is the third and final day that the committee will devote to the
pUZZlement of the poisons, and our first witness this morning is Dr.
Edward Schantz. Dr. Schantz, would you please come to the witness
table. And Dr. Schantz, if you would just remain standing for a
moment for the oath, please.
Do y,0u swear that all of the testimony you will give in this proceeding
WIll be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God'
Dr. SCHANTZ. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Schantz. Please be seated.
Do you have any opening remarks you would care to make at this
time'
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD SCHANTZ, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY
OF WISCONSIN
Dr. SCH.\NTZ. None, other than to say that I am now a professor at
the University of Wisconsin, and I am in the Department of Food
Microbiology and Toxicology.
I have spent about 30 years of my professional life studying; the
microbiological toxins, mainly those that are problems in food poisoning,
such as shellfish poisoning, the poison itself, clostridium botulinum
toxins, the staphylococcal enterotoxins and the like.
The CHAIRMAN. You are one of the foremost experts on this subject,
are you not~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, that's what people tell me. I don't know.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to congratulate you on the brevity of
your opening. statement. Let us go directly to questions. First, I will
turn to our chIef counsel, Mr. Schwarz.
( 139)
140
Mr. SCHWARZ. Doctor, rrior to going to the University of Wisconsin,
were you at Fort Detrick
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; I was.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And for how long a period of time were you there ¥
Dr. SCHANTZ. Twenty-eight years.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And during that time, you did research, as you say, on
a number of matters, including shellfish toxin. Is that right W
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 1Vhile you were there, Doctor, were you aware that
the CIA had a relationship with Fort Detrick'
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I did not know that directly. ~ow, there would
be ~ood reason to guess that, but I did not know it at the time.
Mr. SCHWARZ. So you were working on the shellfish toxin, but you
did not know that the CIA also had an interest in shellfish toxin W
Dr. SCHANTZ. Tha.t is correct.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. Would you turn to exhibit 8/ which is National
Security Decision Memorandum No. 44.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
Mr. SCHWARZ. The document dated February 20,1970.
Dr. SCHANTZ. I have it.
Mr. SCHWARZ. You heard Mr. Helms say yesterday that such a document
was so secret that it could not be shown to lower level employees
in theClA, including the very persons who were involved in bioloJ:Pcal
warfare matters. Were you shown this document at the Defense
Department ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I can't say that I saw this actual document. I saw,
spelled out for us, essentially this very same statement.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Did you hear Dr, Gordon's testimony the other afternoon?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; I did.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Do you read this order as covering shellfish toxin?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; I do.
Mr. SCIIWARZ. There is no doubt about that, is there ?
Dr. ScHANTZ. That's correct; there's no question whatsoever.
Mr. SCHWARZ. What proportion of the amount of shellfish toxin
ever produced in the history of the world is 11 gTam,s'
Dr. SCHANTZ. My estimate would be about one·thlrd.
Mr. SCHWARZ. How lethal is shellfish toxin?
Dr. SCHANTZ. It is considered an extremelv lethal substa.nce.
Mr. ScmvARz. If it is administered intramuscularly, such as with a
dart, how much does it take to kill a person?
Dr. SCHANTZ. The anSWer to that question can only come from animal
experimentation, extrapolated to huma.ns. I would estimate that
probably two-tenths of a milligram would be sufficient.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Three-tenths of a milligram?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Two- or three-tenths.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Two- or three-tenths of a milligram 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
1 See p. 210.
141
Mr. SCHWARZ. Could you translate that into the number of people
killed per gram1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, if it was two-tenths of a milligram, it would be
sufficient for 5,000 people.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Per gram. And if you had 11 grams, that would be
55,000 people1
Dr. SCllANTZ. Yes; that is correct. .
Mr. SCHWARZ. In addition to the ability to kill people, are there
more benign uses for shellfish toxin, such as in hospitals ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, in Public Health there is; yes.
Mr. ScUWARZ. And what are those uses?
Dr. SCHANTZ. There are-well Public Health has several applications
for this. One is the standardization of the bioassay to control
shipments of shellfish poison or shellfish in commerce that may contain
poison, and that was an important point, and still is, with the
Food and Drug Administration.
:Mr. ScnwARZ. And are there other benign uses ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes. We anticipate that the,re are many applications
in medicine where the knowledge of the structure of shellfish poison
could be applied. One is development of an antidote for shellfish
poison, which we do not have at the present time. And the medical
profession would need this, or needs this for cases that might occur
alon~ the coast, where they most generally have shellfish poisoning
problems.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. Now, whatever benign uses there are, obviously
they cannot be realized if it is sitting in a CIA. vault ?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, that is true; yes.
Mr. SCHWARZ. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smothers, do you have questions?
Mr. SMOTHERB. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Schantz, during the period
of your employment at Fort Detrick, did you work primarily in the
Public Health aspects of this roxin ? _
Dr. SCHANTZ. A lot of my work was with the Public Health Service;
yes.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Were you not, in fact, retained for the purpose of
assurin~ the purity of the shellfish toxin for Public Health purposes?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes. That was one application.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did you. during the period of your tenure, receive
from a separate branch, other than the one you worked for, requests
for this toxin? Did you receive such requests specifically from the
Special Operations Division?
Dr. SCHANTZ. If I understand your question properly, I furnished
to SO Division, that was Special Operations Division, toxin as I had
purified it, and as they asked for it.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Approximately how much of this toxin did you furnish
to the Special Operations Division ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I cannot answer that accurat<>lv. but I would assume
that over the years from-as it was prepared. r furnished them probably
10 or 15 gTams.
:Mr. SMOTHERS. To the best of your knowledge, did the Special Operations
Division receive shellfish toxin from other sources, other than
that which you furnished them directly ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. There was some prenared. of course. too, by the
Public Health Service, which was supplied to the SO Division.
