HC Deb 21 November 1994 vol 250 cc54-6W
Dr. David Clark

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in what year LSD experiments on members of the armed forces at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment(a) commenced and (b) concluded;

(2) from what source the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment got the LSD for use in experiments with members of the armed forces, referred to in his answer of 3 November, Official Report, column 1235;

(3) what contact his Department has had with the United States counterpart concerning any military utility in the use of LSD;

(4) what was the highest dose of LSD administered to members of the armed forces during experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, referred to in his answer of 3 November, Official Report, column 1235;

(5) what long-term physical and psychological monitoring has been used for members of the armed forces involved in LSD experiments at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, referred to in his answer of 3 November, Official Report, column 1235;

(6) how many members of the armed forces were used in the experiments involving LSD at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, referred to in his answer of 3 November, Official Report, column 1235.

Mr. Soames

These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE, to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from G. Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 21 November 1994: Questions 13, 22, 28, 31, 34 and 40, Order Paper 16 November 1994

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about work carried out by the Ministry of Defence with LSD have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) is to carry out work to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.
  3. 3. Our records indicate that work and studies involving LSD took place between 1961 and 1972 and included about 72 Service volunteers who were involved in laboratory and field trails during the period from 1962 to 1968. The maximum dose administered was no more than 200 micrograms and given orally in water. All the volunteers were informed that the purpose of the tests was to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who were given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD. Immediately after the study, all volunteers were told which treatment they had received.
  4. 4. The effects of LSD on the Service volunteers were variable and were unpredictable. Although the effects of having received LSD only lasted for about 90 minutes the Service volunteers would have returned to normal behaviour after a night's sleep. All volunteers were medically checked before leaving CBDE and found to be fully recovered. There is no evidence to link controlled administration of a single does of pure LSD with any long term effects. In addition, over the past 40 years there is no evidence that Service volunteers have had any deterioration in their health as a result of their participation as a volunteer in a study at CBDE.
  5. 5. The LSD used in the work and studies carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment came from one of three sources: synthesis or partial synthesis at CBDE, purchase from a commercial supplier, as it was not a controlled drug at that time, or provision by the then US Army Chemical at Edgewood, Maryland. The results were published in the scientific literature and one of these papers shows that the LSD used in that study was purchased from a commercial supplier.
  6. 6. The results from the work and studies have been published in several articles in scientific journals:
    1. a. Brimblecombe R. W. (1963). Effects of psychotropic drugs on open field behaviour in rats. Phychopharmacologia, 4, 139–147.
    2. b. Bebbington A. and Brimblecombe R. W. (1969). Actions of some toxic substances (psychotomimetic) on the central nervous system. Br. Med. Bul. 25, 293–298.
    3. c. Brimblecombe R. W. (1970). The use of animal tests to predict behavioural effects of chemicals on man. Ciba-Found-Study-Group, 35, 6–24.
    4. d. Barrass B. C. and Coult D. B. (1972). Effects of some centrally acting drugs with ceruloplasmin. Prog. Brain. Res. 36, 97–104
    5. e. Barrass B. C. and Coult D. B. (1972). Effects of some centrally acting drugs with ceruloplasmin. Biochem. Pharmacol. 21, 677–685.
    6. f. Bewster K., Coult D. B. and Pinder R. M. (1972). 1-phenylpiperazines. Potential antagonists of lysergic acid diethylamide. Clim. Ther. 7, 87–91.
    7. g. Buxton D. A. (1972). Behavioural actions of some substituted amphetamines. Prog. Brain. Res, 36, 143–158.
    8. h. Green D. M. and Aldous F. A. B. (1972). The effects of anticholinergic drugs, chloromazine and LSD25 on evoked potentials, EEG and behaviour. Prog. Brain. Res. 36, 171–181.
    9. i. Upshall D. G. and Wailling D. G. (1972). The determination of LSD in human plasma following oral administration. Clin. Chim Acta. 36, 67–73.
    10. j. Barrass B. C. and Coult D. B. (1973). Phenol oxidase activity in brain tissue. Biochem. Pharmacol, 22, 2897–904.
      11. 56
    11. k. Brimbelcombe R. W. (1973). Psychotomimetic drugs; biochemistry and pharmacology. Adv. Drug. Res. 7, 165–206.
    12. l. Aldous F. A. B., Barrass B. C., Brewster K., Buxton D. A., Green D. M., Pinder R. M., Rich P., Skells M. and Tutt K.J. (1974). Structure-activity relationships in psychotomimetic phenalkylamines. J Med. Chem 17, 1100–1110.
    13. m. Leyland C. M., Gwyther R. J. and Rylands J. M. (1979). Improved method for detecting drug effects in the open field. Psychopharmacologia. 63, 33–37.
  7. 7. These results formed part of the technology database held by the Establishment in the area of evaluation of the potential hazard to Service personnel from possible chemical warfare agents. This information was drawn upon during the 1960s and 1970s in the agreements with our NATO allies to exchange information and so promote collaboration and cooperation in areas such as research and development in chemical and biological defence. The agreements with the United States at that time included:
    1. a. The Technical Cooperation Programme involving UK, US, Canada and Australia which had subsumed the earlier trilateral UK/US/Canada meetings.
    2. b. American, British, Canadian and Australian Armies (ABCA) agreement Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) on NBC defence.
    3. c. The NATO Panel VII on chemical and biological defence.
  8. 8. As I indicated to you in my reply of 3 November 1994, (Official Report, column 1235–1236) it was concluded that LSD would not present a significant battlefield hazard as it was extremely expensive and being a solid it would be difficult to disseminate further and the effects were not highly predictable.

Back to
Forward to