Q On page 6592 of the record - what page is that in German?
INTERPRETER: Page 6686 in the German transcript.
Q On page 6592 of the record Ruff testifies that he knew that these deaths - three reported to him by Romberg - had not occurred in the experiments for rescue from high altitude but in other experiments which Rascher carried out on orders from Himmler and answers: "There was no occasion to mention these deaths in this report." That is Document NO-402. That's the final report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher. If Ruff based his statement that he knew these deaths had not occurred in the experiments of rescue from high altitude on this preceding deduction could he be justified in concluding that the three subjects did not occur in his and Romberg's subjects?
A No. As I pointed out I do not believe that explanation that was given on page 6592 of the record shows that the subject referred to as having gas bubbles in his blood vessels came from a continued high altitude experiment. It was reasonable to believe that subject came to a slow parachute descent experiment.
Q Hence it was a question of rescue from high altitude?
A Yes.
Q In the case of the first death Romberg in his affidavit, which is Document NO-476 on page 2 of Document Book II, states that he was recording and studying the electrocardiogram and then later he testified that this death occurred in one of Rascher's experiments and not one of his and Ruff's. Is it possible from your study of the documents that this first death could not have been one in the field with which Romberg and Ruff were concerned and could have been a death of one of their subjects?
A Either is possible. It could have been a death resulting from one of Rascher's continued altitude experiments or one of the experiments involving rescue from high altitude.
Q On page 6920 of the record - would you kindly give the German page number, please?
INTERPRETER: German page 7011.
Q Thank you. On page 6920 of the record at the bottom of the page Rascher is asked - pardon me, Romberg is asked - "Now you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you?" Romberg replied, quote: This is the question on page 6920, the last question at the bottom of the page, the question beginning, "Well, now here are some tell tale remarks of this connection....." This is the last sentence in that paragraph of the question which I will repeat: "Now, you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you?" To this Romberg replied: "No, the air bubbles which one sees in an autopsy are not proof of this. They didn't necessarily have anything to do with it. One cannot say that the picture of gas embolism necessarily leads to the symptoms." Now, are these statements or this view correct according to best opinion Dr. Ivy?
A Best opinion at the present time is that symptoms of decompression sickness - pressure drop sickness - are due to the formation of gas bubbles in the tissue or blood vessels.
Q Then, this view is not the best or widely accepted opinion on the subject?
A No.
Q Did you ever publish an article on this subject?
A I have published two articles on this subject and the Committee on Decompression Sickness of the National Research Council of the United States is writing a book on decompression sickness and evidence collected comes very close to establishing the bubble theory of symptoms of pressure drop sickness as a fact. I might say that the most convincing evidence in support of this bubble theory in the case of symptoms of pressure drop sickness is that if the subject breathes oxygen for one, two, or three hours before going to high altitude, in order to wash out the nitrogen from the body, bubbles do not form and the symptoms of decompression sickness do not occur.
Q Well, then in summation the best opinion on the subject is that the symptoms of decompression or pressure drop sickness is due to bubbles in the blood vessels and tissues.
A Yes.
Q And you say the best evidence of that is the fact that breathing oxygen for an hour or so to wash out nitrogen of the body is the only way to prevent the symptoms and the formation of the bubbles?
A Yes.
Q Is there any other explanation of how the pre-breathing of oxygen prevents the symptoms?
A None other.
Q Doctor, will you please refer to page 6928 of the record.
INTERPRETER: Page 7919 in the German transcript.
Q Now, Doctor Ivy, on page 6928 of the official transcript of this trial we read Romberg's description of the circumstances surrounding the first death. Now, will you refer to page 6933 of the record and I wish to read on page 6933 - the German page number for that, please?
INTERPRETER: 7024.
Q The question and answer at the bottom of the page to which Romberg answers "It was not so clear to me that he was a murderer, neither morally or legally is it quite clear, I said already." As a physician and a scientist having studied the circumstances surrounding the death of this prisoner, what is your opinion?
A It appears to me that the killing could only be viewed as an execution or as a deliberate killing or murder. If these subjects were volunteers the deliberate killing could not be an execution it could only be a murder.
Q Will you read page 6932 of the record, going back one page.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, court is about to recess. I would ask the defendant Romberg if he knows where his counsel is?
