COMMENTS FROM STREET TALK NETWORK ABOUT THIS POST-

1. Do your own research on the information provided and then come up with your own conclusions.

2. This article contains many names and other information that can be researched.

3. Trust your gut feeling on information provided as this post may contain slanted information.

4. Why so many poor black people received whole-body irradiation?

5. How ethical were these experiments?

Between 1960 and 1971, physicians affiliated with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine exposed seriously ill cancer patients at Cincinnati General Hospital to single, comparatively large doses of whole-body or partial-body radiation. The patients’ physical, biochemical, blood, neurological, and psychological responses were then studied under a long-running research contract with the U.S. Department of Defense.

The project had two intertwined purposes:

• Physicians maintained that whole-body irradiation
  was an experimental or palliative treatment for people with advanced,
  usually incurable cancers.
• The Defense Department wanted information
  applicable to nuclear war: how radiation affected human performance, how
  quickly radiation sickness developed, and whether blood or urine tests
  could reveal the radiation dose a soldier had received.

At least 82 patients were documented in the principal contemporary reviews, while later investigations and medical records produced totals ranging from 87 to approximately 90. The discrepancy reflects incomplete records and differences over which patients belonged to the Defense Department study.

The most authoritative federal review—the 1994–1995 Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, or ACHRE—did not conclude that every irradiation was medically purposeless or that radiation alone caused every early death. It did conclude, however, that patient protections failed. The committee found inadequate disclosure, questionable scientific design, insufficient independent review, the withholding of anti-nausea medication for research reasons, and the disproportionate use of poor public-hospital patients.

The experiments became one of the most important American examples of the danger created when medical treatment and military research are combined.

1. Cold War origins

Following World War II, the military wanted to know how soldiers and civilians might function after exposure to radiation from nuclear weapons.

Animal experiments could provide some information, but military researchers sought human data concerning:

• Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, and other
  symptoms of acute radiation sickness.
• Changes in blood-cell production and bone-marrow
  function.
• Psychological and intellectual performance after
  irradiation.
• How much radiation a person could receive and
  remain capable of performing military duties.
• Whether chemicals in blood or urine could serve
  as a “biological dosimeter”—a test revealing the approximate radiation
  dose received.
• Ways to diagnose, predict, prevent, or treat
  radiation injury.

The Cincinnati project was not the first military-supported whole-body irradiation program. Similar work had been conducted at institutions including M.D. Anderson Hospital, Baylor University College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering, and the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda.

An important distinction existed between two kinds of cancer:

• Radiosensitive cancers, such as certain leukemias and lymphomas, could
  sometimes respond to whole-body irradiation.
• Radioresistant solid tumors, including many cancers of the lung, colon,
  breast, pancreas, and other organs, were much less likely to respond.

Patients with radioresistant tumors were particularly useful for military research because changes in their blood and bodies were more likely to represent radiation damage to normal tissue rather than the rapid destruction of radiosensitive cancer cells. That scientific usefulness also created the central ethical conflict: the patients most useful for military purposes were often those least likely to receive a meaningful therapeutic benefit.

The federal advisory committee found that nearly every published American study of whole-body irradiation involving radioresistant cancers during this period received military or other federal support. ACHRE described Cincinnati as the last institution in a decades-long government program.

2. Eugene Saenger and the Defense Department contract

The principal investigator was Dr. Eugene L. Saenger, a radiologist and nuclear-medicine specialist at the University of Cincinnati. Saenger joined the university’s radiology department in 1949 and directed its Radioisotope Laboratory beginning in 1950. He also served as a consultant to several federal agencies.

In September 1958, Saenger submitted a proposal titled “Metabolic Changes in Humans Following Total Body Radiation.” Its initial objective was to determine whether amino acids or other chemicals appearing in patients’ urine could indicate the biological effects—and possibly the dose—of radiation.

Army reviewers expressed doubts about how much useful information the project would produce. Nevertheless, one reviewer reasoned that there were so few radiobiologists willing to conduct whole-body irradiation research that those willing to do so should be encouraged. The contract was approved and eventually developed into a research relationship lasting more than a decade.

The Defense Department reportedly supplied approximately $650,000–$670,000 over the life of the program. The money paid for research personnel, equipment, laboratory analyses, psychological testing, and collection of physiological information.

Saenger and the university later emphasized that the Defense Department did not directly pay the cost of irradiating patients. This distinction is technically important, but it does not mean the military contract had no influence over treatment. Saenger acknowledged to federal investigators that the irradiation program might not have begun without Defense Department support and might have ended sooner if the military’s effort to develop a biological dosimeter had succeeded.