142
Mr. SMOTHERS. When you say prepared by the Public Health Serv·
ice, are you referrin2' to the Public Health Service facilities at Taft
and at Narra2'ansett r
Dr. SCHANTZ. That's correct.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did these facilities 'provide toxin directly to the
Special Operations Division ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; they did.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smothers, just for clarification, Special Operations
Division was located at Fort Detrick. It was the Army Bacteriol()
gical Warfare Division.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; it was one of the divisions at Fort Detrick.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Dr. Schantz, during your tenure at Fort Detrick,
did you also supply shellfish toxin to persons outside the Government ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; I did. And after the project was cleared by the
Anny for this purpose, I sent toxin to many laboratories throughout
the country, and to other countries, except to those behind the Iron
Curtain, which I was not allowed to send to. And the poison W1tS for
physiological studies, and it was soon learned what the mechanism of
action was from these studies, and also it was a very valuable tool for
the study of nerve transmission in medical work.
Mr. SMOTHERS. How were these poisons physically transferred from
Fort Detrick to the recipients ?
Dr. SCHANTZ. At SO Division it was mainly directly. They came
and goot it from me, or I took it to them.
Mr. SMOTHERS. How was it transferred to the scientists and other
orgoanizations that received it?
Dr. SCHANTZ. When it was sent off from Fort Detrick to laboratories,
we conferred with the Post Office Department how to safely do this.
They suggested we put it in a glass vial, pack it in cotton, put it in a
metal container which was sealed. The metal container went into a
cardboard mailing carton, and it was sent in that form.
The CHAIRMAN. Did it survive the Post Office treatment? [General
laugohter.]
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; it did. I have no reports of broken vials.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Dr. Schantz, was there further Government control
of this substance after it was transferred to the recipients outside of
Fort Detrick?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, Public Health had their interest, and they also
had some control of this. There was an arrangement made between
the Chemical Corps Chief, and the Surgeon General of the Public
Health Service, for a cooperative study, and of course, there was
some control there, too.
Mr. SMOTHERS. As a final inquirv. going back again to the time
mentioned by the chief counsel earlier, after the Presidential order
had come down on destruction of these materials. did there come a
time when you reQuested of Special Onerations Division that they
return to you any shellfish toxin which they had on hand?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes. ThflJ is ~orrpct. "When flO Division was closin~
out. I went to Chief of SO Division and asked if I could have, for
Puhlic Health work, the poison that they did not use in their research.
Mr. SMOTHERS. And how much did they indicate to you they had
on hand at that time 9
143
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, they did not tell me, but a ~hort t~me later,
they ~ave me 100 milligrams, and I assumed that thIS was It.
Mr. SMOTHER8. Based on the supplies that you had turned over
to SO Division, would it have been, or was it at the time, your expectation
that they would have had more than 100 milligrams on hand ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I had no way to know, because, although I had a
top secret clearance, I did not know all of the things that they were
usmA' the poison for.
Mr. SMOTHERS. But you did transfer to them, over a period of time,
more than 15 A'l'ams, or approximately 15 grams, of the substance?
Dr: SCHANTZ. It could have been that much.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smothers.
Dr. Schantz, how is this shellfish toxin manufactured or created?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, it is created by marine dinoflagellate. And shellfish
become poisonous only when the marine-this poisonous marine
dinoflagellate happens to grow out in the water. Shellfish consume, all
the time, the dinoflagello,tes and other microorganisms in the waJ..er for
food. Now, when a, poisonous dinoflagellate happens to grow qut which
is very often or usually a rare circumstance, the mussels, clams, and
other plankton-consuming shellfish bind that poison in the body and
they become very poisonous, and when the dinoflagellate has run its
course in the ocean and other dinoflo,gellates come in, usually not poi·
sonous, the shellfish excrete this poison within a matter of a few weeks.
So then they are safe to eat again, and this is often a sporadic occurrence.
You cannot predict it, and so that is the reason so many people
get poisoned, and so on.
The CHAIRMAN. In order to develop the toxin, does that to,ke a great
many infected shellfish? Is it a long and difficult process to develop this
highly_potent toxin W
Dr. SCHANTZ. The purification procedure, that is, getting the poison
out of the shellfish and purifying it, was a difficult procedure to work
out, and it took us several years study in order to do this. And much
of the poison, as we were purifying it, went back into research to improve
the method of purification. But it was not an easy matter to do
this. It is easy now, of course. It is not so difficult.
And I worked out with my co-workers and various well-known
chemists throughout the country-we developed this procedure, and
it is published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
The CHAffiMAN. I suppose what I am driving at is that our discussion
of this particular toxin and the way that it has been developed
ought not to be misunderstood by the public as meaning that people
should be wary of eatinA' shellfish.
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is an important point. I think that everyone
should understand tho,t shellfish g'oing on the commercial market is
~oing carefully screened by the Food and Drug' Administration and
this poison, now, the purified poison, has established an accurate assay
and has helped the Food and Drug Administration greatly in controlling
the commercial fisheries, so that none of this, no poisonous shellfish
get on the market. And I would like to make that very clear.
The CHAffiMAN. Thank you.
144
Once you had developed the toxin itself, how long does it remain
potent ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I have--well, the material that we have purified, and
I had Public Health back in 1954 or 1955, I have assayed within the
past yea.r, and it is every bit as potent as i.t was the day I prepared it.
And I would imagine that it will last 100 years, and so on.
The CHAIRMAN. It has lost no potency at all in 20 years1
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. So there is no question in your mind that ,this cache
that has been discovered, a.bout which we a.re conducting this particular
hearing, consisting of about 11 gra.ms, which y~u say represents
about one-third of all the toxin ever manufactured, still is as potent as
it was when it was developed ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I would expect it to be every bit as potent today as it
was the day it was made.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one final question, Dr. Schantz. I think, since
you have been present at the earlier hearings that you know that this
committee has been asked to lift a ban that applies generally to all the
agencies we are investi~ating against the destruction of any material
that. they may have in their possession. In order that a proper disposal
can be made of the 11 grams of this shellfish toxin that have been discovered,
I would like some guidance from you.
We have entered into a treaty in which we have undertaken to destroy
substances of this kind, except in such amounts as may be usefully
used in laboratories for benign and decent purposes. Would it be
your recommendation that part of this particular cache of shellfish
toxin be distributed to medical schools and llliboratories that are engaged
in this work, within the limits of the treaty, or is there any
special need to consider that use 1 I have in mind possible medical uses
that might help us in solving some of the problems of disease and any
other good and decent purpose.
