Is there ever a reason for unethical human experiments?

Let us posit a situation that faces the government of a developed nation. In this situation there are ongoing threats to national security from significant external forces leading to a pressing need to develop highly effective weapons systems for both offensive and defensive purposes. In order to establish effectiveness it is necessary to test such weapons, and this has to be done in a number of ways, depending on the type of weapon. Essentially what these test boil down to are an analysis of the impact of a given weapon on multiple aspects including infrastructure and buildings, the environment and of course on human targets, the primary targets for most weapons. In some cases it is possible to use computer models, or simulations, particularly for infrastructure and environmental impacts, and potentially to use simulacrum to establish the effect on human targets, typically using something like ballistic gel, or animal carcasses for, say a kinetic weapon like a bullet. The question posed by this scenario however is whether there are some types of weapons, or some situations where there is a need to carry out tests using live human subjects?

Suppose that the new weapon was biological in nature. A bacterial or viral agent designed to target enemy forces and incapacitate or kill them. Something of this nature would be very difficult to test on a simulacrum. An animal carcass of ballistic material can not contract a disease. The impact of a biological agent, its efficacy, the time of incubation, the disease progress and spread can not be accurately assessed. What about the use of radiological weapons such as depleted uranium or nuclear weapons? We have an understanding of how radiation affects human beings from research carried out following nuclear power plant accidents, most famously the Chernobyl disaster but this is not necessarily the same as the effects of a deliberate nuclear attack, so how valid is this data? There is at least the possibility that there would be a need to assess such weapons on human test subjects. This raises another serious question and it is one that cuts to the heart of the title of this article.

There are two ways in which human test subjects can be engaged, consensually or non-consensually. In standard human experiments in the field of medical research the idea of using non-consenting test subjects would be completely anathema, but is it ever acceptable in the interest of national security? Consider that one of the requirements of a weapons development program is to keep it secret from enemies both existing and potential. Consider also that there is a potential discrepancy between results between subjects who are aware of the test and those who are not. Given these two thoughts it could be argued that in order to maintain security and in order to give accurate test results there could potentially be a point at which there might be a requirement to engage in experimentation with human test subjects who were not aware that they were being tested. This is, of course completely unethical but there are a number of philosophical proponents of the concept of the greater good, and following this thought pattern, the damage caused to a small number of individuals could be weighed against the benefit of military success in terms of defending a far larger national population.

Of course, there are also arguments to suggest that no matter what the requirements, there can never be a reason for unethical behaviour at this level, and that it is tantamount to torture, but there is evidence that not only has this type of research happened, but that it is still happening in several highly developed countries around the World. Does this make it acceptable? Personally I would say no, but as a pragmatist, I have to acknowledge that I can understand the case for, even though I am personally against.

UK Underground bases conspiracy

From our correspondent within the intelligence community :

Ok, a little clarification first. This is not an article about decommissioned nuclear bunkers, or underground sections of standard military bases, both of which have formed the basis for conspiracy theories historically. There is no conspiracy in maintaining the secrecy of facilities that are active in protecting the security of the nation, that is just good sense, nor is there a conspiracy of releasing only partial information regarding obsolete facilities. Again it is simple good sense to withhold information that may present opportunities for foreign powers to develop an understanding of ones defensive strategies, even vicariously. Having said that, there is a different category of underground facility, which, whilst still highly classified, is of no significant defence interest, nor likely to become so. Please also note that details of location will not be presented here, although they have been presented, although misinterpreted, elsewhere.

My background is in civil and mechanical engineering and I hold a doctorate in building design. My specialism is subterranean construction and tunnel boring and I have worked as a consultant for the past fifteen years to the British Government. I hold security clearance to DV rating with additional triple A clearance of special projects. In 1997 I was contracted to act as a consultant on a project to provide disaster recovery for data communication networks in major UK population centres as part of the Millennium Bug project. As part of this project I was given access to three facilities located beneath major UK urban centres. These facilities had been built in the years between 1960 and 1965 as part of the nations defenses against potential nuclear attack. My role in the project was to prepare an analysis of these facilities to consider their suitability for conversion to disaster recovery sites. As such I had access to blueprints and service schematics, as well as the sites themselves.

In common with many such secret facilities the documentation did not represent an accurate statement of the facilities, indicating far less development than was the case. The development of each site had been concealed within road construction operations in areas of each city centre where roads had been tunnelled under existing buildings. Having spoken to construction workers involved with the project, the road construction crews were unaware of the additional works. Access to the sites is found within the road tunnel network giving excellent security since the tunnels are monitored by local police forces for vehicular accidents as a matter of course. Based on the technical drawings that I was provided with I had created a model of one of the sites as being a three storey subterranean structure with two access points extending to a total internal area of 3000sqm and a maximum depth of 75m. On accessing the site I discovered that the facility was in actuality spread over six storeys to a depth of 300m and extended to in excess of 100000sqm.

I could see no obvious explanation for the discrepancy, and because it was an integral part of my analysis I was given access to the original specification documents for the site. It is at this point that the conspiracy theory element comes to the fore. The original specifications made no mention of protection from nuclear assault, nor were the materials used of the design compliant with nuclear strike or electromagnetic protection. Furthermore, the facilities were not designed to accommodate people over the long periods of time to afford protection from fallout, having inadequate ventilation and filtration systems for such a purpose. On closer inspection, both of the documents and the facilities themselves it became clear that they had been designed and constructed as research laboratories, and had been built in such a way as to afford internal compartmentalised containment of the type more commonly found in biological and chemical weapons research laboratories.

It is therefore my contention that throughout the 1970's the UK government was engaged secretly in the development of weapons in contravention of the 1972 United Nations Biological Weapons Convention. Further it appears clear from subsequent research that these sites were engaged in testing chemical and biological agents on members of the UK public. These tests included joint tests with the United States security services on large scale effects of psychoactives and hallucinogens under the auspices of Project 112 (the Edgewood arsenal experiments). It can be no coincidence that civil unrest occurred during the 1970's in areas of the UK correlated to these sites. It is unlikely that definitive evidence of this work will be released, and experiments were discontinued in these locations in 1983 and the facilities emptied and mothballed. Due to the compartmentalised nature of these sites, investigation without a clear understanding of the scope and layout of the site is highly challenging, and the location of each site makes unobserved access impossible. The sites were deemed unsuitable for re-use given the potential contamination risk, and remain un-used at the current time, although suggestions of use as high resilience regional telecommunication and data centres has once again been suggested although this will require significant redesigns and re-engineering.

It is interesting to note that large scale urban regeneration projects are currently underway above two of the three sites....

The author of this article has provided photographic evidence of the sites under discussion. They do not appear on any of the reference guides to UK underground sites currently available.