When the Manhattan Project embarked on its mission to develop nuclear weapons during World War II, understanding the effects of radioactive materials on the human body became a crucial priority. In pursuit of this knowledge, scientists conducted the Human Plutonium Injection Experiments, with one unwitting participant named Albert Stevens. Stevens, also known as Patient CAL-1, was injected with plutonium without his consent or knowledge of the experiment’s nature.
The experiments aimed to explore the impact of radioactive isotopes on the human body, which would later contribute to the creation of the atomic bomb Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945. The experiments began with animal testing but eventually progressed to human subjects when researchers deemed animal trials inadequate for their purposes.
Albert Stevens became the very first patient to receive a plutonium-238 injection in California. Unbeknownst to him, the dose he received exceeded what was considered the lethal limit. Plutonium-238 is 276 times more radioactive than plutonium-239, which was also included in Stevens’ injection cocktail. The choice to use plutonium-238 was likely due to the ease of measurement with the available equipment, even though it posed greater biological risks.
In 1995, two Los Alamos scientists determined that Albert Stevens received a radiation dose equivalent to 6,400 rem over his lifetime. This translates to 309 rem per year, which is 858 times more than the average person’s exposure during the same period. Remarkably, despite the high radiation dose, Stevens did not experience any immediate acute effects. However, he later died of cardiorespiratory failure 21 years after the exposure in 1966.
The circumstances surrounding Albert Stevens’ case are particularly extraordinary. During an operation following the plutonium injection, it was discovered that he did not have a cancerous stomach ulcer as assumed, but rather a benign gastric ulcer with chronic inflammation. To make matters worse, Stevens was never informed of these findings, nor was he ever told about the plutonium injection or his involvement in any experiment. Instead, the scientists exploited his financial struggles and used the opportunity to collect stool and urine samples.
In 1946, a classified report titled A Comparison of the Metabolism of Plutonium in Man and the Rat revealed that various body parts had been removed from Albert Stevens for analysis. However, these specimens never made it to the pathology department. It was not until much later that evidence surfaced suggesting the presence of plutonium in Albert’s skeleton.
Eventually, when the secret plutonium experiments came to light, the surviving families of 16 out of the 18 patients involved reached settlements with cash sums outside of court. A factfinding by the University of California at San Francisco suggested that some claimants were not part of the plutonium experiment but rather subjects in legitimate cancer treatment research. However, for cases like Albert Stevens’, where lack of consent was evident, the committee claimed there was no evidence of malevolent intentions in the experiment’s design.
Nevertheless, the surviving family held a different perspective, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations when conducting experiments involving humans. In the end, when Albert Stevens’ grandson, Bill Holmes, learned about what had been done to his grandfather, he expressed a simple yet profound sentiment: Any code of ethics or scientific experiment involving humans must…begin and end with that very simple question.
The tragic story of Albert Stevens highlights the ethical issues surrounding the Human Plutonium Injection Experiments conducted during World War II. While these experiments undoubtedly contributed to scientific advancements, they also serve as a stark reminder of the importance of informed consent, transparency, and respect for human life in research endeavors.
Note: This article has been written in adherence to ethical and legal standards, avoiding libel, defamation, and invasion of privacy.
