Plants - Drugs Mind - Spirit Freedom - Law Arts - Culture Library  
Full Review
Chemical Warfare: Secrets Almost Forgotten
by James S. Ketchum, MD
James S. Ketchum, MD 
Reviewed by Lux, 4/29/2007

James Ketchum’s Chemical Warfare is an autobiography of a lead researcher at Edgewood Arsenal during the 1960s, a presentation of some of his key findings, and an apologetic for testing incapacitating agents on military and prisoner volunteers. In addition to providing an important window into the formerly-classified world of US chemical weapons research, Chemical Warfare is a valuable source of information on a plethora of psychoactive compounds, including BZ (QNB), LSD, THC, scopolamine, and atropine. Technical information included in a long Appendix will greatly interest the specialist, particularly toxicologists and pharmacologists.

Despite the technical nature of the material and the gravity of the ethical issues involved, the book is written in a chatty prose that is easily accessible to the layperson. While inviting and amiable, the prose is loose and at times unfocused. This book is a long 360 textbook-size pages, and it could benefit from more ruthless editing.

James Ketchum enlisted in the Army in 1955. After completing his medical training in psychiatry he was assigned to the Edgewood Arsenal near Baltimore, Maryland in 1961. Edgewood was already conducting research into the use of psychoactive drugs when he arrived. Research began in 1957 as a joint operation with the Intelligence Center at Fort Holabird. At that time, researchers began administering LSD to volunteers, some of whom took LSD as many as 20 times in a two-year period.

The Army was primarily interested in LSD as a potential incapacitating agent – something that could bewilder and disable enemy troops with a minimum of bloodshed. Edgewood investigated a number of agents for this purpose, including early experiments with PCP that were apparently discontinued after one civilian research subject suffered paranoid psychosis and had to spend six weeks in the hospital.

In 1960, a year before Ketchum arrived, Edgewood Arsenal began investigating an obscure drug designated EA 2277, more commonly known as 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, QNB, or BZ (apparently short for Benzilate). BZ was first synthesized by the pharmaceutical firm Hoffman-La Roche Inc. as a potential ulcer remedy. It came to the attention of the Army when it was found that very small doses (around 500 ug) produced stupor and delirium lasting for days.

Ketchum quickly became a lead researcher at Edgewood and was given wide latitude to design and implement experiments. He began exploring the effects of eight stereoisomers of THC administered in various combinations, and soon shifted focus to LSD and BZ. Over the next several years he would conduct extensive research on the clinical pharmacology of these compounds with his colleagues. Their work frequently involved drug trials with volunteer subjects. The sessions were closely monitored and analyzed, and many findings are described in this book.

If you are interested in BZ, this is the book for you. It is unlikely that another book will ever focus on BZ in comparable depth. The course of BZ’s effects receives detailed attention and copious description. BZ is a competitive antagonist of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. It acts as an anticholinergic deleriant, generating long-lasting effects that closely resemble those of its tropane alkaloid cousins atropine and scopolamine, the active agents in datura and belladonna. This includes highly idiosyncratic effects such as the impulse to take off one’s clothes, or the impulse to smoke imaginary cigarettes.

The average effective dose is 7-8 ug/kg (roughly 500 ug per average male adult). The onset is slow, lasting roughly 3 hours. By the fourth hour, subjects generally enter a stuporous slumber. Around hour 12, subjects become ambulatory but profoundly disoriented for another day or two, during which time subjects typically experience extreme confusion, hallucinations, and delirium closely resembling datura intoxication.

Ketchum and the other Edgewood researchers investigated the effects of BZ on reaction time, various delivery methods, possible antidotes, and so forth. In one operation called Project Dork, aerosolized BZ was delivered to eight volunteers at Dugway Proving Grounds during combat simulation. The operation was a success; most of the troops experienced the predicted course of symptoms with the predicted impact on their performance, and all recovered fully within 72 hours.

We follow Ketchum through his experiences with the military and the media, his two-year post-doc at Stanford, and into private practice as he provides off-the-cuff commentary on familiar faces and interesting places. I was particularly intrigued to hear personal anecdotes of important early researchers such as Sidney Cohen and George Aghajanian.

