Memorandum re Operation Stargate: compliance with the laws concerning human experimentation
What this is
That the program's activities were reviewed against US human-experimentation law in December 1992, and that its operating office supported other federal agencies including the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Energy.
That the government disagreed internally about whether the program constituted human experimentation, and resolved the disagreement by treating it as if it did.
2 passages read · 2 pages held · the rest is not described
Open the document at cia.gov →2 passages read
“MEMORANDUM. RE: Operation Stargate. DATE: 11 December 1992. 1. Background. You informed me that AFMIC was to assume control of DTI-S and its Operation Stargate. You asked my opinion about whether Operation Stargate was in compliance with the laws concerning human experimentation. ... 4. Findings of Fact. An Operation Stargate contractor is conducting human parapsychology testing; the contract requires that the informed consent of human subjects be obtained, and it appears that the contractor does this. DTI-S personnel are conducting parapsychological training as well as episodic operations in support of various agencies including DEA and DOE.”
Redactions marked SG1J remove the sender, the recipient, the director of DTI-S and a DIA Assistant General Counsel.
“There was some doubt about whether or not Operation Stargate's activities constituted human experimentation at all. An early opinion suggested that they did not, Tab H. However, a later opinion by General Counsel Spurlock took the opposite position, Tab I. In an abundance of caution, it was decided to treat Operation Stargate's activities as if they constituted human experimentation. ... 6. Conclusions. Operation Stargate seems to be in substantial compliance with the most prominent human experimentation regulation, informed consent. Further confirmation is called for on this point. Further investigation is also required on the advisory panel review and DoD approval issues.”
Cites Executive Order 12333, 45 CFR Part 46, DoD Directive 3216.2 and DoD Directive 5240.1. Also records that since the operation left INSCOM's control there had been no request for reauthorization.
Where no sheet is shown, the quote was still read off the page, rendered from the file we hold. A page image has not been prepared for the web for that page yet.
What this document is used for, page by page
Every claim on this map that rests on this document, and every claim tested against it and deliberately not used — in the order you would meet them reading the file itself. Where the check was written down, our wording is followed by the document’s own sentence, so you can hold the two side by side. 4 of 4 name a page.