Dr. SCHANTZ. At the present time, we have in the biochemistry
department at Madison, a NIH grant to study shellfish poison. Within
the past year, we have determined the chemical structure of it, and
this is now published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
We are now/in the process of altering the molecule to determine
whether we-'can produce substancE's of medical interest.
One such example mil!ht he the possibility of developin~ local
anesthetics from this molecule, and we are much in need of toxin
for this purpose. There are many physiolol!ists throul!hout the country
and one, of course, we are workin.!! with is Dr. Ritchie, at Yale University.
And I know laboratories like his and others would appreciate
very much getting material.
I have usually kept the supply of toxin nnd have supplied it to
many laboratories throughout the world, as I have mentioned before. I
would continue to do that, if I had the supply. And- I must assure
everyone that we are putting it to ~'Ood medical use, and are not
doing anything else with it, other than medical applications.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Schantz. Senator Towed
Senator TOWER. Dr. Schantz, did you serve as the custodian of the
Phvsical Sciences Division stockpile of toxin ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; I did.
145
Senator TOWER. Were you also custodian for the amounts that were
transfered to SOD ¥ ,
Dr. SCHANTZ. No; I was not.
Senator TOWER. To the best of your knowledge, did anyone keep
an accounting of the toxin that was kept on hand by SOD ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I do not know, but after it was transferred to SOD,
I had nothing more to do with it.
Senator TOWER. What was the formal procedure for the acquisition
of shellfish toxin ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. By whom?
Senator TOWER. By anyone.
Dr. SCHANTZ. By anyone?
Senator TOWER. Yes.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, it was in the Army. We passed it just back and
forth, and I do not know as there was any formal--
Senator TOWER. No written requests or anything like that ~ No
formal'procedures at a111
Dr. SOHANTZ. No. If they needed it, we gave it to them. But any
material that was sent outside of the Army was done by permission
of headquarters at Fort Detrick. And whenever I had a request for
poison-let us say from a physiological laboratory that wanted to
investigate the mechanism of action-I first would make sure that this
man was a competent investigator, and that the university wanted
the poison used in their laboratory.
If that were ascertained, then I filled out a little form designed by
Fort Detrick stating who it was to go to, how much they wanted, and
,vhether or not I recommended that they get it. This went to headquarters;
it would come back to me, usually approved. And then I
would send out some material packaged. as mentlOned before.
Senator TOWER. Did you keep records of the amount of toxin that
you gave to the Special6perations Division ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. No; I did not really.
Senator TOWER. What accounting records were kept by you, or by
your officeW
Dr. SOHANTZ. Well, I must say t'his about turning it over to SO Division,
that when I first prepared toxin-and I think it was in 1954-we
had about 20 grams then, and this was passed on up to headquarters
to be distributed. And I assume that SO Division got a portion of this.
Senator TOWER. Did the Army levy a charge to any scientist or organization
that received this toxin 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. I do not quite understand, Senator Tower.
Senator TOWER. Did they place any conditions ~ Did they try to
mandate what the parameters of its use were?
Dr. SHANTZ. Well, do you mean that they defined who could get it,
or what their qualifications--
Senator TOWER. And what they could use it for. .
Dr. SOHANTZ. Oh, yes. That was my re8ponsibility; to recommend
to headquarters that these are competent people to handle this.
Senator TOWER. But after it left your hands, you actually had no
controlW
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct, except I used to check at times. And
often these universities that had investigated it would send me letter
146
reports on what they had found out, and often reprints of papers they
had published on the use of the shellfish poison.
Senator TOWER. Were there any reports required from the scientists
or the organizations or institutions to whom this toxin was wven'
I notice quite a number of foreign establishments-University of Glasgow,
University of Leeds, Norwegian Defense Research Establishment-
tha.t looks a little ominous-Italy, Jltpan, and 80 forth.
Dr. SCHANTZ. There WItS no pltrticular l'e}>Ort required.
Senator TOWER. In other words, they did not have to report to you
periodically what they were doing with this stuff~
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator TOWER. In response to Mr. Smothers' question earlier, you
indicated a direct relationship between Public Hea.lth and SOD. Now,
could you explain the nature and extent of any agreement or working
procedure between Public Health and SOD?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, SOD, as I understand it, made the contract
ag-reement with Public Health Service, and the first one was at the
Taft Center in Cincinnati, to prepare toxin.
Now I had nothing to do with setting up the contract; I do not
know how much money it was and so on. But I was sent to Cincinnati
on occasion to help them get the purification procedure underway,
and I also checked samples of the pOison that supposedly ,vere
purified. And I checked it to make sure it was up to standards, so to
l"peak.
Senator TOWER. Thank you, Dr. Schantz.
Mr. Chairman, I ask mianimous consent that a. list be plaeed in the
record of recipients of the toxin.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. [Exhibit 11,1]
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mondale ~
Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you testified
earlier, Dr. Schantz, that you had seen orders come down to destroy
toxin in langua~e that WItS identical to the language appearing in the
National Security Decision Memorandum.
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator MONDALE. Was there any doubt in your mind that that
Presidential order of destruction of toxins included shellfish toxin 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Noquestion whatsoever.
Senator MONDALE. Do you believe there could be any reasonable
doubt in the mind of a chemist or a technician working in this field,
other than the one you had, concerning the applicability of the Presidential
order to these shellfish toxins ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. WeU, this shellfish toxin is a chemical of high potency,
that is highly lethal, of biolo~ical origin, and I do not know how else
you could classify it. It is a biological product.
Senator MONDALE. And thus, in your opinion, at that tim~, when you
saw the Presidential order, there was utterly no doubt in your mind
but that this included shellfish toxins.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Absolutely. Yes.
Senator MONDALE. First of aU, I would ask the staff to provide Dr.
Schantz with two documents: One dated February 17, 1970, entitled
"Special Operations Division's Toxin Inventory," and another, dated
February 1~, 1970, entitled "Paralytic Shellfish Poison Working
Fund InvestIgation."
147
As I understand it, Dr. Schantz, at the time these inventories were
prepared, you were still with the Government working on these shell·
fish toxins at Fort Detrick.