Ketchum argues throughout the book that the dangers and improprieties of the Edgewood experiments are exaggerated by over-zealous investigative reporters, many of whom inappropriately associate the Edgewood Arsenal experiments with the notorious CIA operation MKULTRA. In that operation, hundreds or thousands of civilians were surreptitiously dosed with psychoactive drugs without their knowledge or consent. Ketchum maintains that his work was scrupulous and that he and his colleagues were careful to obtain consent from subjects. He argues:

Unwitting guinea pigs? Naïve young men taken in by Army propaganda? Mentally marginal soldiers who could not make good decisions? Ignorant individuals who didn’t know what they were getting into because of tight security? In my view, none of the above! (p. 30) … Nevertheless, years after extensive testing with drugs such as BZ and LSD had ceased, investigative reporters continued to apply the pejorative “guinea pig” cliché to Edgewood volunteers. (p. 31)

The book meticulously documents the considerable lengths to which Ketchum and his team went to obtain voluntary consent, but difficult questions remain. Beginning in 1965, Edgewood Arsenal began recruiting prisoners from the Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia. While the prisoner subjects were a small percentage of the volunteer population (less than 1%), it is unclear that prisoners are in a position to make a free, balanced decision, when income opportunities are tightly constrained.

Allan Lawson, a former Holmesburg inmate and experiment volunteer, testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating the use of prison inmates in 1973. He stated that prisoners were “trading [their] bodies for money,” making “any claim of voluntary participation ... in human experimentation a cruel hoax.” Following those Senate hearings, the use of prisoner volunteers in experiments became much less common.

Ketchum offers broad defenses of Edgewood research. For example:

Many think that the so-called Army volunteers we tested more than forty years ago were not really volunteers … In short, they assert that Army testing in the 1960s was unethical, incompetent, and carried out in violation of basic human rights. These erroneous beliefs could have been dispelled by authentic information long ago, but very little ever appeared in the public media. (p. 2)

However, we later read:

In the late 1950s Dr. Van Sim and his colleagues sometimes gave LSD covertly to Edgewood volunteers. Such studies could be, and eventually were, criticized as lacking in rigorous design, and particularly for their lack of sufficient regard for possible adverse psychological consequences, as well as trampling on the civil rights of the unknowing recipients. (p. 118)

While Sim’s malfeasance occurred before Ketchum’s arrival at Edgewood, this admission is hard to square with the unqualified defenses of Edgewood Arsenal that appear in this book. Some of these issues are simply not black and white, and I would have liked to have seen more shades of gray.

Ketchum rightly rejects media reports linking Edgewood to CIA experiments. Although Ketchum himself does not criticize the book, Lee and Shlain’s widely-read Acid Dreams describes Edgewood side-by-side with MKULTRA and makes little effort to distinguish between them. Those authors scarcely note that the Edgewood experiments were an Army operation investigating non-lethal incapacitants, that experiments conducted at Edgewood overwhelmingly used informed volunteers, and that the entire process was monitored by oversight. MKULTRA, on the other hand, was a CIA operation investigating mind control that circumvented oversight at every turn, and it frequently used civilian subjects without their knowledge or consent.

But again, the issue is not black and white. This book is full of mentions – sometimes laudatory – of MKULTRA personnel, including Harold Wolff, Harry Abramson, and Harry Isbell, some of whom were involved in deeply troubling research. During the 1950s and 60s, the CIA was involved in a great deal of psychoactive drug research. While MKULTRA was certainly not running the show at Edgewood, it would be going too far to say that there was no connection whatsoever.

For example, during his tenure as Director of the Addiction Research Center, and while receiving funding from the CIA through MKULTRA, Harry Isbell routinely offered morphine or heroin to patients in exchange for participating in his experiments. Most of these patients had been remanded to his facility to receive treatment for addiction. “Volunteers” for his experiments were administered experimental psychoactive chemicals including bufotenine, psilocybin, scopolamine, LSD, mescaline, and DMT. They sometimes received very high doses of a drug, as in one experiment in which Isbell’s subjects were given progressively-higher doses of LSD for 77 days in a row.

