“ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE” STD Research in Guatemala from 1946-1948 
“The problem is not a legal one, but political in nature. There should 
be no question of the legality of the experiments, in the absence of 
specific provisions of law to the contrary. While the experiments 
might be held to be technical violations of law in a particular juris- 
diction, any criminal prosecution should be easily defended.” 109 
Cox furthermore dismissed the political risks; he argued that the experiments 
should not be hampered by such criticism in a “time of war.” 110 
A little more than two weeks after submitting the NRC subcommittee 
proposal to OSRD, Dr. Moore contacted James Bennett, Director of the 
Bureau of Prisons, because Dr. Bush favored the use of federal, rather than 
state, prisoners in the experiment. 111 After receiving Dr. Moore’s “detailed 
statement of the proposed plan of procedure,” 112 Bennett endorsed the 
proposal with a few conditions. 113 Researchers should not promise pardons or 
commutations of sentences as an incentive to volunteer, 114 though he agreed 
that the parole board would probably consider their involvement in the 
research when the inmates were eligible for parole. 115 The volunteers could be 
paid $100 each for participation, 116 but Bennett questioned the effect of some 
receiving these benefits on prisoners not selected for participation. He told Dr. 
Moore to conduct the experiments in secret “to protect the general morale of 
the several [prison] institutions.” 117 
With the Bureau of Prisons on board, the leadership of the National Academy 
of Sciences (NAS) and NRC, its operating agency, responded to questioning 
from Dr. Bush about the legality and ethics of the experiment. In March 
1943, Dr. Frank B. Jewett, NAS President and head of Bell Telephone Labo- 
ratories, and Dr. Ross G. Harrison, NRC Chairman and Professor Emeritus 
at Yale University, wrote to Dr. Bush, who had asked the scientists “whether 
the Academy and Council, having considered the possibility of public reac- 
tion, are willing to encounter the risk in view of the results attainable.” 118 
Drs. Jewett and Harrison declined to speak for either NAS or NRC, but 
they offered Dr. Bush their “personal opinions in [their] official capacities.” 119 
With that qualification, both men endorsed the experiments, noting that 
attitudes toward STDs had become more progressive and that the public 
had an interest in protecting men in the armed services. 120 These facts, they 
suggested, could help explain the experiment if questions about intentionally 
infecting prisoners were raised later. 121 
18 
