DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
H.B. 15090
PART 5
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Department of the Army
Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency
Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1969
UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY
[pg.] 129 TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.
MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?
DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.
MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?
DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.
MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be, the time and the cost involved?
DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to.
(The information follows:)
The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:
1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.
4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field. Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC).
The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.
It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.
Funded for $10,000 000
12/8/69 (306 yes votes 330-no votes 33)
SCANNED COPY
I've been searching for official documentation regarding this particular subcommittee topic. I contacted GAO to see if they could point me in the right direction. I did so for a couple of reasons. It is always nice to let the fine people of the GAO know when you are interested in such a topic. The gave me the reply stating what they do and they referred me to the the Library of Congress's THOMAS web site. I've been searching for this particular appropriations issue and I cannot locate it by bill number and cannot locate it by keyword search. I'm going to, next, contact CRS and see if any members of Congress have requested this information. I was wondering if the webmaster of this particular site would be able to provide information as to how they acquired this information and how to contact for official copies? Thank you.
ReplyDeletehere is the official document from pg 82 and 83 from the Department of Defense Act of 1970.
Deletehttp://www.apfn.org/apfn/aids.pdf
your welcome.
I've requested information from my U.S. Representative, Nancy Boyda, in regard to this specific Bill Number.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteHas anyone gotten back to you from Nancy Boyda's office?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20578136/House-Bill-15090-Actual-Document
ReplyDeleteHERE IS THE LINK TO READ A PHOTO COPY OF THE ACTUAL BILL FROM CONGRESS - WEB MASTER
This is a scanned copy I came across.
Deletehttp://www.likroper.com/aids.jpg
Thank you for this!
DeleteI'm sorry, but that scan is clearly of two different documents. The right side is obviously in a dot-matrix print font.
Delete