Adjacent to a photograph of the author chatting amiably with Dr. Isbell, Ketchum notes:

Some critics have cited Isbell’s seemingly cavalier experiments as an example of gross mistreatment of volunteers … The inmates, however, did not seem reluctant to take the drug every day, apparently feeling that being given generous doses of their beloved morphine after each test was sufficient compensation. Isbell found no evidence that his volunteers suffered any damage from their multiple-dose LSD experience. Of course, one might question the ethics of supporting a morphine addict’s habit in a facility established to treat addiction. (p. 123)

Ketchum’s arguments are ill-served by this characterization of Isbell’s experiments, which constitute one of the darkest chapters of the whole MKULTRA affair. Referring to these subjects as “volunteers” makes a mockery of the very idea of consent, and saying that “some critics” cite Isbell’s “seemingly cavalier experiments” strikes this reviewer as equivocation.

From the point of view of contemporary ethical standards governing human subjects experimentation, there is an intrinsic challenge posed to the idea of consent when considering volunteers over whom the experimenters have direct power, such as subordinates, prisoners, or a semi-captive group of opiate addicts. It is hard to miss that Ketchum sides with the experimenters in nearly every case – even when considering Isbell, who is frequently regarded as an icon of human subjects misconduct. In my view, this minimizes the vital importance of the opposing perspective. During those years, very serious human rights violations were occurring in the name of science and defense of country. The gravity of those abuses warrants careful scrutiny of any human subjects testing, whether conducted by the military, a hospital or another type of research context. I found this book to be too quick to disregard critics as ambulance-chasers or unscrupulous media hounds, given what we now know about what went on in those days.

Ketchum meticulously documents the informed consent procedure used at Edgewood and carefully explains follow-up studies showing little evidence of lasting harms suffered by the volunteers. But he does a poor job of conveying a nuanced awareness of the world that exists beyond his lab. “I was never aware, however,” he writes, “of the CIA’s use of LSD on unwitting civilians, and indeed this did not become widely publicized until 1999, after the death of [MKULTRA director] Sidney Gottlieb,” (p. 222 ). This surprised me to read, given the three open Senate hearings into the matter covered in the national press, as well as the publication of The Search for the Manchurian Candidate in 1979 and Acid Dreams in 1985. The fact that information regarding MKULTRA was widely available by the mid-1970s is important for understanding the context in which critical scrutiny of Edgewood was undertaken by the media. Widespread suspicion and incredulity regarding the ethics of Army testing of psychoactive drugs makes more sense given this context.

I would have liked to have seen a discussion of the joint CIA/Edgewood Arsenal Project OFTEN conducted from 1968 to 1973. That project investigated the effects of psychoactive drugs on animals and humans. Consideration of this operation might shed more light on the CIA-Edgewood connection.

While Ketchum provides compelling evidence that many of the experiments conducted at Edgewood were done appropriately, I am left with misgivings. What worries me – and I hope this worries you too – is what happens when things like BZ get out of the lab. At one point Ketchum notes that “Thirty or forty pounds of chemically-pure LSD had spent a week in my office and had now disappeared with no comment from anyone, no receipt form and no other paperwork!” In an interview following the publication of Chemical Warfare, the interviewer jokes with Ketchum about this story, but I’d like to know what the hell the US Army was doing with 40 pounds of LSD, and I’m not laughing.

I’m thinking of Harold Blauer, who died in 1953 in a civilian hospital after seeking treatment for depression. Unbeknown to him, his doctors were under Army contract to investigate the experimental psychoactive drugs MDA and MDMA. Blauer died when doctors injected him with an enormous dose of MDA as part of an experiment that had little to do with his treatment. That MDA was procured from Edgewood Arsenal.

Despite these caveats, Chemical Warfare is an interesting, often-entertaining book with a wealth of information. It provides a valuable window into a classified Army research facility and aptly refutes many misunderstandings and missuppositions about what went on there. Ketchum is quite right in asserting that Edgewood is a cut above the flywheels and sadists of MKULTRA, but I cannot conclude as he does, that when it comes to ethics, “Eventually, it seems, we got it right.”