ACHRE concluded that long-term federal funding can affect patient care even when the agency does not directly pay for the medical procedure itself. Its conclusion explained how military support facilitated both the beginning and continuation of Cincinnati’s program.

3. What was done to the patients

Radiation exposures

The patients received whole-body or partial-body irradiation, generally delivered as a single exposure rather than as numerous small, carefully targeted treatments.

Contemporary records describe doses ranging from approximately 25 to 250 rads, although litigation documents alleged exposures as high as 300 rads. Early plans contemplated increasing doses as high as 600 rads, but the federal review found that Cincinnati physicians administered doses up to approximately 250 rads.

In modern absorbed-dose terminology, 100 rad equals approximately 1 gray, although whole-body biological effects depend on radiation type, dose rate, distribution, previous treatment, and the patient’s physical condition.

This was fundamentally different from conventional localized radiation therapy:

• Localized therapy aims radiation at a tumor while
  sparing as much healthy tissue as possible.
• Whole-body irradiation exposes blood-forming bone
  marrow and numerous healthy organs.
• A large single exposure is biologically different
  from the same total dose divided into smaller treatments.

The radiation was generally produced by a cobalt-60 teletherapy unit.

Medical and military measurements

The researchers collected:

• Serial white-blood-cell, platelet, and other
  hematological counts.
• Bone-marrow samples.
• Urine and blood chemistry.
• Records of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, appetite
  loss, fatigue, bleeding, and infections.
• Neurological and psychiatric observations.
• Tests of memory, attention, reasoning, motor
  performance, and other cognitive functions.
• Information on survival and any reported relief
  of cancer symptoms.

The psychological portion was intended to investigate whether a single radiation dose reduced functions involving the central nervous system. For the military, this related directly to whether irradiated troops could continue operating equipment, following instructions, or fighting.

Within the program’s first few years, the Cincinnati group reported to the military that human beings could tolerate certain large exposures “relatively well” in terms of combat effectiveness. That conclusion was scientifically problematic: patients with advanced cancers, previous treatment, varying ages, and different medical conditions were not reliable substitutes for healthy soldiers.

Bone-marrow extraction and reinfusion

Doctors recognized that the most dangerous effect at the doses used was bone-marrow suppression. Whole-body radiation can damage the marrow’s ability to produce:

• White blood cells needed to fight infection.
• Platelets needed to prevent bleeding.
• Red blood cells needed to transport oxygen.

Beginning in the 1960s, the Cincinnati group explored removing a patient’s own marrow before irradiation and reinfusing it afterward. This was called an autologous marrow infusion.

The procedure was intended to reduce the dangerous suppression of blood-cell production, but the early attempts were not reliably successful. Between the beginning of marrow experiments and the first reported successful protection in 1969, patients continued to receive high-dose irradiation, including some whose attempted marrow collections or infusions failed.

4. Who the patients were

The patients had advanced cancers that were generally described as incurable, metastatic, inoperable, or resistant to other treatment. Cancer types reportedly included tumors of the:

• Breast
• Lung
• Colon and rectum
• Pancreas
• Stomach and esophagus
• Liver
• Ovary and cervix
• Skin and sinus
• Brain
• Tongue and tonsil
• Intestine and other organs
• Bone, including Ewing sarcoma

The patients were not uniformly unconscious, bedridden, or within days of death. Progress reports described some as being in “reasonably good clinical condition,” “relatively good health,” ambulatory, clinically stable, and in some cases still working.

This distinction matters. “Terminal” or “incurable” did not necessarily mean “immediately dying.” Some families testified that their relatives had been working, caring for children, or conducting normal activities shortly before irradiation.

Children

Most patients were adults, but the series included children treated for Ewing sarcoma. ACHRE reported that three of the five private patients were children. Their inclusion was somewhat different medically because Ewing sarcoma could be more responsive to radiation than many of the adult solid tumors.

Race and poverty

The 1972 university review reported that 51 of 82 patients—approximately 62 percent—were Black, and that most were indigent. Nearly all were obtained through the wards or outpatient tumor clinic of Cincinnati General Hospital, a public institution serving many poor and African-American patients. Only five were described as private patients.

Later litigation alleged intentional racial targeting. The federal court allowed the families to pursue this claim rather than dismissing it at an early stage. That ruling did not, by itself, prove a deliberate racial-selection conspiracy; at that procedural stage the court was required to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true.