DR. ROMBERG: My defense counsel has been informed by telegram but I don't know whether he can come back. I expect him to come back today but I am quite satisfied with being represented by Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, regarding representing Dr. Romberg. There will be no difficulties because during the past week I have anyhow every evening when I spoke with Dr. Ruff I also discussed his case with Dr. Romberg in order to be able to represent the interests of Dr. Romberg during the absence of his defense counsel. Therefore, Dr. Romberg will not interpose any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Now counsel understand, not only counsel for the defendants Ruff and Romberg, but other counsel as well, that if in connection with this examination counsel desires to consult with their respective client, it will be arranged that they may do so at any time, at noon, or may be excused from the Tribunal for consultation with their clients if they desire upon request of the Tribunal. Any such reasonable requests will be entertained. The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to announce again that the Tribunal will be in session tomorrow, Saturday, from 1:30 until 12:30, and possibly will be in session tomorrow afternoon. That matter will be determined later when we ascertain how rapidly the cross examinations of the witness progresses, but at least the Tribunal will be in session from 9:30 tomorrow morning until 12:30-on Saturday.
Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Ivy, again I wish to ask you to hesitate after I ask a question before you answer, so that the interpreters may have an opportunity to interpret our questions and answers more precisely? If a collaborator of yours deliberately killed a person in your laboratory, and a colleague reported it to you, what would you do about it?
A. I should make a careful investigation of the report and if the report were true I should report it to the police.
Q. Would you make an attempt to also report it to your superiors if you had people to whom you were subordinated?
A. Certainly.
DR. SEIDL: (Seidl for Gebhardt, Fisher and Oberhauser.) Mr. President, I object to that question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. The question and answer will be stricken from the record.
Q. As you know, in Document No. 402, this document represents a printed report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, which was written the 28 July 1942 and the death occurred in the Rascher experiments in April or May 1942. At that time according to the record Ruff knew that at least three deaths had occurred and Romberg knew of more. Here then we have two scientists joining their names as co-authors with a man whom they regarded either as a murderer or of such culpability that they refused to work with him again; in your opinion as a scientist in matters of a scientific nature of this sort and research problems such as we are concerned with here, which would be the most important thing for the scientist to do, to see that Rascher was apprehended and other deaths prevented, or to take a chance that the scientific results in the joint report might be lost to the world in the instance that the case against Rascher was not pushed.
THE PRESIDENT: The question propounded by counsel to the witness is purely a legal question and should not be answered by the witness.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honor, the questions I am propounding to the witness are problems that will confront scientists all over the World. I am attempting to present a set of facts that a scientist would do if he was the senior scientist in case such a situation arose in his laboratories.
JUDGE SEBRING: Isn't it possible, Mr. Hardy that this Tribunal will, in its opinion, answer that question in such a way scientists in the future will have some landmark to guide them.
MR. HARDY: That is true, Your Honor, but defense counsel have brought up here that six persons died of high altitude experiments in the U. S., I also want Dr. Ivy's opinion on that which coincides with the questions that I have just asked and which the court has striken from the record.
JUDGE SEBRING: That is a different question. The question propounded by counsel to the witness is objectionable and will not be answered.
Q. Before this Tribunal, Dr. Ivy, we have heard testimony to the fact that in an experiment on high altitude in the U. S. some six persons died. It has also been alleged in experiments in the U. S. that only a sergeant and not a physician was first in charge of the high altitude chamber; do you know anything about that?
A I know of no deaths which have occurred in the course of real experimentation in aviation medicine in the United States during the war, I know of some deaths which occurred, however, in the course of routine indoctrination of medical officers, pilots, and aviation personnel in the use of oxygen equipment at high altitude these deaths have been thought to be due to the exposure to high altitude, although no real proof of that was forthcoming. When tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people pass through a routine you can expect some to die simply as a matter of course. I don't know how many of these people would have died simply in the course of being examined medically or of natural causes.
Q Then, in summation you do not know of any deaths which occurred in real experiments in an altitude chamber in the United States?
A That is correct. In regard to the sergeant, it is true that a sergeant, adequately trained, was in charge of the operation of the chamber, but a medical officer or scientist was always at hand in the room or in an adjacent room.
Q Well, then you state that in routine altitude training programs, in which hundreds of thousands of persons I presume are routinely indoctrinated regarding the use of oxygen equipment and the symptom of altitude, either four, five or six persons died in the United States?
A Yes, I can assure you that the circumstances under which these deaths occurred were thoroughly investigated by appropriate commissions or committees.