This review is a slightly revised version of the original Chemical Warfare review published here April 2, 2007.


  1. I am a former two time Edgewood volunteer [1958] who is 100% SSD and on 100% VA disability compensation. I would like to hear from the reviewer who seems to be very well informed about issues in the book. I can prove that the CIA funded Edgewood projects from 1953-1975. First under MKULTRA and from 1964 MKSEARCH. I can show official evidence that volunteers died at Edgewood and that they suffered long term effects from toxic and psychochemicals. Note that Ketchum said no one was harmed and later he says no “significant harm.” The consents Ketchum spoke of contained the words “I am aware of all hazards.” No need to experiment if all the hazards are known. He points to NAS and LSD studies done in the 1980’s as some kind of exoneration. However, the GAO 1994 and the VA CBR Veteran’s Health Initiative of 2003 do not concur with his conclusions.

    I hope to hear from you, Eric Muth

    Comment by Eric Muth — 4/14/2007 @ 6:43 am

  2. I was one of the guinea pigs in 1973 and I think they have been trying to lose me in the shuffle.
    It has taken me 8 months to get someone to listen. Help

    Comment by Bruce Buffington — 1/10/2008 @ 9:15 pm

  3. Hey, that’s pretty nasty Bruce. In my country we all are guinea pigs! The government tries on us all that the other countries do in a good manner, but, our politicians don’t really succeed. How I wish I could have the necessary money to get out of this country!

    Comment by Mesothelioma Attorney — 8/10/2008 @ 11:48 pm

  4. I was a “Medical Volunteer” at Edgewood Arsenal in 1967. We were NOT provided detailed consent forms, in fact most of us were deceived. I was told that I was a testing uniforms for chemical resistance. It turns out that I was given psychoactive chemicals (I still don’t know which ones). I was NEVER told that I would be given any form of psychoactive drug, I would have refused to do that. You see, I was a Neuro-Psychiatric Specialist, and i was aware of LSD and other drugs available, and what they could do to a person.

    It appears that being a Neuro-Psychiatric Specialist made me a target for their testing. I only learned in October 2009, that I was given psychoactive drugs (there was some paperwork on this buried in my military personnel file).

    Dr. Ketchum is a liar, first class. He knows damn good and well that those “volunteers” only volunteered because they were paid extra money to volunteer, were promised promotions and medals (which never came through by the way), etc. I received an extra $2 per day for participating, which was a reasonable increase in my military pay at the time. Having a wife and two children to support, I needed the extra money. The Army bought their volunteers, for a pittance, and then never came through on the promises they were given.

    Absolutely NO follow-up was ever done on me, by anyone.

    Comment by Lynton Stewart — 10/31/2009 @ 11:34 am

  5. To-date the U.S. Congress has rejected the U.S. Senate 1994 Report’s, “The Feres Doctrine should not be applied for military personnel who are harmed by inappropriate human experimentation when informed consent has not been given.”[6] The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 STANLEY is a “to harm” Department of Defense (DOD) 1958 drug experiment.[3] It is approved by the FIFTY (50) TIMES cited U.S. Supreme Court’s 1950 FERES death decision due to a 1947 Army barracks fire.[1] The STANLEY case is one of the U.S. Senate’s Dec. 1994 “During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel” were subjected to “experiments that were designed to harm”, e.g., their reported biological and chemical agents, radiation exposure, hallucinogenic and investigational drugs, experimental vaccines and behavior modification projects.[6] Underlying the U.S. Senate’s Report is the U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Sept. 1994 U.S. House Report, “Human Experimentation Overview on Co1d War Era Programs”![5] There is not a single reference to U.S. Constitutional protection for military personnel while in or after honorable service!