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator MONDALE. Can you help us understand these two inventories
1 The first dated February 17, entitled "Special Operations Division
Toxin Inventory" reports to higher authority that only small
quantities of shellfish toxin remain in their inventories. Is that correct?
Dr. ScHANTZ. Well, when I asked them for the toxin, at the time the
Division was being dissolved, they presented me with 100
milligrams--
Senator MONDALE. I'm not trying to get to that, Dr. Schantz. I am
trying to establish that we have inventories prepared only a day apart
which differ dramatically in the amount of shellfish toxin in their
inventories.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes, I see that.
Senator MONDALE. The one on the 17th of February reports very
modest quantities remaining, quantities I would think appropriate for
research purposes: 0.2 grams of paralytic shellfish toxin; redried
toxin, .01 grams; shellfish toxin, clam, .01 grams. Then, on the following
day, on February 18, there is an inventory, and on top of it
it says "U.S. Public Health Service, Taft Center, Ohio," and it lists,
on the two pages, a total of 5.9-01' 10.9 to 7 grams, which is an enormous
quantity of shellfish toxin. Can you help .us to understand the
difference between these two inventories 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. I really can't. I don't know anything about them.
Senator MONDALE. You see, what worries me is this: The Defense
DeJ?artment was ordered to destroy a massive quantity of shellfish
tOXIn which could be used for offensive purposes under the Presidential
order. They had substantial quantities of this toxin at Fort
Detrick. But when the inventory came forth, it showed that practically
all of that toxin had disappeared somewhere.
Dr. SCHANTZ. It looks that way, yes.
Senator MONDALE. So I am very suspicious that whoever did it,
instead of following a Presidential order, sneaked the stuff out the
back door, and then prepared an inventory for higher authorities
which suggested that it had all been destroyed. But I gather that you
are not in a position to help us understand these inventories.
Dr. SCHANTZ. I cannot explain this at all.
Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Dr. Schantz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Mondale. Senator Baker.
Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Doctor, I really do not know that I can cover any ground that you
have not already covered except to ask you if you could tell me what
sort of recordkeeping you did do. Was there a manufacturing record
as you formulated a batch of shellfish toxin 1 Did you make a record
of how much the yield was'
Dr. SCHANTZ. Oh yes. That is in our notebooks. It could be located,
I suppose.
Senator BAKER. Have you tried to locate it1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I haven't, no.
Senator BAKER. Do you know whether anyone has tried to or not?
148
Dr. SCHANTZ. No, I really don't.
Senator BAKER. Would that notebook say how much had been manufactured
in toto by the Department of Defense or the Public Health
Service or by anyone else in Government W
Dr. SCHANTZ. I ima¢ne that. a complete examinat.ion of all of the
notes over the years-one could get a good estimate of what actuallv
was produced.
Now, I know that in 1954, or along in there somewhere, I cannot
pin a specific date to it, but we had about 20 grams.
Senator BAKER. In 1954 ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. About 1954 or 1955, along in there. 'And this was, as
I mentioned before, passed onto Headquarters for distribution. And
I retained some for research and some for the Public Health Service.
Senator BAKER. You estimated that 'a'bout 10 to 15 grams were at
Fort Detrick at one time or another.
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator BAKER. How much material did you handle in the course
of your professional lifetime ~ Could you give us some estimate of
that~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I prepared directly approximately 20 grams. I
was involved in helping, or assisting, Public Health in the preparation
of, I figure, maybe another 10 or 15 grams.
Senator BAKER. Do you know of any records that were ever destroyed
in this connection, Doctor ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, none of mine were ever destroyed that I know of.
Now, when Detrick was closed, I guess these notes and everything
went to Kansas City, we were told-I know nothing about them after
that.
Senator BAKER. So you have no personal knowledge of it, but you
have no reason to think that any records were destroyed ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I do not know why they should have been destroyed.
Senator BAKER. Do you know what else was in the cache of material
that was found at the CIA facility in Washington besides the shellfish
toxin ~ I remember there was cobra venom and a few other things
there, too.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I had other toxins on hand which were destroyed.
Senator BAKER. Do you know the material I am referring to ~ The
material that was found-what do they call it ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. You mean the cobra venom 1 I never worked with
that, and I don't know.
Senator BAKER. What else did yqu work with ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Clostridium botulinum toxins, staphylococcal enterotoxins
mainly, and of course shellfish poison.
Senator BAKER. If there are records extant from the Fort Detrick
operation, can you give us any clue as to who has them or where we
miR"ht locate them ~ -
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, we were told that after a certain length of time
all reports that we wrote at Detrick went t.o a depository, I think ~n
Kansas City. I am not sure about that. but It seems to me that was It.
Senator BAKER. Really, all I'm reachin~ for is this, Doctor. I want
to know whether or not you have any reason to think that any records
of this pr02'ram were ever destroyed.
149
Dr. SCHANTZ. I know of none.
Senator BAKER. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baker.
It hardly needs to be stressed that this is a very serious subject,
but Senator Tower asked that I include a list in the record of all of
those who have received this toxin, presumably for laboratory and
medical purposes. And I have just been lookin~ throu~h the list, and
I find on the second page a listing of someone who is said to have been
associated with the department of pharmacology at Georgetown University
Medical School, and his name is Lieutenant James Bond.
[General laughter.l
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I see this--
Senator MONDALE. Do you notice his zip code number is 20007 ~
[General laughter.]
Dr. SCHANTZ. I'm sorry I missed that.
Senator MONDALE. There is also a Dr. Covert who gets it.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know any of these gentlemen ~ Do you know
James Bondi
Dr. SCHANTZ. I'm sorry, I do not know any of them. I knew Dr.
Covert.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Huddleston ~
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we have
raised a specter of 007, do you have any knowledge or information
about who P600 is ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. P6001 Well, if that was at Fort Detrick, I would be
inclined to say it is a building number.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Are buildin~ able to g-ive instructions?
Dr. SCHANTZ. For authorization to do something with it.
Senator HUDDLESTON. From a certain building?
Dr. SCHANTZ. That would be my guess. Now. I did not see anything
with that on it, but we often used that around Detrick. P would be for
a permanent building, and T was for temporary buildings.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I recall those myself back in my Army days.