Q Then, in the course of experiments in the United States the only death that you know of is the death of Major Dr. Voynden who was killed in an experiment on a free fall from a plane in an altitude chamber?
A Yes.
Q If Your Honor please, I have no further questions to put to Dr. Ivy concerning high altitude. If the Tribunal has any questions at this time I will not proceed with my other subjects.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Dr. Ivy, I direct your attention, Sir, to Prosecution Document No. 402, which has been received in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 66 and appears in Prosecution Document Book No. 2 at pages 82 to 99, inclusive, the Ruff, Romberg, Rascher report?
A Yes.
Q Are you thoroughly familiar with that report?
A I have studied it quite carefully.
Q Can you state for the information of the Tribunal whether there is any scientific conclusions or information contained in that report, which could not have been gained solely from the experiments supposed to have been conducted by Ruff, Romberg and Rascher in collaboration?
A Will you have the question read again, please?
Q Could you say whether or not there are any scientific conclusions or whether there is any scientific information contained in that report, which could not have been obtained or gained solely from the experiments supposed to have been conducted by Ruff, Romberg and Rascher in collaboration at Dachau. I make a distinction, you understand, between Ruff, Rascher and Romberg and the Rascher experiments, which Ruff and Romberg maintain was conducted by Rascher independently under an order from Himmler.
A I understand. The conclusions in the report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher. Document No. 402 could have been made solely on the basis of the findings and data submitted in that report without any knowledge of the results of the experiments purported to have been performed by Dr. Rascher.
Q Is their anything in the Ruff, Romberg, Rascher report of experiments from which it can be said with absolute certainty either that deaths, permanent injury or extreme pain resulted to the experimental subjects who took part therein?
A No, but you may recall that I reported that there is a possibility that there may have been some damage to the learning mechanism of the due to long exposure of the brain to oxygen lack.
That was not tested for in the studies of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher.
Q Is there such a thing as an experimental subject becoming acclimated to the experiments he is undergoing at high altitude so that eventually he reaches the point where the results obtained from the observation of his routine during the course of the experiments would not be the same as it would be for a new subject?
A No, the matter of adaptation has received considerable attention by investigators in the field of aviation medicine in the United States. I, myself, have studied the matter in relation to the occurrence of bends, which is pains in the region of the joints in the exposure to high altitude. I subjected seven subjects to an altitude of 37,500 feet from 70 to 150 times during the course of 12 to 18 months. One of these subjects became less resistant to exposure to altitude, insofar as the occurrence of bends was concerned. The other subjects showed no change, no adaptation, that is a matter that the subject apparently to individual variations is positive or negative. Adaptation to some extent may occur. By that I mean an occasional individual may become more resistant or less resistant to exposure to altitude.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Professor Ivy, in the high altitude experiments, as outlined in the Ruff, Rascher, Romberg report, do you consider that those experiments were particularly dangerous?
A Those experiments which were done with slow descent from high altitude, that is with the parachute opened after bailing out from the plane, associated with a long period of oxygen lack and they were dangerous experiments for that reason.
Q And would you be reluctant to perform them yourself?
A I would be reluctant to perform them, yes.
Q In the course of this trial, Dr. Ivy, we have had considerable testimony concerning experimentation on human beings and problems of medical ethics. At this time, I wish to discuss with you those conditions under which human beings have been used in medical experiments and which conditions are considered to be ethical and legal.
First, I would like to have you explain to the Tribunal in detail the experiments on yellow fever by Dr. Walter Reed as told in the yellow fever compilations on various publications, Document 822, United States Governement Printing Office 1911.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I object to the expert witness being examined on these general questions. I remind you of the following. A number of defense counsels have included in their document book experiments from international literature from all the civilized countries in the world. In order to demonstrate what the attitude of the medical profession and medical ethics is to the problem of the permissability of experiments on human beings.
In almost all these cases the Court has ruled that this problem should be postponed until the conclusion of the presentation of evidence and only then would the Tribunal rule whether and to what extent the experiments from international medical literature are to be accepted in evidence. This attitude on the part of the Tribunal must also be maintained, in my opinion, at the present time where an expert from America is being examined on these questions.