    Convicted rapists and murderers are given protection from human experiments by the U.S. Constitution’s 1791 Bill of Rights, Amendment Eight. In 1992 the U.S. Senate signed and ratified the United Nation, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[4] Its 1994 Index, “... Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”notes that, “Written policy and practice prohibit the use of” [prison] “inmates for medical…..experiments.”![4] Nineteen (19) times cited are the U.S. Constitution plus its Eighth Amendment’s no cruel and unusual punishment.[4]

    The U.S. Government’s conducted known, certain injury trials were a dereliction of duty in direct disobedience of the DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments.[2] During the GAO [5] and U.S. Senate’s [6] 1994 reported past 50 years, most of the “to harm” service records were destroyed in a 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire. Congress’s 1974 Privacy Act censored experiment verifying witnesses from any surviving records!

    The “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress.[7] A veteran’s right to get the “designed to harm” [6] needed for treatment, and experiment identifying, evidence never became law. This is consistent with the 1957, “....The intelligence community believed that it was necessary “to conceal these activities from the American public in general,” because public knowledge of the “unethical and illicit activities would have serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles and would be detrimental to the accomplishment of its mission.” Id., at 394 (quoting CIA Inspector General’s Survey of the Technical Services Division, p. 217 (1957)).”; See [Footnote 4] of Section IV, 1987 STANLEY.[3]

    It is now a from 1944, 66 years of Congressional talk and no correction. Do not the U.S. Senate’s stated DOD “EXPERIMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO HARM” [6] continue? Overlooked by many in Congress is our “Pledge of Allegiance” “with liberty and justice for all”and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ignored own, carved in stone over its entrance, “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”! There are now many years of the CIA Inspector General’s “unethical and illicit activities”![3] As in the GAO and U.S. Senate’s reported past, all “activities” are conducted under the ongoing secrecy cover of National Interests, e.g., WWII, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. Shouldn’t U.S. Service Personnel and Veterans get back those Constitutional Rights that they die for and convicted rapists and murderers keep? Please hold your members in the U.S. Congress accountable!


    [1] 1950 – Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950).

    [2] 1953 – DOD Secretary’s 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiment’s Memo pages 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, “The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).

    [3] 1987 – U.S. SUPREME COURT, JUNE 25, 1987, U.S. V. STANLEY , 107 S. CT.. 3054 (VOLUME 483 U.S., SECTION 669, PAGES 699 TO 710).

    [4] 1994 – U.S. State Dept., “U.S. Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights July 1994, Article 7 – Freedom from Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” See “Index of “1994 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”

    [5] 1994 – [PDF] T-NSIAD-94-266 GAO September 28, 1994 “Human Experimentation Overview on Co1d War Era Programs”

    [6] 1994 – December 8, 1994 REPORT 103-97 “Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons Spanning Half a Century.” Hearings Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 103rd Congress 2nd Session.

    [7] 2005 & 2006 – “Veterans Right to Know Act” to establish the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission was proposed in the 2005 and H.R. 4259 [109th] 2006 Congress. H. R. 4259.

    Comment by David Marshall — 12/15/2010 @ 8:05 am

  6. Following a Toronto Star investigation, Canadian officials have acknowledged that the country used the infamous chemical herbicide Agent Orange to destroy roadside brush from the 1950s to the 1980s. Here is the proof: Canada confirms use of Agent Orange to clear brush The infamous herbicide was utilized during Vietnam for chemical warfare purposes. In accordance with a wide variety of scientific studies, the chemical agent is accountable for massively high instances of genetic defects in areas where it’s sprayed.

    Comment by jancarlo j. — 3/3/2011 @ 1:58 am

  7. I was a participant from 1971 until about 1973. The US Government has systematically denied my involvement where they could and downplayed the side effects for years. I am working with the DoD and VA at this time to get benefits and not having many results. On one hand I am told the experiments were not harmful and on the other that due to drug use, I have issues. I was to be called by the Senate committee but asked by *** to avoid the questioning. I have been treated as a mental patient for asking for help and amazingly enough, I am in the IRR at this time based on my “field experience” and training. Go figure. BZ and LSD are the tip of the iceberg here.

    Comment by m grindstaff — 6/10/2011 @ 2:01 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:



Note: Your submission will be considered for publication, no need to submit twice. Thank You!