Well, does the building P600 identify anything for you 1 Did that
house--
Dr. SCHANTZ. I don't remember.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You do not remembed
Dr. SCHANTZ. No.
Senator HUDDLF..BTON. Dr. Schantz, was the shellfish toxin stored in
liquid form or powdered form?
Dr. SCHANTZ. You can store it any way. It should be-normally, it
is stored in an acidic solution, and it would be in a solution such as
that. I have no reason to believe that it would not be always stable.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I would like to determine the amount that
would be required to render a lethal dosage to an individual. Would.
for instance, dipping a pen or the point of a dart into this liquid, and
then iniecting it into an individual, be enough to kin him 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. It might be. There are snecially-designed things that
hold enou~h to-that I'm sure would kill a human being.
Senator HUDDLESTON. In your research, did you involve yourself
with these kinds of delivery Rvstems'
Dr. SCHANTZ. No; not at all. But on occasions, SO Division had
showed me some of them.
150
Senator HUDDLESTON. We were talking about how a manufacturing
process took place. Can you tell us how many shellfish would be required
to produce, say, 1 gram of toxin'
Dr. SCHANTZ. I think we said-and I am only making an estimate
now-probably, well, 100 pounds.
Senator HUDDLESTON. 100 pounds? How many actual fish would that
be. do you think 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, you caught me off guard on that. It would be
several thousand shellfish.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Shellfish are not very large, are they, generally
1 )
Dr. SCHANTZ. They would weigh, probably-a butter clam, the meat
would weigh 100 grams or so, something like that, which would be a
quarter of a pound.
Senator HUDDLESTON. What arrangements did you have for securing
these large numbers of shellfish 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. In securing them?
Senator HUDDLESTON. Yes.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, at one time, of course, we worked with people
at the University of Oalifornia Medical Center in San Francisco, and
they would watch the toxicity of clams or mussels alonp: the coast
And when the toxicity rose to a good level, about a dozen of us, mostly
from the University of California Medical Center, would all go out
and, at low tide, collect mussels. And this was our startin({ material
for isolation.
Senator HUDDLESTOX. 'Vere there any other institutions you worked
with that would supply you with the-
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, now, one problem was the searcity of it along
the California coast, and we had heard rumors from the Canadians
that this material, or the butter clams in Alaska, were very toxic at
times. We went up there and worked with the Alaska Experimental
Commission. They were very cooperative in helping us collect clams.
We used their boat, we used their help, and we collected many hundreds
of pounds of these clams' siphons for this purpose.
Senator HUDDLESTON. What kind of security did you work under at
Fort Detrick 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I had a top secret clearance. The project was
classified "secret" in the early stages, and I do not remember the date
that it was declassified. But I think it was along in 1956 or 1957.
Senator HUDDLESTON. It was declassified at that time'
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes, it was declassified to "restricted," which meant
that it was not published in the newspapers.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Were you required to report to any individual
on the state of your experimentation in this field'
Dr. SCHANTZ; A report every quarter of the year.
Senator HUDDLESTON. And to whom did that report go?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Now, over the years--I think in the beginning they
went to a Dr. Hill, -who was chief of, I think they called it the Basic
Sciences Division then. These were passed on up, of course, to Dr.
Wopert, who was Director at Fort Detrick, and to the commanding
officer.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I believe you have stated to the committee that
when the Special Operations DiVIsion was closing down, you obtained
from its laboratory a small quantity of shellfish toxin.
151
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator HUDDLESTON. From whom did you obtain this, and under
whose authority ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I obtained it from-I do not know who actually
handed it to me, but I talked to the Director at that time, and his name
was Andy Cowan.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Did you obtain this for a specific purpose ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Did you indicate to him what that purpose
was?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes. I told him it was for Public Health.
Senator HUDDLESTON. And you did then turn that over to the FDA,
is that correct ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct, and it was used in making up these
Gtandards for the shellfish poison assay.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know whether anybody else in the
world is producing shellfish toxin at this time ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Not that I know of.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Dr. Schantz, while you were at Fort Detrick,
were you aware of programs and experimentation in drugs or poisons
that would produce tuberculosis or brucellosis ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Poisons that would produce these ~
Senator HUDDLESTON. Well, bacteria or whatever that would produce
tuberculosis.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I know about it. I do not know specifically.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Did you participate in any of those
experiments ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Really not, but I knew a great deal about them. There
was a big program on brucellosis.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you know what the objective was, what
they were seeking' to accomplish ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, at Fort Detrick, we were interested in how you
handle an enemy's attack with one of these agents, supposing-well,
the brucellosis organism-there was experimentation going on III aerosolizing
these micro-organisms, and we studied symptoms of disease
produced in this manner, and mainly to learn how to combat these if
It. was used _against us.
Senator HUDDLESTON. It was your understanding that the objective
was to develop defenses against the use of this material?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes. But to develop a defense, you first of all had t(>-
what the a~ent woulddo- I
Senator HUDDLESTON. How it might be used?
Dr. SCHANTZ. And I think that was in line with policy of this country-
defensive.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I believe my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. And I might say, it is still in line with the policy
of the country, because nothing we have undertaken to do in the treaty
rleprives us of continuing to develop defensive means to protect against
these poisons.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mathias 9
Senator MATHIAS. Mr. Chainnan, I perhaps, from a parochial point
of view, have had to take notice of the fact that. as Dr. Sdhantz has
152
described the sources of toxic shellfish, he has referred exclusively to
the west coast of the United StatesLand not to one mussel, one clam,
or one oyster from the Chesapeake 1::SaY. [Generallau~hter.]
Dr. SCHANTZ. I must say that-[Generallaughter.J
Senator MATHIAS. You are ahead now, Dr. Schantz. Do not--
Dr. SCHANTZ. But in the last 3 or 4 years, along the coast of New
England, there has been considerable trouble in the shellfish industry
with the poison dinoflagellates growing and causing toxic shellfish.
And we have had quite a problem, and the Food and Drug Administration
is quite involved, and the local food and drug agencies in the
States up along there are very concerned. ,
Now, in the Chesapeake Bay, we have never discovered any poison
dinoflagellates that I know of, so you should feel safe.
Senator MATHIAS. Well, we thank you very much for that endorsement,
and I am sure that all of the watermen of the Chesapeake Bay
will be very glad to get that assurance.
