Talk:Edgewood Arsenal human experiments
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2013-06-18. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.|
This article needs a complete rewrite: the current text is unsourced, apparently highly POV, and appears to be written by someone whose first language is not English. The topic seem to be real  , but beware, it appears to be of great interest to conspiracy theorists. -- Karada 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a substantial amount to this article in the way of documentation. While I am not a user, I have written under the name Valtin at Daily Kos and can be found at http://valtin.dailykos.com. This addition does not constitute a complete rewrite, but I feel is substantial enough to remove the warnings on the page.
I went back and worked on it some more, and consider it now worthy of rewrite status, with plenty of documentation. Quotes are from U.S. government sources only and are not subject to copyright restrictions. 184.108.40.206 04:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Valtin, email@example.com, www.valtin.dailykos.com
Disputation of Neutrality: The langauge of this article is strongly biased in favor of an unsubstantiated and critical view of the experiments conducted at Edgewood Arsenal. Key facts that require much stronger substantiation in this article are:
1) That there is any relationship of any kind between the experiments conducted at Edgewood and the Nazis and/or Operation PAPERCLIP,
2) That there is any relationship of any kind between the CIA Operation MKULTRA and the experiments conducted at Edgewood Arsenal (note: this is explicitly contradicted by John Marks in his groundbreaking book on MKULTRA, "The Search for the Manchurian Candidate"),
3) That subject participation in the Edgewood Arsenal experiments did not involve a reasonable degree of informed consent as operationally appropriate to the experiments being conducted.
In the absence of such documentation, it is highly inappropriate to use language such as "victims of the experiments", and to suggest, as the authors have throughout the article, that the experiments involved deception, coersion, and malfeasance.
note from disputer Having re-examined some of the infromation on this matter i withdraw objection (2), having found evidence that the CIA ORD co-ran project OFTEN with the army at Edgewood arsenal to investigate the effects of drugs and toxins on animals and humans. I note that MKULTRA was discontinued was disbanded in 1963, prior to project OFTEN.
Article is biased and manipulativeI am new to Wikipedia, and didn't want to offend by editing directly but this article is biased and manipulative. It seems the only definitive usage was CS and CN gas which is tear gas. Alleging use of mustard and other gases and claiming that it is "said to be related to or part of CIA mind control programs" and then only backing up CS usage is very misleading. I am a former Army soldier myself and *every* soldier is exposed to CS gas as part of basic training. At moderate levels it is only a mild irritant. Experimenting the effects of these is hardly the conspiracy the article alleges. Alxross (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding dispute 3: I do not have much detail to add, but I was stationed at Edgewood Arsenal from 1968 to 1970. Our unit occupied the third floor of one barracks while the "victims of experiments," known more prosaicly on the base as the MedVols occupied the second floor. I never observed anyone being carted away in the dead of night or anyone acting unusually odd -- sorry conspiracy theorists. I would say that the MedVols included a very high propostion of Green Berets. Regardless of what level of informed consent was in effect, if they thought it was for the good of the country, they would volunteer. Ragerry (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)ragerry
I completely agree with the above writer, this article's second half is completely biased and non-neutral, as Wikipedia should be. This entire article should be re-written. I'm going to recommend to Wikipedia it be removed until the article can be rewritten in a non-biased way, with verifiable and supportive information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
first-person, NPOV, unreferenced... and many other problems
whilst i strongly feel that this article should exist, the current state of it is terrible. it reads like an essay, it's unreferenced, large portions of it are written in the first person, and the general tone is very unencyclopaedic. a complete rewrite with references is needed, but it has the potential to be a very interesting article if this happens. --Kaini (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed -- current article is total garbage. I'm planning on working on this and a lot of other articles related to human experimentation in the United States soon. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Removed an uncited paragraph
Each volunteer would spend the weekend on-site. They would perform tests and procedures (math, navigation, following orders, memory and interview) while sober. Each volunteer would then be dosed by a scientist and perform the same tests. These tests occurred in the building/hospital under the care of doctors and nurses. At times, the tests would be taken outside to study the effects while in the field. For example the volunteer would have to guard a check point, while under the influence, to see what effects certain drugs had on the subjects.
This unreferenced paragraoh contradicts Ketchum in part, who gave the average time of a subject as two months. Maybe multiple visits were involved? Needs clarification and a source citation. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Laboratory vs. Laboratories
Both Medical Research Laboratories and Medical Research Laboratory appear as official names in publications back then, both referring to the Edgewood Arsenal lab. I'm not sure which one is correct or if the official title changed slightly at some point. USAMRICD's web site does not have a history page (perhaps understandable). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have moved "Edgewood Arsenal experiments" to "Edgewood Arsenal human experiments". This article, in my opinion, has been mis-titled all along. The vast majority of "experiments" occurring at Edgewood Arsenal did not involve human-use research. Nothing in the article relates to all that work, only to the human subjects. BTW, I am not endorsing the article's quality otherwise, which is very low indeed... Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
source to add to article
- Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al. Case No. CV-09-0037-CW, U.S.D.C. (N.D. Cal. 2009) 
- Filed at United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Documents filed in the case: 
- Press release:
- "The research programs at issue, many of which were concentrated at the Army's facilities at the Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick, Maryland, allegedly involved the testing of more than 400 different chemical and biological substances during a period spanning five decades, and involved tens of thousands of active duty military personnel. The substances tested ranged from drugs or chemicals (sarin, LSD, BZ, mustard gas, and a THC analog called “red oil”) to biological weapon agents such as tularemia and Q-Fever."
- Includes video from Edgewood Arsenal Facility.
1000 developed serious psychological complications and unwitting
This source  refers to 1000 developing serious psychological complications and 7000 unwitting soldiers. Although it mentions the CIA, the total number involved and the location suggest it's referring to the same experiments. Especially as this article quotes something "all signed informed consent forms, both a general one and another related to any experiment they were to participate". This article seems to imply, the primary dispute over the informed consent was whether there was coercion. Of course there's always likely to be dispute over how well subjects were informed over the risks with something that old, still is this and area of significant dispute? Also does anyone know where the 1000 developed complications came from? Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)