If the defense during the course of the trial and until the conclusion of the trial has no opportunity to put literature then this would be a struggle on an unequal basis. If the prosecution has the opportunity to produce one witness after another and have these witnesses it has chosen answer these questions whereas the defense during the course of presentation of months did not have this opportunity, consequently, I object to this line of questions and ask that it be not permitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel's question to the witness simply referred to a certain publication concerning a certain experiment by a late Dr. Walter Reed. The witness has not been asked concerning his knowledge of this matter. If there is a publication referred to by a counsel that publication would be the best evidence. The witness might testify, if able, from his own knowledge but the mere report itself would be the best evidence of what happened in connection with the matter referred to by counsel's question.
MR. HARDY: Unfortunately, Your Honor, all these reports are not available. I might say that, without exception, most of the defendants have brought up the subject when they were on direct examination about various experiments. I remember, I believe that Mrugowsky mentioned the Reed's experiments. Rose quite strongly mentioned the experiments of Colonel Strong on beri-beri, and plague throughout and Dr. Ivy has considerable knowledge of all these experimental programs; and I think it would be of interest to the Tribunal to hear the information he possesses concerning the circumstances surrounding each experiment.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel has not shown from the witness that he has knowledge concerning these matters. If the witness has knowledge, of it counsel may propound a question to him concerning them.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Ivy, do you have knowledge concerning the yellow fever experiments by Dr. Reed?
A Yes, I have a photostatic copy from the report, "Yellow Fever Experiments by Walter Reed."
Q Do you have any knowledge as to the circumstances surrounding these experiments-- that is, whether or not the subjects used were volunteers in the method of procuring the subjects, experimental subjects, and other circumstances which Walter Reed encountered the course of his experiments?
A I have, as revealed by the publication.
Q Do you have knowledge of the experiments of Colonel R.P. Strong and Dr. B.C. Crowell on the beri-beri experiments?
A Yes, as revealed by the publication of their experiments.
Q What is the date of that publication?
A The date of that publication was 1912.
Q Do you have information concerning the experiments of Colonel R,P. Strong on, "Demonstration on the Development of Immunity to the United Living Plague Organisms in Man?"
A Yes, as published in the Phillipine Journal of Science in 1906.
Q Do you have information concerning the experiments on the Trench Fever made in 1917 as appears in the report of the communication of the Medical Research Committee of the American Red Cross, printed by the Oxford University Press?
A Yes, as revealed by that publication.
Q Do you have knowledge of an experiment on pellagra on white male convincts by Joseph Goldberger and Dr. T.A. Wheel A Yes, as revealed by the publication of their work in the archives of International Medicine in 1920.
Q Do you have information on the experiment on the Vaccination of Human beings against Exanthematic Typhus by Felix "Vontolmeier."
A Yes, as published in the Journal of Immunology in 1939.
Q Do you have any other knowledge concerning these experiments from discussions with people participating therein or is your knowledge limited to that of publications?
A I discussed the matter of plague experiments with Colonel Strong, with Dr. B.C. Crowell, hos collaborator in the beri-beri experiments.
Q Have you discussed these matters with any other physicians who participated in or have direct knowledge of the experiments?
A Not of the experiments which your questions have referred up to the present time.
Q Are you in a position to tell us the conditions surrounding the experiments on Yellow Fever by Dr. Walter Reed.
A I can as they are dexribed in the publication.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Doctor.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I object to this line of questioning of the expert witness regarding these experiments. The expert witness, according to what he told us yesterday about his career, is a physiologist but he is not a bacteriologist and not a hygienist. For that reason, in my opinion, he is not an expert in this sort of experiments for which only a bacteriologist would be an expert. These are solely exclusively experiments that were carried out with bacteria.
MR. HARDY: I might put one more question to Dr. Ivy to qualify, Your Honor.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Ivy, have you participated in a program covering Medical Ethics and Rules of Medical Experimentation in behalf of the American Medical Association?
A Yes, and also I am chairman of the committee appointed by Governor Green in the State of Illinois to consider the ethical conditions under which prisoners and penitentiaries may be used ethically as subjects in the medical experiments.
Q In order to substantially carry out your position in the American Medical Association and in the Committee as appointed by Governor Green of Illinois, did it become necessary for you to exclusively study the conditions surrounding all the other experimental programs and services in medical history in order to ably device rules of medical ethics to be applied in the course of medical experimentation on human beings?
A Yes, I had to see what the common practices have been.
* HARDY: In view of that, your Honor, I submit that the witness is qualified to testify concerning these problems.