Dr. SCHANTZ. I must add, too, that the Food and Drug Adminjfl·
tration is checking those, too.
Senator MATHIAS. Dr. Schantz, we all had a chuckle at the expens(!
of Mr. Bond at the Georgetown School of Pharmacy, but I would like
to make sure that the record is cIear with respect to what went on in
the exchanges of scientific knowledge at Fort Detrick. Now, in the
28 years that you were at Detrick, did you observe that Detrick was a
very secure Army installation? Was there a high awareness of security
precautions?
Dr. SCHANTZ. I felt so, yes.
Senator MATHIAS. There was both an inner and outer renee?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
Senator MATHIAS. And very elaborate arrangements when anyone
visited Fort Detrick? Is that not so?
Dr. SCHANTZ. I thought there was, yes.
Senator MATIDAS. And yet, at the same time, there was a constant
exchange with medical schools and research institutions, was there
not?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well. with shellfish poison.
Senator MATHIAS. Well, I am talking generally at Fort Detrick.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Oh, yes, there was. That is true. There were many
prog-rams that extended to universities around the country.
Senator MATHIAS. Harvard Medical School?
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator MATHIAS. Baylor in Houston, Tex., other medical institutions
that are world-famous all sent representatives to Detrick. Is that
right?
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct, yes.
Senator MATHIAS. And was there II. program at Detrick which enrourag-
ed the materials for research purposes, bacteriological samples
for example, and other scientific materials ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well. I don't know as there was a special group for
this.
Senator MATHIAS. I do not mean a special ~roup, but did it happen ~
'Vhat I am asking- vou is--
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes: it did. I always felt that the Army was very
coopera.tive with medical institutions around the country, and if we
153
had somethin~ of value to medicine, that this was commuted to them,
within the limIts of security.
Senator MATHIAS. And this was not limited to scientific institutions
in the United States 1 In fact, there was an exchange with many institutions
in various parts of the world ¥
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, the only ones-well, yes, of course. Britain,
which has an. establishment like ours, and Canadians, for instance,
too; there is close coordination between Canadians, the British laboratories,
and our own laboratory.
Senator MATHIAS. And did this exchange of people and materials
result in any scholarly publications which were not classified and which
were therefore available to the scientific cOl1'lmunity throughout the
world ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. I would say yes. One example would be that the
Englishman by the name of Dr. Evans was the first to discover the
mechanism of action of shellfish poison. He was at the agricultural
research council at Cambridge.
Senator MATHIAS. So that what is illustrated in connection with
the exchange of these toxins is not an isolated or an unusual or a unique
example of what was happening at Fort Detrick ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is right; yes.
Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Senator Hart ~
Senator HART of Colorado. Dr. Schantz, one question. 'Vere you at
Fort Detrick when the Special Operations Division was closed down?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; I was.
Senator HART of Colorado. Were there discussions among you and
your colleagues in regard to the distribution of the toxins?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I had to give a report on what I had on hand
and I suppose that that was for-well, it was for decisions up in
headquarters.
Senator HART of Colorado. Were you involved in discussions with
the people around you, or that you worked with, about how to avoid
complete destruction of these toxins ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I had no such authority at all.
Senator HART of Colorado. It is not a question of your having
.authority. The question is whether there was discussion among you and
your colieagues as to how to avoid destroying these toxin~
Dr. SCHANTZ. No.
Senator H~T of Colorado. It is not a question of your having
thought in discussions with staff members that you were involved in
complicated procedures.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
Senator HART of Colorado. Did those procedures have to do with
the destruction of these toxins or with the avoidance of the destruction
of these toxins ~ What were those complicated procedures?
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I do not exactly know what you mean. The
procedures for destruction were clear enou,lrh to me. There is no
question about that. Later they were clarified and did not apply to
materials for research or for public health and so forth and that was
what I meant by complicated.
154
Senator HART of Colorado. Well, did toxins tha.t might have had
destructive, wartime, or offensive capa.bilities suddenly become benign,
medically oriented ma.terials that everyone could reorient for
different research purposes ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; that is true. .
Senator HART of Colorado. All of a. sudden everybody began to
think of other noncombative or nonoffensive purposes that these highly
toxic materials could be used for. Is that not the case 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. I think tha.t is a natural thin~ to do. But shellfish
poison was set aside for the Public Health Servlce and the Food and
Drug Administration many years before this order was issued.
senator HART of Colorado. But IDa.terials at Fort Detrick were not
for medical researoh purposes. This was a Defense Department installation
experimenting with these materials presumably for some activities
that the Department of Defense undertakes. The Department of
Defense is not the Public Health Service. It has a different mandate
I think all would agree.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, now the material I had in Public-at Fort
Dertick was held for the Public Health Service and I was custodian
of this material. They asked that I k~p it there, hut it was done so
under the auspices of the Public Health Service.
Senator HART of Colorado. But I think you have testified, just to
clarify the record, that there were discussions of materials, let us say
held by other people with whom you were working.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
Senator HART of Colorado. Materials which might be made available
for nonmilitary purposes and thus avoid the destructiori order.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes, I thmk that is indicated in these documents that
you handed to me.
Senator HART of Colorado. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hart. Senator Schweiker.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Schantz, which department were you working with at Fort
Detrick 1Were you in SOD1 .
Dr. SCHANTZ. I was in what was called Physical Sciences Division.
Senator SCHWEIKER. And were you with them most of the 28 years
or all of the 28 years1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Through the years the name of the Division changed.
I think it started out as the BaSIC Sciences Division and there were some
other changes in names, but it ended Physical Sciences Division when
Fort Detrick closed down.
Senator SCHWEIKER. As I understand it, originally the work that
you did on this area of shellfish poison was primarily with the Physical
Sciences Division and then at some point in time the Special Operations
Division, or SOD, really became the primary interest and Physical
Sciences Division either lost interest or did not pursue it much
further. Is that correct and when did that occur ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Generally, sir, that is correct j yes.
