AGENCY POLICY WITH RESPECT TO MKULTRA-RELATED QUERIES RE NAMES OF SPECIFIC INSTITUTIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R000100020061-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 6, 2004
• Sequence Number: 61
• Publication Date: April 12, 1978
• Content Type: LETTER

ADMINISTRATIVE/ j."";
.. F.. i .. ~., 1, . .~.
Approved For Release 2004/08/19 CIA-RDP81 M00980R000100
12 APR 1978
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Anthony Lapham, General Counsel
Acting Legislative Counsel STAT
SUBJECT : Agency Policy With Respect to MKUTTRA- Related
Queries Re Names of Specific Institutions
(A/IUO)
1. (A/IUO) It is Agency policy to give a stock answer to all outside
queries as to whether an institution was involved in past CIA human
experimentation programs, such as MKULTRA. The answer basically
states we cannot reveal identities due to the Privacy Act and the Director's
obligation to protect confidential relationships. Our office has been
following this policy based on advice from your office. Attached is
a copy of a typical answer. This response is used to answer every human
modification-type request whether or not the institution appears in appropriate
CIA records.
2. (A/IUO) I understand that the Agency rationale for handling
responses,in this manner is that it best protects the identity of those
institutions that were involved. However, though the need to protect these
institutions is clearly recognized, the present manner of answering
inquiries concerning an institution which was in no way involved raises
a clear implication that the institution was involved, but we cannot
acknowledge this fact. The requester has no knowledge that our
response is a blanket answer to all inquiries. This implication is not
necessarily removed if the requester directs his inquiry to the institution
as our letter suggests, since our letter further states that the institutions
involved were advised by the Agency that we would not reveal their identities
and they can decide for themselves if they wish to make their involvement
public knowledge. Consequently, a requester may still have the strong
belief that the institution was involved even though it makes a denial.
3. (A/IUO) Especially when a request such as this comes via a
Member of Congress, we are compounding the confusion by giving the
Member the false impression that an institution in his/her state is
involved. It is the policy of this office to be as forthright and forthcoming
with requests from Members of Congress as is possible within
ADMINISTRATIVE/
Approved For Release 2004/08/19 : CIA-RDP81M00980R000100020061-2
 ADMINISTRATIVE /
Approved For Release 2004/08/19 : CIA-RDP81M00980R000100020061-2
the sources and methods framework. When handling Member requests
from emotionally wrought constituents who honestly believe that they or
their loved ones were experimented upon by this Agency and when the
institution they ask about was clearly not involved, I see no reason not
to give them a simple negative response. There will always be exceptions
to every rule, but instead of the current blanket denial approach, I believe
that each query should be treated on a case by case basis and where
feasible, a simple no response should be sent in those cases when it applies.
STAT
Distribution:
Orig - Adse
1 - OLC/Subj
1 - OLC/Chrono
OLC/ABS/ksn (10 Apr 78)
Approved For RAPAW2&Tt
MV4CIA4DP$1 M0098OR000100020061-2
 e1rLTi-
Approved For ReIIpM ?( QMlt9 p0FIi - tAfNfN ?Q @A@020061-2
Office of Legislative Counsel
---
-OLC 77-4151/a
28 SertemberL977
Honorable William M. Brodhead
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Brodhead:
Thank you for your letter of 27 September 1977
in which you requested information as to whether "the
CIA conducted any drug tests at Kent State University
in Kent, Ohio, in 1969."
The Agency is precluded from disclosing the
identities of specific institutions by the Director's
obligation to protect confidential relationships,
and by the Privacy Act of 1974 since such information
would tend to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the
privacy of individuals involved in these activities.
As the Director stated in his, testimony to the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Human
Resources Subcommittee on Health and Scientific
Research on 3 August 1977,
... We should certainly assume that the
researchers and institutions which cooperated with
CIA on a witting basis acted in good faith and in
the belief that they were aiding their government
in a legitimate and proper purpose.
I believe that we all have a moral obligation to these
researchers and institutions to protect them from any
unjustified embarassment or damage to their repu-
tations which revelation of their identities might
bring. In addition, I have a legal obligation under
the Privacy Act not to publicly disclose the names
of the individual researchers without their consent.
This is especially true, of course., for those
researchers and institutions which were unwitting
participants in CIA-sponsored activities.
Approved For Release 2004/08/19 : CIA-RDP81M00980R000100020061-2
 Approved For Release 2004/08/19 : CIA-RDP81M00980R000100020061-2
The Agency has notified those institutions
which were involved in these activities. These
institutions have been advised that the Agency will not
make public their identities and that this is a matter
for the institutions themselves to decide. Further,
the Justice Department is now studying the issues
associated with attempting to identify victims of these
research activities. Since Agency records contain no
information regarding the-identities of subjects of
such activities,, any affirmative program to notify these
individuals will require close cooperation between the
Government and the institutions with heavy reliance
upon the institutional records.
Given these circumstances, the Agency is unable at
this time to provide information to third parties regarding
the identities of specific institutions which may'have
been associated with Project MKULTRA. You or your
.constituent may, as an alternative, wish to approach
Kent State University directly for the information
desired. .
We appreciate your interest in this regard.
eo e ary
egislative Counsel
:'
.Distribution:..'
'.Ora.g ;: ~ ~Asise
1: DDS &T.
QLC/ Chrono
OLC/.ABS/ksh'- `(2S Sept ' 77)'
STAT
STAT
STAT
Approved For Release 2004/08/19 : CIA-RDP81M00980R000100020061-2
 C
1?TM OCT. MICPI,aAN ?`?
x 5 of the zhi teb tate
WA3,jQ'R ,00M,,
CANNON }tCU3K Or'1ryr,E BW . :N
k1A3111NGrCN, D.C. 20Sia
Mr. Douglas T. Cummins
Office of the Legislative Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505
"September 27, 1977
OtaTle,Cr Gcj c
24211 G+rrw+o Rwu A',cNua
Drmotr. MKNtew+f 42219
04400M, [phone]
Dear Mr. Cummins:.
Recently a constituent contacted me concerning drug tests which
have been conducted by the CIA. I understand that you spoke about
this matter with John Schelble of my staff this afternoon.
In 1969, my constituent's wife, who was doing
biochemistry at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, underwentoapparenti
dramatic changes in personality. ,pry constituent expressed concern y
.td me that this might be attributed to drug tests' which the CIA may
have conducted at Kent State.
.Specifically, I would like to know if the CIA conducted any dru
.tests at Kent State University iii Kent, Ohio during 1969. g
Your prompt attention to this request for information' is greatly
apprediated.
William . M. Brodhead
-Representative in Congress
aou5t of rt tttatib.~g
Walb irt,.C, 20515
Approvec(For Release 2004/08/19 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R0001 00020061-2
Sincerely yours,