The contemporary Suskind review maintained that the racial distribution reflected Cincinnati General Hospital’s patient population. ACHRE did not establish that physicians deliberately selected individual patients because they were Black. Its broader finding was that poor and politically powerless people disproportionately carried the risks of questionable research, as commonly occurred in public teaching hospitals during that era. The federal report provides the 51-of-82 figure and explains the selection dispute.

Thus, the best-supported conclusion is:

• The racial disparity is documented.
• Poverty and dependence on the public hospital are
  documented.
• The patients’ vulnerability is documented.
• A deliberate race-based conspiracy was alleged
  but was not conclusively established by a trial verdict.

5. Did patients give informed consent?

This became the central controversy.

1960–1965: no written forms

There is no evidence of written consent forms during approximately the first five years. Researchers later contended that physicians explained the treatment orally, but the surviving record does not establish precisely what each patient was told.

Absence of a written form does not automatically establish that no conversation occurred. Nevertheless, without contemporaneous documentation, it is impossible to verify whether patients understood:

• That this was experimental or unconventional.
• That their data would serve military radiation
  research.
• That the procedure might offer little or no
  benefit for their particular cancer.
• That serious marrow suppression, infection,
  bleeding, and death were possible.
• What alternative treatments—or no further
  treatment—were available.

The 1965 form

The first written form, dated May 1, 1965, described the procedure as a “special study and treatment.” It stated generally that risks, complications, alternatives, and prognosis had been explained.

It did not specifically identify:

• Nausea and vomiting.
• Severe bone-marrow suppression.
• The possibility of fatal infection or bleeding.
• A quantifiable risk of treatment-related death.
• The Defense Department’s military objectives.

The 1967 form

The 1967 version stated that patients could experience infection or mild bleeding and might be treated with marrow infusion, medication, or transfusion. It also stated that the investigation was not directed specifically toward the patient’s own benefit but could advance medical knowledge.

However, it did not disclose the magnitude of the possible danger.

One member of the university review committee, Dr. George Shields, believed the researchers’ own data indicated approximately a one-in-four possibility of death within several weeks due to treatment. He recommended that patients be told this explicitly. The final consent requirement did not incorporate that precise warning.

The 1971 form

The 1971 form gave a clearer explanation of falling blood counts and the possibility of infection or bleeding, especially at doses of 200 rads or more. It still did not explicitly state that death was a possible result.

Two-day consent procedure

Saenger later stated that, beginning around 1968, Dr. Edward Silberstein explained the procedure to a patient on one day and brought the patient back with a family member, minister, or representative the next day before obtaining a signature. ACHRE considered such a procedure potentially more protective than ordinary practice at that time—if it was consistently followed.

Families disputed whether meaningful explanations were actually provided. Some testified that their questions were evaded and that neither patients nor relatives understood the nature of the project.

The federal committee ultimately found the consent documentation inadequate, particularly because it failed to disclose the unconventional nature of whole-body irradiation for radioresistant cancers and did not clearly disclose the possibility of death. ACHRE’s discussion reproduces and compares the three consent forms.

6. Withholding nausea information and medication

One of the most disturbing documented practices concerned nausea and vomiting.

The researchers wanted accurate information about when radiation sickness began and whether patients developed symptoms spontaneously. They believed that warning patients about nausea could induce vomiting through suggestion. Consequently:

• Some patients were not warned beforehand that
  nausea and vomiting were likely.
• Patients were not routinely given anti-nausea
  medication before exposure.
• Medication could be supplied after patients
  complained.

This practice served the research objective but exposed patients to suffering that might have been reduced.

ACHRE contrasted Cincinnati with a clinical whole-body irradiation project at City of Hope Medical Center. There, patients receiving 40 rads or more were routinely given anti-nausea medication before irradiation.

The federal committee concluded that when Cincinnati’s investigators withheld information or medication to improve military research data, the interests of research had been placed above the interests of the patients. Where this departed from accepted care, ACHRE called it morally unconscionable; where the contemporary standard was uncertain, it called the practice morally questionable.

7. Injuries and deaths

Documented effects included:

• Severe nausea and vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Weakness and fatigue
• Loss of appetite and weight
• Suppression of white blood cells and platelets
• Infection
• Bleeding and hemorrhage
• Bone-marrow failure
• Psychological or cognitive changes
• Pain and emotional distress

What can be said reliably about mortality?