Senator SCHWEIKER. What was the initial purpose of the work when
you first started it there in Physical Sciences as far as shellfish toxin
was concerned 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. It was started off in early discussion right after the
war. The chemical corps was looking for new toxic substances and
155
J suggested to them, "Well, why not look at some of the biological
poisons that are produced ¥" And I suggested this problem with the
shellfish that we might-maybe we coula isolate this, get its structure,
and, from that knowle<4re, devise new chemical agents.
Senator SCHWEIKER. You indicated, I believe, that you were aware
of an inventory of 20 grams in 1954 and your work was affiliated with
that quantity indirectly or directly 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes. Except that I had to turn most of this over to
the headquarters at Fort Detrick.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Meaning SOD1
Dr. SCHANTZ. No, meaning headquarters, Fort Detrick.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Now, of the 20 grams, about how much of that
came from the U.S. Public Health Service centers, either at Narragansett--
Dr. SCHANTZ. None of it. That was another preparation.
Senator SClIWEIKER. None came from either the Taft Center or
Rhode Island 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, the material from Taft Center and from Rhode
Island was not included in this 20 grams. It was 10 or 15 grams prepared
by them which wa~J>assed, as I understand it, directly to SOD.
Senator SClIWEIKER. Well, did the 20 grams, Wll$ that made inhouse
by the Fort Detrick people then 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is correct.
Senator SCHWEIKER. So 20 grams was made in-house at Fort Detrick,
about 10 grams came from the U.S. Public Health Service labs?
Dr. SCHANTZ. I would say that is approximately correct, but I do
not have the exact figures for that.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Were there any other U.S. Public Health
Service offices involved that you worked with or communicated with
besides those two ¥
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, there was a Public Health liaison officer at
Fort Detrick.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Any other physical location other than Cincinnati
and Narragansett that you tested the material with ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. No; not that I know of.
Senator SCHWEIKER. And the relationship was a contractual relationship
between the Army and the Public Health Service and I
believe we cited a $194,000 contract between the Army and the Taft
Center. Is that right 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is what I heard, yes.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Do you have any idea how many grams that
$194,000 would be accountable for or not 1
Dr. SHANTZ. I have no idea.
Senator SCHwEmER. Now, when the FDA came into it, were they
in any way involved in the part that Fort Detrick was interested in or
the CIA was interested in or were thev involved in what phase of it 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. They were only interested in making sure that commercial
shellfish contain no poison.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Strictly on that basis ¥
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is right, that is as far as I know.
Senator SCHWEIXER. You have no knowledge of other contracts beyond
the Taft Center contract or are you saying that is the only one
you know, but there mia-ht be others?
156
Dr. SCHANTZ. That is the only one I know of that produced poison.
Now we had contracts with NorthwestMn University, for instance, and
the University of California..
SenllItor SCHWEIKER. For what purpose1
Dr. SCHANTZ. To help in developing the purification procedure.
Senator SCHWEIKER. So were they then producing the poison toxin 1
Dr. ScHANTZ. They were not.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The testing and chemical procedures 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, they were developing procedures for purification
with us.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Purification is a bit of a m'isnomer, it sort of
means how deadly it is, does it not 1I mean, we take a contamination,
we try to ma.ke it pure, but we are really talking about how effective or
deadly it is. Is that correct1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Essentially, yes, because the more pure you would
have it, the higher the specific potency would be.
Senator SCHWEIKER. By a rough count of the list that we saw, there
are 184 dispersals of some kind of toxin or poison, and about 63 were
related to shellfish. Does this list show the operations where you were
dispensing these toxins for medical, medicinal, or research purposes1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Is that from the Department of the Army or from
Fort Detrick 1 ,
Senator SCHWEIKER. Right. And a typical dispersal would amount
to how many milligrams1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes, it would be--it could be one milligram or sometimes
it was 25, 30, dependin~ upon--
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, would you ~ive us a rough estimate of
how much toxin was involved in these 63 dIspersals 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, if I took nn averag-e of 10 milligrams for each
one, I would have 600 milligra.ms, and that is a little over a half a
gram.
Senator SOHWEIKER. OK, a little over half a gram total.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes.
Senator SCHWEIKER. So, in essence, we have a picture where there
are 30 ~rams U.S. production of which one-half of 1 gram is used for
medical, medicinal, health or environmental research. Is that an accurate
proportion 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Yes; that was sent out to laboratories not connected
with Fort Detrick or the Public Health Service.
Senator SCHWEIKER. We are not sure about James Bond though, are
we1
Dr. SCHANTZ. No.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Incidentallv, if you are relieved, he did not get
the shellfish toxin, he got the botulism pills, according to the list anyway.
The other P600 designation, could you tell us who the highest ranking
officer headquartered in P600 was? In other words, you said that
was a buildin~ at Fort Detrick. Who would be the highest officer that
was located in building P600 of Fort Detrick W
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well; I said that I thought it was a building number.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Were you aware of what safe those toxins were
stored in, or what building, or what vault, those two cans 1
Mr. SCHANTZ. I do not know anythiIlJl.' about those two cans.
157
Senator SCHWElXER. When you want to get your supply that you dispensed,
where did you get it from 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. That I dispensed from my IlLboratory, where I kept
it.
Senator SCHWEIKER. You kept it in the vault, your own vlLult 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I kept it in my IlLboratory which was locked.
Senator SCHWEIKER. What was the largest quantity that you would
keep there1
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I had several grams. I do not remember exact
amounts.
Senator SCHWEIKER. So you are saying you do not know where the
other vault or storage place was located that might have contained
these 11 grams i Would that be correct 1
Dr. SCHANTZ. No; I really do not, none whatsoever.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Using the Public Health Service for this purpose
troubles me as a Senator because it looks to me as if we have the
tail wagging the dog. At some point we were doing legitimate research
to protect our people from the red tide and from the contamination
of shellfish poison. But then at some point we decided that it was a
biological weapon or toxic weapon. and went all out in this regard.
And I really do have great doubts that we should be using the U.S.
Public Health Service whose function, by my concept as ranking
member of the Health Committee, is to prevent people from getting
poisons and toxins and to prevent the spread of dIsease instead of
manufacturing it.
