BACKGROUND 
I 
in war work of any character and it is hoped it will be possible for the [National 
Research] Council to undertake such an investigation.” The Surgeon General 
of the U.S. Navy, Dr. Ross T. Mclntire, also concurred, emphasizing that “the 
incidence of gonorrhea in the armed forces and the lost manpower resulting there- 
from constitutes a problem of major military importance.” 66 Consequently, he 
observed, “[t]he crucial experiment in the development of new prophylactic agents 
against gonorrhea lies in the experimental inoculation of human volunteers.” 67 
Dr. Moore’s Subcommittee on Venereal Diseases, this time with CMR head 
Dr. A.N. Richards, 68 met again in early December 1942. 69 It approved the 
proposal and recommended that Moore organize a conference with members 
he selected to further specify details of the experiment and the accompa- 
nying risks. 70 Dr. Richards urged Dr. Moore to convene the conference group 
“immediately.” 71 
Dr. Moore’s conference group met promptly at the end of December to 
formulate specific plans. 72 Its proposal included a detailed research protocol, a 
clear set of goals, and a participant waiver form that outlined the procedures 
and the risks associated with the experiments. 73 The project would “study the 
effectiveness of two types of prophylaxis against gonorrhea: (1) the protective 
action of sulfonamide compounds taken by mouth before exposure to the 
disease, and (2) the prophylactic action of chemical agents applied locally to 
the genital tract after exposure to the disease.” 74 
Consistent with the opinions of the Surgeons General, Dr. Carpenter stated 
that “[o]nly volunteers are acceptable.” 75 The proposed waiver form explicitly 
described the procedures involved and risks associated with the experiment. 76 
It used colloquial terms (“clap,” “strain,” and “running ranges”) for gonor- 
rhea in addition to medical language, and stated that individuals would be 
exposed to infection by “applying the germ to the end of the penis.” 7 The 
form included an explanation of risks, including the fact that not all subjects 
would respond to “modern treatment methods” and that complications could 
arise from being treated with older methods. It also detailed the side effects 
of the “modern treatment.” 78 According to the form, an inmate had to waive 
liability and the officer in charge had to give permission before the inmate 
could volunteer for the experiment. 79 
15 