DR. SAUTER(Counsel for the defendants Ruff and Romberg): Mr. President, I beg your pardon for interrupting but I should like to draw your attention to the following points: first, if the witness is asked whether he knows something regarding such and such a matter then I should like to know, in order to avoid repeating all these matters, from what date on the witness has this knowledge. In order to evaluate what the witness testifies to, it is important to know whether he has this knowledge from a publication of ten or twenty years ago or whether he acquired this knowledge perhaps a week or two weeks ago in Nuernberg from a defense document book; secondly, if the witness claims to be a member of a committee and in his capacity is a member of that committee to have such and such knowledge, then I think it is necessary for him to state how long he has been a member of that committee how long that committee has been in existence and how long he has had this knowledge; and then, Mr. President, one other point.
If the Prosecution is permitted in this way to take all sort of quotations from medical literature and to submit them and put them to the witness and to examine the witness on them and on what his opinion is as an expert on this literature, which all of us can read and form our opinion on, then the defense must also have that same right; but I am afraid that if we follow this practice of the prosecution we shall have to put the witness on the stand again a week later. I bring this to your attention in order to avoid future difficulties.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I object to the witness being interrogated in this way because he is not a Hygienist nor a Bacteriologist and, therefore, does not have the necessary specialized knowledge. When Mr. Hardy asked him, the witness stated that he belonged to committee which concerns itself with the question of the ethical problems of experiments on prisoners. I believe that membership in such a committee can never replace the knowledge that Bacteriologists must have, and which alone can be the prerequisite for giving expert testimoney here on such medical questions. The witness also stated that he knows of these experiments from literature, but I do not believe mere literary knowledge alone is sufficient for expert testimony here. And, I should like to emphasize what Dr. Sauter has just said, namel, that it must be determined whether the expert witness has his knowledge from our document books or whether he has read any original publications.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in this regard, apparently I have not made myself clear. Dr. Ivy is not going to testify as an expert concerning matters of bacteriology. I am merely putting this question to him in the same manner as Professor Lightburn testified. Dr. Ivy, in the course of his career has had ample opportunity to study experimental problems in medical history. He is fully aware of the experimental programs in the United States. He can testify as to the conditions of the experiments, namely, whether or not the experimental subjects were volunteers; whether they were forced in the experiments and so forth, as indicated from the studies, in the same manner as Professor Lightburn did. Professor Lightburn indicated that he knows personally from his own knowledge of the nature of the medical history.
THE PRESIDENT: Propound the witness some further questions to show to the Tribunal his knowledge concerning this matter.
BY DR. HARDY:
Q From your knowledge of yellow fever experiments, by Dr. Walter Reed, can you tell us how he used experimental subjects?
A He used volunteers from the U.S. Army, but before that Dr. Carroll permitted himself to be bitten by infected mosquitoes, and another Doctor in experimental tests, was also bitten by a mosquito, Dr. Lazar.
Dr. Carroll and Dr. Lazar died, and in this particular group of experiments, Dr. Carroll and Dr. Lazar were the only ones that died.
Q Among the experimental subjects were there any deaths, that is, soldiers who volunteered for the experiments?
A No.
Q Were the soliders offered a reward or any inducement to undergo the experiments?
A As I recall they were, and refused it. I am not certain about that. I have information on that from this report on the yellow fever experiments which I could read, if that is appropriate.
MR. HARDY: If the Tribunal desires to have this report read Dr. Ivy will read it. I do not think it is necessary, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that report; report by whom?
DR. IVY: This is a document from the Government printing office, United States, Washington, D.C., entitled "Yellow Fever, a Compiliation of various Publications"; and it is an official document, No. 822. It was from the 61st Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Contains reports made by officials of the United States Government, Army or otherwise, to the Congress of the United States?
DR. IVY: That is correct, presented by Mr. Owen.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness may testify and analyze that document as briefly as possible for the benefit of the Tribunal.
DR. IVY: The subject of the first experiment was a young private from Ohio, named John R. Kissinger, who volunteered for the service to use his own words: "Solely in the interest of humanity and the cause of science." When it became known among the troops that subjects were needed for the experimental purposes, Kissinger in company with another young private named John J. Moran, also from Ohio, volun teered their services.
Dr. Reed talked the matter over with them explaining full the danger and suffering involved in the experiments should they be successful; and, then seeing that they were determined, he stated that monetary compensation would be made to them, but both men declined to accept it, making it indeed their sole stipulation that they should receive no pecuniary reward, whereupon Major Reed touched his cap saying respectfully, "Gentlemen, I salute you."