The number of deaths directly attributable to radiation cannot be stated with certainty because the patients already had advanced cancers, and many had received chemotherapy, surgery, or localized radiation.

Nevertheless, the evidence does not support dismissing radiation as irrelevant.

The 1966 Defense Department report noted:

• White-cell counts generally reached their lowest
  point approximately 25–40 days after irradiation.
• Low lymphocyte counts could persist for 40–60
  days.
• Severe blood-cell depression was found in most
  patients who died.

During one six-year period, 13 patients received 150 or 200 rads of whole-body irradiation while effective marrow protection was unavailable or unsuccessful. Nine died between 25 and 74 days afterward.

Different contemporary reviews reached different conclusions:

One additional patient died six days after irradiation while under anesthesia during a bone-marrow procedure associated with the treatment.

The researchers argued that advanced cancer or accompanying disease caused the deaths and that some patients obtained relief from pain or tumor symptoms. The federal committee found their survival comparisons scientifically weak because:

• There was no adequate concurrent control group.
• Patients differed in cancer type, stage, age, and
  prior treatment.
• Historical comparison groups were not
  sufficiently comparable.
• Survival was measured from different starting
  points.
• Before 1966, palliation was not assessed in a
  uniform, structured manner.

Therefore, two extreme claims should both be avoided:

• It is inaccurate to declare that radiation was
  conclusively the sole cause of every early death.
• It is also inaccurate to claim that the
  experiments caused no deaths or serious injuries.

The evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that radiation-induced marrow suppression probably contributed to some deaths, while the exact number remains unresolved. ACHRE explains the competing mortality estimates and methodological limitations.

8. Internal oversight failures

When Saenger’s original proposal was submitted in 1958, the University of Cincinnati had no modern institutional review board. Such boards were only beginning to appear nationally and were not required for federally funded research until later.

The university established its Faculty Committee on Research in 1964. When Saenger submitted a marrow-protection protocol in 1966–1967, members raised serious questions:

• Would the patients receive any specific benefit?
• Were the dangers adequately described?
• Could irradiation increase illness or mortality?
• Was the design capable of measuring whether
  marrow reinfusion worked?
• Was the irradiation itself a treatment, an
  experiment, or both?

Dr. Shields recommended rejection because the program’s own experience suggested 25 percent mortality in one group. Another reviewer initially objected to the “considerable morbidity” associated with high-dose radiation.

The committee provisionally approved the marrow protocol in May 1967 but required it to emphasize the therapeutic efficacy of whole-body irradiation. Surviving records do not show that every required revision underwent a complete final review.

In 1970 and 1971, the committee still questioned how investigators would evaluate:

• Whether marrow infusions protected patients.
• Whether whole-body irradiation itself worked
  against the cancers.

Despite those concerns, a revised protocol was approved in August 1971.

The federal committee concluded that neither the university nor the Defense Department adequately reviewed whether continued use of whole-body irradiation for radioresistant tumors was medically justified.

9. The first public exposure, 1971–1972

The program received national attention in October 1971 after reporting associated with journalist Roger Rapoport and The Washington Post.

Three major reviews followed:

1. American College of Radiology review: Generally defended the program as consistent with contemporary medical practice.

2. University Ad Hoc Committee, or Suskind report: Investigated the program and broadly supported its objectives, while documenting significant problems and early deaths.

3. Junior Faculty Association report: Strongly criticized the experiments and argued that patients suffered without adequately understanding their participation.

The Junior Faculty Association’s report was led by University of Cincinnati English professor Martha Stephens. It relied in significant part on the researchers’ own Defense Department progress reports.

At a January 25, 1972 press conference, the association charged that many patients had paid severely for participating and often did not know that they were part of an experiment.

The university president decided in the spring of 1972 not to renew the Defense Department contract. Whole-body irradiation was suspended and the associated military-effects study ended. A proposed successor study comparing irradiation with chemotherapy failed to obtain National Cancer Institute funding.

The Los Angeles Times later summarized the controversy, noting both the Junior Faculty Association’s findings and Saenger’s acknowledgment that radiation might have contributed to eight deaths. The 1994 Los Angeles Times account is available here.

10. Renewed investigation during the 1990s

The story returned to national attention after Eileen Welsome’s 1993 reporting on Cold War plutonium experiments prompted the Clinton administration to investigate American human-radiation research more broadly.