It is a little bit like. saying you are going to stop the plague, but
in stopping the plague they research enough of the plague bacteria
and pass it out to people who can use it to kill other people for the
plague. Does this not trouble you a little bit, this usage, getting away
now from the pure research and the other aspects which nobody is
questioning and, as you have documented it here, probably is a legitimate
usage¥
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, I do not know why the contracts were established
with the Public Health Service but I can understand why the
Cincinnati laboratory would be interested in this material and also
the Narragansett laboratory. The laboratory at the Taft Center is involved
in the food poisons, and shellfish poison is one of these. The
Narragansett laboratory is a national shellfish laboratory and I can
see their interest in this. And I think that they just felt that here is
a chance to gain some experience in shellfish, poisonous shellfish and
I suppose that the money of the contract looked good to them.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, again I can understand if all of the 30
grams were·beinl?: used for that purpose but with a half a gram being
used for that and 29.5 being used as an obvious weapon of war, it just
seems to me we sort of have the tail wagging the dop-:.
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, now severallZTams have gone mto Public Health.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, in addition to the three now, because they
obviously kept some there, did they not keep some of their own labs
for that research at Narragansett i
Dr. SCHANTZ. I imagine they did, yes, but I have furnished and 1
have on hand-well let us see--:when we were developing the standard
assay for shellfish poison I furnished Public Health a considerable
amount of poison.
158
Senator SCHWEIKER. How much ~
Dr. SCHANTZ. Well, it probably took a gram or two just to develop
this standardized assay and then after that I have to keep up a supply
on ha.nd to put up in these little vials that are sent out to laboratories
that assay shellfish poison, and so I still have an obligation with
the Food and Drug Administration to have a supply on hand for them.
I am still custodian of the toxin for them and whenever they need these
for distribution in the assay. I prepare the vials for them and I standardize
them and make sure they are what they are supposed to be.
Senator SCHWEIKER. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Schantz, since you are the foremost expert in
the country on this shellfish toxin and have given us the benefit of your
testimony and have responded to ithe questions that have been asked by
the committee, I think that we are prepared now, on the basis of your
testimony, to reach a committee deciSIOn with respect te the request
that has been made of us to lift thc application of the ~eneral han
against the destruction of documents, substances or materials with
respect to the particular poisons that we have been inquiring 'about.
And so I have prepared a letter to Mr. Colby and I would like to
read it to the members of the committee and t.hen ask the committee's
approval. The letter has been prepared for my si~ature as Chairmar
and for the signature of John Tower ~s Vice Chairman of the com
mittee and ilt reads as follows. I ask the attention of the members. 1
is dll!ted September 16 addressed to Mr. William E. Colb'" l\nd reads as
follows:
Dear Mr. Colby. Last January, when the Select Committl'e was created,
Senator Mansfield and Senator Scott asked that the Central Intelligence Agency
not destroy any material that would relate to the Committee's investigation.
The biological toxins that are the subject ot the Committee's first public
hearings are subject to the ban on destruction. Tbe purpose of this letter is to
inform you that at the completion ot the Committee's investigation into the
improper retention hy the CIA of these deadly tOXins, the Committee votes to
approve the destruction of the toxic materials in your possession.
However, before the CIA proceeds to destroy these toxins, we 'Would direct
your attention to the attached testimony. It adequate safety and security cautions
could be taken, the Committee believes that it might be appropriate tor the
CIA to consider donating these toxins, consistent with our treaty obligations to
properly supervised research facilities which can use these poisons tor benign
uses, such as curing such debilitating diseases as multiple sclerosis.
It is fitting that out ot an admitted wrongdoing some benefit might be had. It
Is hoped that in this particular instance the Committee and the Executive Brancb
can rectity past abuses and rl'ach a mutual solution tor the disposal ot these
lethal poisons that will be directed toward bettering the lives of our citizens.
Senator TOWER. Mr. Chairman, I move the authorization of the
letter.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been moved that the letter be authorized by
the committee. Is there ,any discussion 1
Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Baker.
Senator BAKER. This is the first time I have seen the letter and it
appears to be satisfactory to me. I think I will ha.ve no objection to
it; but as a ma.tter of clarifioation, I take it that the tone of the
letter is that we no longer as a committee have any objection to the
destruction oithe material but we invite your attention to its usefulness
for oither purposes. We make no effort to direct the Agency to do
that.
159
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Sen8itor BAKER. After all that is an executive branch decision to be
made with the President and by the CIA. But this is our suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN. Thllit is correct, Senwtor. That is exactly what the
letter says; it is the responsibility of the executive branch to make
the d~ision. But w.e sugg~t that t~e CIA and the executive .branc~
examme these pOSSIble bemgn medIcal and decenit uses to whIch this
poison could be put in limited quantities. The balance, I assume,
should and wouldbe destroyed.
Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further discussion?
Senator Hart 9
Senator HART of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, like Senator Baker this
is the first indication I have heard of this letter. I for my parit would
like to withhold iii vote on this at the present time, just my own vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The committee will not proceed to a
vote at this moment in view of the objection of Senator Hart. But I
would like to pass the letter down for the examination of each member.
And later thIS morning we might reconsider the taking of a vote.
And we will have further consultation.
The reason that the letter was prepared and presented was in order
to bring an end to the impasse that lias existed for some months. And
I would hope that the committee could reach a vote this morning. The
letter will be made available to all members and we will proceed with
the remaining witnesses.
I want to thank you,DI'. Schantz, very much.
Dr. SCHANTZ. You are very welcome.
The CHAIRMAN. For your testimony this morning. And I will call
a 5 minute recess during which I would like to ask Mr. Charles Senseney
if he would come forward and take his position at the witness
table. .
The committee is recessed for 5 minutes. rA brief recess was taken.]
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come back to order.
Mr. Senseney, would you please take the oath 9
Do you solemnly swear that all the testimony you .will give in this
proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothmgbut the truth,
so help you God ~
Mr. SENSENEY. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Senseney, do you have an opening statement you would like
to make at this time'
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. SENSENEY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
EMPLOYEE, FORMERLY IN THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS DIVISION
AT FORT DETRICK
Mr. SENSENEY. Not really. Let us proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. All riglit. Then I will ask Mr. Schwarz to commence
the Questioning.
Mr. SCHWARZ. In February 1970, were you employed at Fort
Detrick?
Mr. SENSENEY. Yes, sir.

Go to Next Page