BY MR. HARDY:
Q What is the date of that publication?
A The date of this publication is 1911.
Q In the course of Dr. Reed's experiments, did he use any natives?
A I am not certain.
Q Did you ever hear tell whether or not he used natives, and offered them a money reward for undergoing the experiments?
A No.
Q Do you know whether or not Walter Reed, in the course of any other experimental program, used natives?
A No. I might say that when I was asked by the American Medical Association to serve in the capacity as advisor, I did my best to cover the medical literature in situations where human beings have been used, in hazardous experiments in order to inform myself regarding the conditions under which they were used.
Q We have been informed here that natives were used by Walter Reed in his experiments, but you are unable to enlighten us further?
A I know nothing about that.
Q Now, in the experiments of Colonel R. P. Strong and Dr. B. C. Crowell on Beri-beri; where were those experiments performed?
A They were performed in Manila, Philippine Islands.
Q Who was used as experimental subjects in those Beri-beri experiments by Colonel Strong and Dr. Crowell?
A, they were prisoners who were condemned to death, but who had volunteered to serve as subjects.
Q In your opinion, is a person condemned to death in a position to volunteer for a medical experiment?
A Yes; they can say yes or no, and if the matter is ethically presented to them that there will be no coercion if they say, yes.
Q How would you approach -
A Unless they were threatened with punishment.
Q How would you approach a person condemned to death for use in a medical experiment; would you approach them directly or would you have notices sent out, radio appeal, or what would be the method of attempting to secure the services of a criminal condemned to death?
A In my opinion they should be approached through a written document sent to them or posted on a bulletin board or by communication by word of mouth in which the purpose of the investigation, medical study, is outlined, in which the hazards of the experiment are indicated; and, where it is pointed out that there will be no punishment or penalty in case the individual does not volunteer.
Q In these experiments by Colonel Strong and Dr. Crowell on Beri-beri, were these criminals condemned to death offered a pardon or offered a commutation of sentence if they survived the experiments?
A No, they were not.
Q They were not offered a pardon?
A No, they were not offered a pardon or commutation of sentence?
Q Were they offered any reward?
A They were offered only extra cigarettes or cigars if they desired them.
Q Did any of the experimental subjects used by Colonel Strong and Dr. Crowell in their Beri-beri experiments die?
A No.
Q When did these experiments take place, Doctor?
A They took place in 1912.
Q And, you base your knowledge of these experiments from personal conversation with Colonel Strong, Dr. Crowell, and publications?
A My knowledge is based on the publications in the American Journal of Science and by personal conversations with Dr. B. C. Crowell who is in charge of Cancer Research of the American College of Surgeons, and resides in Chicago, Illinois.
Q In the experiments by Colonel Strong on the demonstration of the development of immunity to living organism in the man, do you know whether or not volunteers were used?
A The article states that prisoners condemned to death were used. I discussed this matter with Dr. Crowell who informed me that these prisoners were exactly in the same category as those used in the Beri-beri experiments; that they were volunteers.
Q For the moment, doctor, we have discussed the capacity or ability of a criminal condemned to death to volunteer for an experiment. What is you opinion about the ability or capacity of a person incarcerated in a prison to volunteer for an experiment, that is, a person not condemned to death?
A There is no doubt in my mind that they can freely volunteer to serve as a medical subject, provided no coercion is exercised in getting them to say yes or to volunteer.
Q Can you tell us whether or not anyone died in the course of the experiments by Colonel Strong and Crowell in the plague problem?
A No one died.
Q An experiment on trench fever was made in 1917. Who made that experiment?
A That was made by a committe working under the auspices of the Surgeon General of the United States Army and of the American Red Cross.
Q What was the status of the subjects used in that experiment?
A They were volunteers from the United States Army and before volunteering the purpose of the experiment and the possible hazards were explained to the volunteers.
Q Who were the volunteers?
A Soldiers. United States Army.
Q In the experimental program pellagra with convicts, who conducted those experiments?
A They were conducted by Dr. Joseph Goldberger as the senior author. They were published in the archives of Internal Medicine in 1920.
Q Does that publication give the details of the experiments?
A It states that the experiments were performed on convicts who were volunteers and other details are not given.
Q Do you know under what circumstances these convicts volunteered for these experiments?