In Cincinnati:

• Local television and newspapers revisited the
  patients’ stories.
• Researchers and historians began identifying
  patients and locating relatives.
• A congressional hearing was held in Cincinnati on
  April 11, 1994.
• Families testified before Congress and ACHRE.
• Saenger defended the program, maintaining that
  the patients had advanced cancer, the irradiation had a genuine palliative
  purpose, and military data collection was secondary to treatment.

President Clinton’s Advisory Committee held another public hearing in Cincinnati in October 1994. More than 30 relatives and interested parties appeared.

The federal committee’s final report did not simply adopt either side’s full account. It recognized that:

• Chemotherapy was not as firmly established early
  in the 1960s as it later became.
• Some physicians genuinely believed whole-body
  irradiation might relieve advanced cancer.
• The Defense Department did not directly select
  the patients.
• Some late consent procedures may have exceeded
  ordinary practice at the time.

But it also found:

• By the middle of the 1960s, whole-body
  irradiation without effective marrow protection had not been shown to work
  against radioresistant tumors.
• Patients were not clearly told how unconventional
  or speculative the treatment was.
• The risks were incompletely disclosed.
• Research requirements altered care in ways
  harmful to patients.
• Poor people disproportionately bore the burdens.
• Government funding helped perpetuate the
  practice.

11. The federal lawsuit

Families filed In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation in federal court in 1994. Defendants included Saenger, other university researchers, federal project officers, the University of Cincinnati, and the City of Cincinnati.

The families alleged:

• Treatment without informed consent.
• Violation of bodily integrity.
• Medical malpractice and negligence.
• Wrongful death.
• Fraud and concealment.
• Racial discrimination.
• Denial of access to the courts.
• Violations of constitutional due process.

At the preliminary dismissal stage, Judge Sandra Beckwith emphasized the historic importance of voluntary consent and bodily integrity. She ruled that government officials could not reasonably believe they were entitled to expose unwitting people to potentially fatal experimentation.

Her often-cited opinion stated that if the allegations were true, the government had treated citizens as if they were laboratory animals. Importantly, this was a ruling allowing claims to proceed, not a final trial verdict establishing every allegation as fact. The full 1995 federal-court opinion is available here.

Settlement

In 1999, the court approved a combined settlement reported at approximately $5.4 million. Roughly $4.3 million came from the university, city, physicians, or their insurers, with an additional federal contribution of approximately $1 million. Different accounts sometimes quote only one component, which explains reports describing the settlement as either “more than $4 million” or $5.4 million. A contemporary Associated Press report described the total as $5.4 million.

A settlement is not an admission or trial finding that every allegation was true. It did provide compensation and official recognition to families who had spent years trying to establish what happened.

12. Memorial and historical recognition

The settlement required a memorial plaque honoring the patients. It was initially installed near the former Cincinnati General Hospital building and later moved when that building was demolished.

The inscription identifies the people involved in the “Radiation Effects Study, 1960–1972.” For families, the memorial represented acknowledgment that the patients were human beings with names and lives—not merely case numbers in military reports.

Martha Stephens subsequently published The Treatment: The Story of Those Who Died in the Cincinnati Radiation Tests, a book-length reconstruction based on university documents, government records, litigation, and interviews with families. Duke University Press describes the book and its subject here.

13. Documented facts versus unresolved or disputed claims

Overall judgment

The Cincinnati experiments cannot be understood simply as secret military officers forcing healthy people into a radiation chamber. The reality was more complicated—but not less troubling.

These were seriously ill cancer patients whose physicians sometimes believed whole-body irradiation might provide palliation. At the same time, the patients were turned into sources of military data about nuclear-war survival. The project continued despite uncertain therapeutic value, substantial marrow toxicity, early deaths, inadequate scientific controls, and serious deficiencies in informed consent.

Its deepest ethical failure was the conflict of interest built into the program:

The same exposure offered to the patient as possible treatment was valuable to the government precisely because it damaged the patient’s normal tissues in measurable ways.

The Cincinnati case helped demonstrate why modern research requires:

• Independent institutional review.
• Clear written protocols.
• Scientifically valid study design.
• Full disclosure of material risks and
  alternatives.
• Special protection for vulnerable populations.
• A clear separation between the physician’s duty
  to the patient and the investigator’s desire for useful data.
• Accountability by government agencies that fund
  research, even when they do not directly perform the medical procedure.

The experiments remain an important chapter in the history of Cold War medicine because they show how national-security objectives, professional authority, racial and economic inequality, and weak patient protections can combine—even in respected institutions—to place vulnerable people at grave risk.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form